Wiktionary:Requests for verification: difference between revisions

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
(port#Etymology 3)
(port#Etymology 3)
Line 4,367: Line 4,367:
I can't seem to grasp what exactly this means, because I can't find anything like this sense in dictionaries. Like, is it from one state to another like "liquid to gas", or... is it like "across the border to Nevada". Does it need a tag like (''chemistry''), or is it more general. Examples, cites? -- [[User:Thisis0|Thisis0]] 03:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't seem to grasp what exactly this means, because I can't find anything like this sense in dictionaries. Like, is it from one state to another like "liquid to gas", or... is it like "across the border to Nevada". Does it need a tag like (''chemistry''), or is it more general. Examples, cites? -- [[User:Thisis0|Thisis0]] 03:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
P.S. And while we're at it, can someone who really knows tell me in what position you'd be holding a rifle if you were holding it {{term|at the high port}}? I know it's a position of readiness, for example held while running {{term|at the double}}. [http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080806181657AAMXEwc Somewhere online] it said 'at the high port' means to hold the rifle above one's head with both arms outstretched, but I'm thinking that might be a modern extension of the term applied to such a punishment or exercise. Oh, and our current entry for {{term|at the high port}} describes a rare slang sense stemming from the "readiness, quickness" of soldiers in this particular rifle position. We need to list the real rifle position, but I can't find it's description anywhere convincingly. -- [[User:Thisis0|Thisis0]] 03:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
== [[at the high port]] ==
:Edit: Ok, so I just found [http://books.google.com/books?id=l2QYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA192&dq=%22High+Port%22 this] Apparently, it does mean hold a rifle in the port position well over the head. Any other thoughts welcome. -- [[User:Thisis0|Thisis0]] 03:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
And while we're at it, can someone who really knows tell me in what position you'd be holding a rifle if you were holding it {{term|at the high port}}? I know it's a position of readiness, for example held while running {{term|at the double}}. [http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080806181657AAMXEwc Somewhere online] it said 'at the high port' means to hold the rifle above one's head with both arms outstretched, but I'm thinking that might be a modern extension of the term applied to such a punishment or exercise. Oh, and our current entry for {{term|at the high port}} describes a rare slang sense stemming from the "readiness, quickness" of soldiers in this particular rifle position. We need to list the real rifle position, but I can't find it's description anywhere convincingly. -- [[User:Thisis0|Thisis0]] 03:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:Edit: Ok, so I just found [http://books.google.com/books?id=l2QYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA192&dq=%22High+Port%22 this] Apparently, it does mean hold a rifle in the port position well over the head. Any other thoughts welcome. Any cites for the slang sense? -- [[User:Thisis0|Thisis0]] 03:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:56, 11 October 2008

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

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

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

Requests for Verification is Wiktionary’s forum for verifying whether a definition meets our criteria for inclusion.

Make a new nomination

A request will remain for one month after nomination. It may be removed sooner if verification has been made—generally about a week afterwards will be given to allow any disputes about the verification itself to arise.

After that time:

  1. The {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} template will be removed.
  2. If insufficient evidence is found, it will be archived to the talk page of the entry in question with a note saying it failed RFV, for future reference in case new evidence emerges. Then the disputed sense will be removed or the disputed entry will be sent to be deleted with a note saying it failed RFV, whichever is applicable. (If it seems to be a protologism, it will be added to the list of protologisms.)
  3. The RFV discussion will then be archived.
  4. Terminology note: "rfvpassed" means sufficient verification was found to retain the entry; "rfvfailed" means insufficient evidence of the word in use was found, therefore it was removed.

How does one verify a sense?

  • Cite, on the article page, the word’s usage in a well-known work. Currently, well-known work has not been clearly defined, but good places to start from are: works that stand out in their field, works from famous authors, major motion pictures, and national television shows that have run for multiple seasons. Be aware that if a word is a nonce word that never entered widespread use, it should be marked as such.
  • Cite, on the article page, the word’s usage in a refereed academic journal.
  • 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.
    See: criteria for inclusion, format for citations, and standard entry layout.
  • Advise on this page that the citations have been placed on the article page.


  • RFV is generally for testing whether information can be safely deleted. Occasionally simple fact-checking questions are posted, particularly for non-English words: these queries are better suited for article talk pages or the Tea room.
  • Verification is accomplished by the gathering of information, not of votes. If the information is not gathered, a sysop will make a decision whether to transfer the disputed word to the requests for deletion page. WARNING. If no verification is provided, the word may be deleted from this page.

See also: Wiktionary:Lists of words needing attention

Oldest tagged RFVs
No pages meet these criteria.


February 2008


Someone with a not-so-neutral POV seems to have it out for this entry. Is it OK to revert back to Ruakh's June 2007 version of this page? --Connel MacKenzie 20:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe this much better reflect actual usage: only Abrahamic religions (particularly the proselytic branches) really made any significant use of the word AFAIK, although there is still room for improvement; "not believing in god" is at best improper: for several centuries the Arabs were called "heathens" (besides, atheist are usually called "heretics", not heathens). This entry will probably need several obsolete defs to account for the range of meanings historically ascribed to it though. Circeus 21:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
For comparison, Merriam Webster online has "an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible". Circeus 21:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems very inappropriate to have 'heathen' as derogitory in the sense of not Abrahamic. The second meaning of the word already covers its usage as an insult. Thorskegga 11:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Clocked out. Not cited. DCDuring TALK 20:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

March 2008


This sounds a bit hokey to me. Could we please have some cites. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hegel strikes again! [1] -- Visviva 09:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I have cited the plural form "Absolutes" as part of my continuing campaign against wanton assertion of uncountability of nouns. I would argue that there is an overwhelming a fortiori argument that the singular is thereby verified. DCDuring TALK 13:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


The sports sense: "To be effective at a certain position or role within a sports game without being particularly graceful or with class." I don't remember having heard this meaning (though not a sports expert) but something certainly seems wrong because the example sentence uses it as a noun, not a verb. So is it both? One or the other? Made up? Dmcdevit·t 00:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Commented out usage example. But if verb is real and distinguishable from other verb senses, so a noun sense would also probably be real and distinguishable from other noun senses. DCDuring TALK 18:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a definition for "hack it", which isn't specific to sports as far as I know. Mike Dillon 00:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, the sentence seems to be an illustration of definition #6 of the noun sense. Mike Dillon 01:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
There is an old equestrian sense, obsolete in the US but current in the UK, meaning to ride on a road or bridle path. Hacking requires only an ordinary horse, nothing special. -- 20:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Clocked out Hasn't this RfV failed? Also, see other new RfV-sense for hack below. DCDuring TALK 18:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


Verb senses. Am I the only one who's never heard this before? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't read enough Shakespeare (Coriolanus), Spenser, and C.S. Lewis to have come across "godded". But, abundant usage. I'm too busy defending Mammonry to cite this. DCDuring TALK 12:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


Protologism? Seems to be used in a single flavour of Linux. SemperBlotto 08:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, even in the Debian context (where this gets a couple of OK-looking book hits), this is still just the present participle of preseed, which has other less-dubious senses as well. ... Will need some C with its V. -- Visviva 10:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Not as easy as on might think to attest preseed. Many more scannos for derivatives of "pressed". Necessary to keep sense very general to encompass venture capital, biotech, meteorology, and pets. I didn't come across computing uses for "preseed". Perhaps other forms? DCDuring TALK 12:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure you've RFV'd the right senses? This isn't a word used outside of computing contexts. The one sense currently tagged as "computing" is admittedly too narrow. --Connel MacKenzie 18:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: in General English usage, this is one of the top 1000 common misspellings. --Connel MacKenzie 18:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Not surprising. A query. Where does the misspelling line go? There are three parts of speech (well two, once we get rid of the "adjective" PoS which is really the attributive use of the noun). All three (or both)? First one? If it were legal, I would argue for it being close to the top, but there is no suitable heading. It is pronounced differently from "preceding" (stress on "pre") so we can't "cheat" by using the Pronunciation heading. DCDuring TALK 20:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Side point: I don't think preseeding#Adjective is attributive use of the noun. preseeding#Noun is preseed + -ing, i.e. the activity of seeding in advance. On the other hand, preseeding#Adjective is pre- + seeding, i.e. before seeding. Thus a "preseeding analysis," for example, could be either an analysis carried out before seeding (adjective), or an analysis of one or more preseedings (attributive use of noun). A small but important distinction. -- Visviva 09:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
As I amended the senses to fit the citations, I noted that you seem to be correct on this. DCDuring TALK 09:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that preseed/ing is also a frequent spelling error for proceed/ing. Technically these are distinct etymologies, I suppose, but if we aren't being that legalistic I would favor filing them under preseeding#Verb, since they are misspellings of verb forms. -- Visviva 09:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That would give it some prominence at least. DCDuring TALK 09:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Do we have any evidence on pronunciation? I would have expected the participial sense(s) to be stressed on the second syllable. -- Visviva 09:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Probably only the evidence embedded in our several brains. Consulting my brain, I find weak evidence against your expectation, based only on how I would stress the syllables to reduce ambiguity - weak evidence indeed. DCDuring TALK 18:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


second etymology - "damn, drat, curse ". --Keene 19:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The OED has 7 etymologically distinct defns of "rat", and not one of them corresponds to this. I think this is just a misconstruction of "Rats!" -- WikiPedant 18:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I also question the first etymology, final defn as English noun: "promiscuous person - often a young female - who attends sporting and other entertainment events, primarily to seek sexual liaisons with athletes, entertainers and/or others traveling with them." A synonym for "groupie"? -- WikiPedant 18:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In a way, the final definition — in essence, "a promiscuous person wanting to have sex with famous people" — is synonymous with "groupie." As for the source, the "Torch Glossary of Insider Terms" has this definition included as one of its more than 200 wrestling-related definitions, so this definition of "rat" is in use. It's just a different word for "groupie." That said, the definition will be tweaked to reflect the "groupie" synonym. [[Briguy52748 15:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)]]


I've removed this definition from romanize (also romanise, see also romanization, romanisation): "to phonetically describe each letter of a word (i.e. Alpha, Bravo, Charlie)." Please restore if a reference can be found. —Mzajac 20:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: when I was in the Canadian Forces many years ago, this was simply referred to as spelling out. In correct radio voice procedure it would be preceded by the phrase "I spell". —Mzajac 21:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


The independence of this is dubious. Needs citation per WT:CFI#Fictional_universes. Dmcdevit·t 08:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Rick Moody, "The Ice Storm", 1994, p233
    "She began to lift her voice in song, to mumble lyrics from the Led Zeppelin songbook and other head music. Hawkwind. The ringwraiths rode in black!"
  • Erik Davis, "Led Zeppelin IV", 2005, p9
    "This book, then, is a sort of tribute: an ode to the Himalaya of heavy rock, a paganish take on rock and roll, ringwraiths, and the iconic fetish of the gatefold LP."
  • Mark Stephen Smith, "The Art of Flash Animation: Creative Cartooning", 2007, page x
    "It started out, I guess, when I was a teenager. I had written a number of short stories in the Twilight Zone and Alfred Hitchcock Presents vein, and a couple of fantasy novels that explored the premise of modernize 'Ringwraiths' invading a 1986 Alabama high school."
  • James Reaney, "Profiles in Canadian Drama", 1977, p42
    "Shade is finally characterized as subhuman, as her snuffling shortsightedness apparently derives from the Nazgul, the Ringwraiths in The Lord of the Rings."
  • William Ready, "Files on Parade: A Memoir", 1982, p231
    "...or shandy quaffers at tennis with Joan Hunter-Dunn, even though many of them are mere ringwraiths of the Thomson Empire (it's Kraus-Thomson Reprints now)."
  • Jerry Dowlen, "Lio Lios", 2007, p27
    "Like the Ringwraiths,
    I need your acacia unfurled,
    Enabling my dream-stuns
    Of fizzing mauve whirls
    To ghostwalk us, waking
    To chalk-dragon hills
    Where spin-reverse prisms
    Cross-fleck the elf-rills."
  • Carl Storm, "A Mighty Fine Way to Live and Die", 2006, p99
    "Through the day the helicopters were their namesakes - Black Hawks, the Ringwraiths of destruction."
  • "Proceedings and Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada", 1976, p192
    "It is twisted out of shape and used for base purposes by the ringwraiths, the bent ones among the intellectuals, for purposes that are transient and cannot"
  • J.C. Sillesen, "No Return", 2006, p40
    "A party of four at one of my stations included a pretty creditable Scarlett O'Hara in her famous green velvet `curtains' gown, a fairy princess complete with fancy airbrushed wings, a man dressed as either a Ringwraith or the Grim Reaper (I guessed from the absense of a sickle that he was probably a Ringwraith), and George Washington."

Though not all attributive, all would warrant the reader to consult a dictionary. Certainly they prove that Ringwraiths are something the reader is supposed to know about independent of the book in question. Which means, the word is part of the language. In any case, Ready, Storm, and the Proceedings, are attributative uses. Language Lover 00:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


(Tolkien sense only.) The independence of this is dubious. Needs citation per WT:CFI#Fictional_universes. Dmcdevit·t 08:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


Quite an interesting word. It seems to have some small usage, but no gbc hits. Any takers? I promise it won't shade my opinion of you.  :) -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

found a cite for another form:
1981, William O'Rourke, Idle Hands: A Novel
Regardless, I heard lectures about the wonders of the prostate, the joy of males everywhere. I joked: "I may condone Sodomy, but this would be Gomorrahy. ...
Honestly I am afraid to do too much research on this one, someone with more tolerance for the...unusual might be more apt :p Also, many of the uses I see are apparently formed from the phrase 'Sodom and Gomorrah' + 'ize', which wouldn't cite this word alone. - [The]DaveRoss 21:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This user seems to think every term encountered in de Sade was invented by de Sade. If this does exist, I can't believe it has such a narrow meaning as the entry currently suggests. My impression is that it's a sort of jokey variant of sodomize. Widsith 21:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • If it was invented by de Sade then it would be French - perhaps it was invented by a translator. SemperBlotto 22:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


rfv: I only find French and dictionary hits on g.b.c. and scholar; not in MW3. DCDuring TALK 22:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The Superior Person's Book of Words, Peter Bowler, 1985, Page 38: Galactophage could serve as a synonym for milksop. "Now listen, you sniveling galactophage"
  • An Armenian-French Pocket Dictionary, Gomidas A Osgian, 1893, Page 329
  • Œuvres complètes de Voltaire, Adrien Jean Quentin Beauchot and Georges Bengesco, 1877, Page 424

The word appears in some English-language medical dictionaries, which I omit. It appears to originate in French, but has entered English. --Una Smith 00:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Many English language conversational uses in Usenet. --Una Smith 00:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The dictionary mentions don't count, nor the French (except for a French entry, of course, which might be useful). Enough valid usenet uses would be OK. Care to cite it? DCDuring TALK 02:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Added the earliest Usenet cites; others (including other possible meanings) remain. Please fix the format. --Una Smith 03:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The 2 cites from Usenet may not meet the independence criterion, being by the same author. Each sense would have to be cited independently, needed (crudely speaking) 3 cites each. The senses should be combined to the most general, "milk-fed", or something similar. Does the OED include it? DCDuring TALK 03:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The OED, under galacto-, lists galactophagist and galactophagous but not this one. SemperBlotto 08:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
In French, it has been used by Voltaire, but it seems there is no recent use (except for Galactophages, in reference to Homer). Lmaltier 08:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
New French section is now cited. RfV only covers English, which depends on sparse usage in Groups. DCDuring TALK 14:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Recent French usages in Usenet include this and this and this, all by the same poster. --Una Smith 00:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


2nd noun sense, potential customer. Thryduulf 23:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems plausible. "It's my turn to get up to wait on the damned customer." It seems like cant. It'll be very hard to cite. DCDuring TALK 23:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I remember this from some years back. It's etymology is something like "Unqualified Potential (Client)" It meant a cold sale client as distinguished from a "Qualified Potential" who would be a client who was not a cold sale, and therefore already qualified as a potential, interested buyer. I'll see what I can find. -- Algrif 17:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Getting closer. "Unqualified Prospect" is the origin. Now to find some useable quotes. -- Algrif 19:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Glossary of Timeshare words & phrases. click hereand scroll down to "Unqualified Prospect" -- Algrif 19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Up as a noun was common usage in car dealerships in the 1970's- it was used to describe a 'walk-in' (a customer who came into the dealership with no appointment and not asking for any particular salesperson.) It did not have any pejorative ("low/questionable potential") aspect but was a baseball analogy: "Whose up is that guy in the brown suit?" In other words, "Who (which salesperson) is up (to bat)?" i.e. "Whose turn is it to wait on a walk-in customer?" "Don't bother with the guy in the brown suit, it's Smith's up." I'll try to find some cites for this usage. HoggyDog 13:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
One lousy cite found, in the Partridge Dictionary of Slang: [customer] I guess a slang citation is better than just my anecdotal assertion, right? <sobs uncontrollably> HoggyDog 13:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


nonsense: to try to dismiss as nonsense. Citations? —This unsigned comment was added by RJFJR (talkcontribs) at 01:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC).

Some late 19th century cites on b.g.c. in this sense. You would have to try "nonsensed" and "nonsensing" and filter through a lot of irrelevancies, like meanings "non-sensing". Another possible verb sense is to "talk nonsense", a kind of small-talk or teasing talk. Ugh. Are there no nouns that can't be tortured into verbs? I beseech thee: verb me no more nouns. DCDuring TALK 02:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Languaging. - Amgine/talk 22:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


From above

--Connel MacKenzie 07:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Another extant word that can easily be found with both Google and Google books that MacKenzie is too idle to check but just dumps here making work for others. 21:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again. It is notaword. If attestation for it can be found, it might merit inclusion here. --Connel MacKenzie 02:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
So, let me get this quite clear.
Even if a word can be found, used in a consistent sense in three permanently archived sources, if "dictionary.com" says it isn't a word, then it can be turfed out of here.
So, Wiktionary is now subservient to dictionary.com and research by editors here can be overruled if the people there have done a less thorough job? 08:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly a word. But I am not convinced by the definition. It appears to be used in a range of different ways by different people - there are lots of scientific uses out there and I am not confident enough to try and extrapolate. Widsith 08:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the Google book hits it seems to have two common meanings; printing with colour, and analysis using colour (which seems to be a synonym for chromatography. The current definition seems to be a rarely used extention of the 'printing with colour' meaning. House 16:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well chromo- is just a short form of chromato- anyway, so that would make sense. I suspect the current def is too specific. Widsith 07:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I have added a bunch of cites, they seem to suggest a much different definition than the current one, Citations:chromography, someone who knows chemistry should maybe take a look. - [The]DaveRoss 17:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


Need a Dutch speaker to look into this, source is a strange character. - [The]DaveRoss 01:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Also geil.

Checked geil. Is what it is, sorry

Jcwf 02:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not know the verb, but poot does mean 'fag'.

Jcwf 02:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

full motion video

This was discussed at RFD; the consensus was to keep it, but DCDuring questioned whether our definition was even correct. —RuakhTALK 22:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the page, but it is essentially correct. It's just a video file used in a video game. CyberSkull 08:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

disintering and disintered

disinter says disintering and disintered, Shoudl that be disinterring and disinterred? RJFJR 22:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Existing spelling is not even an alternative in MW3. Etymologically it should certainly be doubled. I'll check to see if it might be a common misspelling. DCDuring TALK 23:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Oddly it is more frequent in b.g.c. (7%) than on the Web (2-3%). I will enter them as common misspellings for now, but wouldn't object to their deletion. On raw counts (not relative frequency) there are 2000 single-"r" spellings of these forms. DCDuring TALK 23:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
disintering and disintered are now misspelling entries. disinter refers to disinterring and disinterred. Does we need citations? Are there any dictionaries that disagree? DCDuring TALK 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No objections for months and months, so striking. Score one for boldness. :-) —RuakhTALK 03:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


Third sense. Previously tagged, but not listed. This is a bit confusing because this particular sense was tagged while an rfv conversation was taking place concerning other senses of the same entry, but this particular sense was not covered in the previous conversation. The sense does have a number of cites, but I'm not sure if they really prove its existence, or rather simply apply to the preceding two. Since I really don't have a knack for sorting out definitions, I'll leave this to others to decide. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussion can be seen here [2] Cynewulf 04:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I would say the senses are distinct, though not all the quotations are entirely clear (how long before we need a "Quotations to be checked" header?) Rule by the people does not entail respect for civil liberties; indeed, from ancient Athens to modern times it has often had the opposite effect. -- Visviva 07:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


Just checking - do the names of genes meet our CFI (there are very very many of them)? SemperBlotto 23:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This one gets well over 300 hits on Google Scholar. "A single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the ABCC11 gene determines the type of earwax people have". D Douglas, Polymorphism Determines Earwax Type (2006). Exactly how many of these are there? Thousands? Millions? That would make the difference to me. bd2412 T 23:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Latest count was around 30,000. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, bear in mind that that's just for humans. Although, it isn't uncommon for the same name to be used for a homologous gene in other organisms. All the same, it's not uncommon to use a different term either. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Are these translingual, or will we need to worry about translations as well? bd2412 T 23:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
While I'm not positive on this, I believe these would be translingual. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This looks like a good transwiki to WikiGene, when as and if there is one. Isn't some part of the human genome project open source? Why would we do this rather than work on user interface and quality for real words ? Should this be an RfD, a BP discussion, a vote? DCDuring TALK 00:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Why would we need a WikiGene when we've already got our own general-purpose dumping ground encyclopedia? Their ABCC11 is much better than ours already, anyway. Dmcdevit·t 02:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
As with many technical fields there is a great deal of specialized structure, spacialized sources, specialized expertise. Chemical names, taxonomic names, genes all have those characteristic. I would even argue that fictional characters, trademarks, product names, organization names, geographic locations, buidings also share them. What's more, we don't even seem to want many of them, let alone be in a position to do them justice. DCDuring TALK 03:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
On the balance, I don't think we should allow "names" of genes in Wiktionary. First of all, they're not words in any language; they're labels of convenience for a particular region of a genome. The "name" frequently applies to a genetic region whose product function is unknown. Further, each of these labels applies to DNA in different organisms where the genetic content is variable. That is, the "gene" will have a slightly different sequence in different individuals of the same species, so the precise "meaning" will differ from individual to individual. The same label may (or may not) be applied to the same gene when it appears in another species. If there is ever a WikiGene, then that would be the place for such entries. Otherwise, there are already many nice databases on the internet handling this information much better than we could hope to. In the meantime, genes with known functions can be set up as entries on Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey 04:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK - I won't add any more (for now). Perhaps, though, we need an Appendix to describe the nomenclature of genes and related bioinformatics terms. SemperBlotto 08:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


Not in the OED. No citations given. SemperBlotto 10:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

See haar#Scots, and possibly hoar. DCDuring TALK 10:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Also har#Old English DCDuring TALK 11:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I have provided references to this as a dialect term. I cannot find usage directly, though the references seem to have usage cites. DCDuring TALK 11:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
To be mildly pedantic, the haar is the Scottish/Shetland/Orkney eastern wind, usually colder, and often associated with convection fog (colder air from the continent moving over warmer waters). It's also spelt harl as well as harr, although all are rare to obsolete. The haar refers specifically to these noteworthy winds, but latterly more to the effects (blowing fog). - Amgine/talk 00:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a dialectual word I've heard in the Tynemouth area that is pronounced like "hoar" (I have no idea of the spelling as I've never seen it written) that is used in the same way as the "Scottish/Shetland/Orkney" word Amgine describes. I would be suprised if they weren't related. Thryduulf 00:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


This was recently added as "an unspecified large number", and the citation given is from a Dilbert cartoon. Are there two more citations? --EncycloPetey 14:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this DERI technical report qualifies, but it disturbs me. Particularly the part where Urban Dictionary is cited in a footnote. -- Visviva 15:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

physic finger

Any citations for physic finger as the third finger? RJFJR 16:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Added two, can't seem to find a good third one though. -- Visviva 05:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Kan je Engels?

Yikes... 'Kan' je wel Nederlands?

Maybe Flanders? But this hurts my ears.. First of all 'kan je' is rather colloquial for 'kun je'. Secondly one would use 'spreek' or in a pinch 'ken' not kan/kun. Please delete Jcwf 17:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This sentence is correct (I'm a native Dutch speaker) —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Maybe it’s from Overijsel or Gelderland, because it sounds like it has German influence. —Stephen 14:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Saying 'Spreek je Nederlands' sounds somewhat formal to me. Normally I would certainly say 'Kan/Kun je Nederlands". It is probanly informal, but that's indicated in the article itself. Still, it is a frase one might see or hear, so someone might try to find out what it means. Perhaps 'kan' should be replaced with 'kun', but 'spreek je Nederlands' is just another frase that probably deserves its own page. (I'm a native speaker of Dutch too) Grunnen 19:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


Sense: "A nearly globular mass taken from a larger supply of a viscous liquid, and no larger than can easily be handled." If actually used in this way, must be in a very specific field. Painting? Pottery? -- Visviva 17:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If it does have such a specific definition in some field, my guess would be glassblowing. --EncycloPetey 17:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can determine, the technical term for such a glob in glassblowing is Template:en-term. -- Visviva 14:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

peg the suckometer

Has quotes, but not sufficient quotes. --Keenebot2 20:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


"Flamer" and "troll" are clearly in widespread use, but "baiter" I've not heard (although its probably at least 10 years since I was last active on usenet). Thryduulf 23:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Various compounds such as troll baiter, flame baiter, race baiter and Jew baiter (!), with or without hyphen, are fairly common, but "baiter" alone seems quite rare. Circeus 02:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added a well-cited sense for the baiter of a fishhook, and changed this into an rfv-sense. As for the numerous compounds, I would think that a word that exists as a part of so many compounds would inherently exist as a word worthy of a definition unto itself (just as prefixes and suffixes merit entries). bd2412 T 08:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


"A prank where many people jump (from ground level) on top of their victim(s)" ? Circeus 01:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's one: http://books.google.co.uk/books?spell=1&q=bundle+%22for+the+first+time+since+you+left+middle+school+and+%22 Kappa 22:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


User:Mutante tagged Inundation in February with the comment: "I suspect this doesnt exist in German, or must be very rare, common translations of inundation appear to be Überflutung and Überschwemmung." It isn't in my dictionary either but I can't find the rfv here so I'm listing it so we can finish. RJFJR 04:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be real, though uncommon: [3]. -- Visviva 05:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
although one link I checked, mentions it in an older german text passage, it is not listed in the "Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften" dictionary or in the dictionary of the "University of Tübingen" and I will continue to check others as I come across them...--BigBadBen 18:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)





  1. A board game.
  2. A class of board game which include trictrac, irish and backgammon
Not in MW3. Only plural sense has to do with the parts of a backgammon board. DCDuring TALK 16:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
See w:Tafl games. Also "King's table"; other than that I don't find any use of "table" or "tables" in English except as a translation gloss for tafl (which needs Dutch ;-). Plausible. (it is a bit hard to filter them out in google) Robert Ullmann 10:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


A quick browse of bgc shows this is used to represent several sounds, including an assault rifle and a fragmentation grenade, "brup-brup" of a heart beat and a use of "brup-brup-brup-brup" for a dirt bike, but I've not seen any more than one use for a particular sound. Thryduulf 16:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In any such search, one must be careful to distincguish between the interjection sense ("representing the sound of...") and the noun sense ("the sound of..."). The former is in sentences like "The bike went brup"; the latter in "His bike's brup was too loud". (Sentences like "I heard a brup and turned around" are probably using it as a noun, but could be using it as an interjection with implied but hidden quotation marks.)—msh210 17:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Not much for it. I think it is perhaps an alternation of brap. The only thing I can find (not exactly reliable sourcing either) is:
Nwspel 14:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


Not well known or commonly used enough for dictionary material. Teh Rote 23:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The criterion would be attributive use. I would be skeptical that such use could be found. It is not yet even very frequently mentioned. Though we may sympathy for them, we need to eat our own dog food with respect to WT:CFI#Brand_Names DCDuring TALK 17:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd look for things like "Wikiversity site" or "Wikiversity page". Either would be an example of attributive use. --EncycloPetey 17:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Citations are present, good, but we need three spanning over a year for it to get past protologism stage. I can probably take a look later on. Teh Rote 19:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Followup: It seems there are quite a few book citations, yes, but the problem is that not too many are independant of the Wikimedia Foundation. I suppose this might meet CFI if the search results could be weeded through. Teh Rote 19:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

RFV failed, deleted. Existing citations retained at Citations:Wikiversity. —RuakhTALK 02:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Restored. Please keep as WMF jargon. DAVilla 15:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Redelete. This is clear bias towards the Wikimedia foundation. Perhaps I should go add entries for every single Wikia page as well-
Replace with {{only in|{{in glossary}}}} or similar. Conrad.Irwin 21:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

duck butter

The "semen" sense seems common enough, but I'm having trouble finding verification for the "sweat" or "sperm" meanings. Dmcdevit·t 06:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

eh... isn't semen and sperm, the same thing, in your book?--BigBadBen 16:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't the prostate add the difference? Dbfirs 09:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
on M-W Online Dic. if you enter sperm the first definition is semen... same for the Compact Oxford English Dictionary... --BigBadBen 19:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
But they are not synonymous. Only animals produce semen, while plants and algae also produce sperm. The latter term merely has additional meanings. --EncycloPetey 17:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Found these:
Nwspel 13:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but these links are completely irrelevant for the RFV process. What is needed are three citations of use in a durably archived (preferably printed) form. Definitions on websites fail on both counts. -- Visviva 15:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey I'm not the one who made the article. I'm simply trying to help with the RFV. Here is possibly something:
Nwspel 15:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


The definition doesn't match the stated part of speech. (I'm guessing the latter is correct.) —RuakhTALK 04:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this anon has been adding numerous mycology words. The ones I've looked at have all checked out, although entries have not always had an inflection line. I just wish that he/she/they was/were not anon(s). I hope that they will look at the entry, click through to here, and decide to register and sign in. DCDuring TALK 20:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

magnum opi

DCDuring tagged this but apparently didn't create a section here.

Anyway, I've now cited it. Thryduulf 20:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ewww! That form oughta be proscribed. It's so wrong, in so many ways. --EncycloPetey 20:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
11 points on the proposed Attestation scheme, which is definitely two too many IMHO. It is much easier to get a fairly rare non-standard (not to say repulsive) alternative form like this included than a "common misspelling". DCDuring TALK 20:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I have added "non-standard" and usage notes to the 3 plural forms entries (and I will for the singular). Please take a look. I tried to not let my feelings show in the entries. DCDuring TALK 20:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, at least it takes all four citations to pass the 10 point mark, which makes the question of independence highly applicable. How do we know that no two of these authors are the same? Not one of the Usenet posters used their full name. DAVilla 02:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You can never be certain whether the author of a USENET post is using their real name, even if the name atop a post appears to be a real name - pseudonyms are used in all media (e.g. according to Wikipedia Stephen King has also been published under the names "Richard Bachman" and "John Swithen"). In this instance it is likely that the authors are independent, given the differing subject matter of the groups and posts and the different writing styles. These were not the only possible citations though - I merely chose ones that were distinct in subject, time, location and (apparent) author that were clearly uses (not mentions) of the term "magnum opi". If I had all day, I could cite all the apparently independent uses from the ggc results. There are also more scholar results, I could only see one other and couldn't find the term in that, but I could try and get access to the others to check them. There are also bgc hits, but of those that are clearly not scannos, the only one I can see [9] italicises the term, most likely as loanword that hasn't' completely naturalised into English, but given the depates we've previously had here about precise interpretations of italics I thought it best to omit it. If I had the time I could try and locate hard copies and scour them to satisfy your doubts. Alas, I don't have the time, nor the inclination to overturn prejudice against users of English who pluralise an English word borrowed from Latin contrary to the esoteric declension rules of a language in which the majority of them have no training at all. I'm sorry if this sounds overly harsh, but why should English obey the rules of Latin any more than Latin should obey the rules of English or Swahili? Thryduulf 02:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Users could follow English plural to form "magnum opuses" (not my favorite, but certainly acceptable) or Latin rules to form "magna opera", which I would expect in scholarly publications. To follow the wrong Latin rule is simply failed pretentiousness or, one might hope, a jest. In the case of the cites, it is hard to take it as a jest. There will be no reputable dictionary that would accept this. Though I had favored using usenet as a source of citations for slang, colloquialisms, and newer terms, if this is the result of using it, I might reconsider. DCDuring TALK 03:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just crazy, but for me -us → -i is a fairly regular plural-forming rule in English (especially, but not exclusively, after an unstressed syllable). I say "octopi" and "platypi" without a second thought, for example, because while they're etymologically incorrect, they're what sounds right to my English-speaking ear. —RuakhTALK 03:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, pluralising English words that end in "-us" or similar sounds by replacing it with "-i" is a regular feature of English and in many cases just as correct as appending "-es". Whether it is correct or not in Latin is irrelevant. Thryduulf 12:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I can find 4.5 million raw google groups hits for boyz and 1.15 million for "girlz". I'll bet that more than four of them are independent cites as the plural of "boy" and "girl". Is this what we want? Fewer, but exceeding 100K, for "carz", "menz"; more than 50K for "wimmin". I could go on. DCDuring TALK 03:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
If they are used to mean something (i.e. they are not mentions or nonce words), then yes they should be in Wiktionary. It might not be "good" English, but why must we restrict ourselves to formal works? Informal use of the language is far more common and often much richer than peer-reviewed work. Usenet is probably the richest source of durably archived informal English ever, and was not available to earlier dictionaries. We are not bound by limitations of space and have such context tags as {{informal}} and {{nonstandard}} to appropriately mark words that would presently be inappropriate in a thesis, homework essay or business report. Combine this with the stated goal of including "all words in all languages" and I fail to see why we would even want to think about not including words attested by google groups. Thryduulf 12:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I am so unhappy with magnum opi, that it clouded my judgment. The numbers in favor of girlz, boyz, menz, wimmin, carz make them necessary. There is no criterion by which we should exclude "-z"-formed plurals. You make a good case for making it an optional part of our en-noun template to overcome the understandable bias against this plural form. My only valid concern with Google groups is the weight to be given to individual citations. I would argue that we whould see more examples before accepting something (fewer points per usenet/Groups citation). DCDuring TALK 11:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we erase "magnum opi" from the plurals list of "magnum opus" -entry, even if we keep "magnum opi"? We most likely would not give boyz as a plural form of boy, even if we added an entry for boyz. At least wimmin does not appear as a plural of woman. Hekaheka 23:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that it should be kept but marked as "non-standard" in the inflection line - i.e.
magnum opus (plural magna opera or magnum opuses or magnum opi (non-standard))
I'm not sure this can be done with the current {{en-noun}} template. Perhaps a "nspl" paramater for non-standard plurals would be useful, particularly if we include entries such as boyz, etc.
On that subjection, I think magnum opi should be included in the plurals list but boyz should not appear in the inflection line (but still be linked to from the entry). Obviously I need to justify why I think this way, and its not easy to do. I think it is that people using "magnum opi" are not deliberately being non-standard, whereas those using "boyz" are. More objectively perhaps, "magnum opi" follows a (semi-)standard English pluralisation rule (i.e. words ending in "-us" are pluralised by changing the ending to "-i", based on the Latin second declension), it's just the "wrong" declension for this word in Latin. "boyz" on the other does not follow any rule, as no English words are pluralised by the addition of "-z" (although this does reflect the pronunciation). Thryduulf 01:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)



The definition for Mauritian contains several inaccuracies: 1: Mauritian is repeated in the definition. 2: there is no such thing as a Mauritian language. Rather Mauritian refers to 1. people from and 2. the culture of Mauritius. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

"Mauritian" is often used as short for "Mauritian Creole", which is (as creoles are) acknowledged as a language:
  • "But lexically and syntactically, HCE is for the most part closer to English than Mauritian is to French." [10]
  • "Mauritian is the result of a break in the transmission of French" [11]
  • "the system of Mauritian has resulted from the contact of very different systems" [12]
  • "One theory, put forward by Robert Chaudenson (1974) is that Mauritian was an offshoot of the creole of Reunion" [13]
Circeus 22:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yup. That is in accord with my work on the entry, too. I provided an entry for Mauritian Creole, which seems to be the "official" name, but plenty of folks seem to call it "Mauritian", "Mauritiens" (I think), or the equivalent in other lnaguages. DCDuring TALK 22:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The anon is correct, in that "the Mauritian language" is almost unattested. (google books:"the Mauritian language" gets one relevant mention and one use as an appositive, plus a few irrelevant-because-non-constituent uses.) I've cleaned up the entry per Circeus's demonstration that Mauritian alone is used to refer to their language. —RuakhTALK 16:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: target page Mauritian is still tagged. --07:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: target page Mauritian is still tagged. --06:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: target page Mauritian is still tagged. --06:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: target page Mauritian is still tagged. --04:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: target page Mauritian is still tagged. --06:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: target page Mauritian is still tagged. --06:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: target page Mauritian is still tagged. --06:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: target page Mauritian is still tagged. --06:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


An anon at the talk-page questioned the "Ireland" tag. Not having a clue about it myself, I'm bringing it here. —RuakhTALK 23:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've lived in Ireland for 25 years, and have never heard or seen it. Cites please.--Dmol 09:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
See w:Fibber McGee and Molly for the catch-phrase "'Taint funny, McGee", well known in the USA in the 1940's; it appeared a number of times in w:Warner Brothers cartoons, among them Daffy Duck and Egghead and Holiday Highlights. I would suspect the tag should be (US) ... this concurs in part with the talk page commenter's theory. Robert Ullmann 09:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up, please take a look. —RuakhTALK 16:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a doctor, not a...

A Star Trek phrase. RFV per newish guidelines on fiction words. beam me up, Scotty might be worth an entry though. --Keenebot2 14:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

For some bizarre reason, all the results on b.g.c. for this legitimate English phrase are mis-scanned as "I'ma" instead of "I'm a", so you have to search for "I'ma doctor, not a".

Doing so yields plenty of matches. [14], [15], [16], [17], [18],[19],[20]

Do a search for "Dammit, Jim" and you'll see that the more generalized phrase "Dammit, Jim, I'm a ____, not a ____" has also been taken up. Language Lover 02:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

in turn

I added a second definition of which I am unsure. Could it be verified, removed, changed, or commented upon by others, please. __meco 09:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a difference. There is a missing sense: something like "alternately", as in "He was in turn charming and petulant." But it may only differ in its synonyms by number of successive states" "He was in turn charming, petulant, and remorseful." I suppose the "alternately" meaning implies repetition. DCDuring TALK 20:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I just didn't feel they were interchangeable. If you replace it with up, some phrases will work, while others will cease making sense. __meco 22:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Probably I wouldn't say the second. I would say "up". I don't find any sense apart from "in sequence" and "alternatively" in my MW3 or in my memory. Can you find some uses in that correspond to what you are thinking? DCDuring TALK 22:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
"You're next 'in turn'" and "You're next 'up'" are both correct. This is my assertion. Am I wrong? __meco 06:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Assuming that you aren't, isn't that "in sequence", which is the first sense given. Why do we need a second sense that includes the key wording of the first sense? DCDuring TALK 12:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, I do not think English speakers use "in turn" that way. As far as I can tell, "You're next in turn" is not ever used knowingly, favoring "It's your turn next" or "You're up next". Meco, if you can actually find a written or spoken use of "in turn" this way, I'd be surprised -- then we could analyze it. If you are simply trying to differentiate translated Norwegian words, you might want to find another entry for your translation. -- Thisis0 03:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
There are plenty of BGC hits for the phrase "I was next in turn" and other similar variations with this meaning. Or perhaps I don't quite understand your point. -- Algrif 15:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, then. I'd never heard that usage before, but, apparently it's for reals. It fits well under a definition of "in due order", along with other shades of using this phrase. That's the thing with this -- there are tiny shades of difference, but does it amount to any separate senses? There's certainly the 'in succession' shade ("Each answered in turn"), and the (newly discovered) sense of waiting in line ("He was next in turn to see the doctor"). Is there any way these diverge? So, now take a look at a third sense that I think might be a shade worth separating, as something like "in response; in return" ("Someone did this, so he in turn did that"). You'll notice I found Frank L. Baum really liked this phrase, and he used it in at least all three of these shades. Particularly, take a look at the 1908, 1911, 1913, and 1921 cites, which point toward the third shade I mentioned. It's a fine line, but is this a separate sense? -- Thisis0 04:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


Note case. May not have to meet brand name criteria if it can be cited as a verb. Generic or out-of-context uses would be highly beneficial though. DAVilla 05:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

shouldn't that be tase/taze, ergo minus the R and lowercase?--BigBadBen 20:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

act of admission

I assume this needs a US tag. Should it be capitalized? I assume plural is wrong. SemperBlotto 13:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This should perhaps be a RfD. It is readily cited. (hundreds of documents on b.g.c. But it seems SoP to me. It also seemingly can be used in reference to any "admitting", as admitting someone to practice before a court. And the act does not have to be an act of Congress, it can be an act of any with the power to "admit". DCDuring TALK 18:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I would say an act of admission is an act which demonstrates the truth of a proposition sought to be entered before a court. For example, I fall through your porch and break my leg, resulting in a lawsuit. You claim that there was nothing you could have done to make the porch safer. But then, in the middle of the night, I catch you putting extra supports under your porch. The action on your part constitutes an admission that the porch could have been made safer. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Protologism? Two words? If OK, needs formatting and slimming down. SemperBlotto 17:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  • 16 bgc hits, mainly from 2002 and 2004 but includes 1 from 1953 (although the snippet I can see doesn't actually include the sentence that allegedly includes the word so I can't verify it). 325ggc hits as well, so it looks like its good. 20/1165 books/groups hits for "muscle bike" (including at least 1 hyphenated in books) suggest that the single word form should be an alternative spelling/form of the two-word version. Thryduulf 18:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The 1953 cite is not actually from 1953; b.g.c. doesn't date periodicals very well. However, according to the "about this book" page, it's actually from 1973, which if true is nothing to sneeze at. —RuakhTALK 23:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I have recently seen a bgc hit, allegedly from 1981 citing a work published in 1984... Thryduulf 00:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The entry's creator has added three citations to Talk:musclebike. --EncycloPetey 18:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As noted by EP, some quotations have been added to Talk:musclebike, with web-site links. These links need to be examined to determine if any are durably archived. —RuakhTALK 15:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put 4 cites on the Citations page, 2 from b.g.c., 2 from news. More available from news. DCDuring TALK 17:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! —RuakhTALK 17:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


I don't think this sense is used much except by "Swingframe Mfg. Co." There are various things that have "swingframe" design or construction, but I'm not sure that the term is much used except in product literature, catalogs etc. and it may not be very uniform in meaning. DCDuring TALK 18:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added another sense... As most HAWG owners would know this one...--BigBadBen 14:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

bathing beauty

msh210 22:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No longer in use much, but quite common earlier in the century. --EncycloPetey 22:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I can recall it being used for women wearing bathing costumes (swimsuits), whether or not they were actually bathing. weak keep with a {{dated}} context tag. Thryduulf 22:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
This might have even been used in the previous century. It also connects to beauty contests. The meaning "attractive woman" doesn't seem specific enough. Sense 1: "Beauty pageant contestant wearing a bathing suit"; Sense 2: "An attractive woman wearing a bathing suit; Sense 3: "A woman who seems likely to look good in a bathing suit". I don't think I've ever heard the phrase applied to males, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find three citations. DCDuring TALK 01:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

1 cite added, from Reet Petite song, 1957.--Dmol 22:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


Is this used outside the context of A Clockwork Orange? Thryduulf 22:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, devotchkas exist in the real world, so this isn't a fictional-universe word; and I think A Clockwork Orange is a well-known work. Also, the word has an etymology (I believe it's a Russian word, or a corruption of one), and has been referred to elsewhere, if not actually used (e.g., there's a band called Devotchka, which, if I'm not mistaken, did some, most, or all of the soundtrack of Little Miss Sunshine). All told, I think we have reason to keep this, but it needs to be fixed up. (That said, it really wouldn't bother me if we redirect it to Concordance:A Clockwork Orange.) —RuakhTALK 23:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
девочка (dévočka) is indeed "girl" in Russian, but is the word actually used frequently enough to be listed as an English word? Hekaheka 02:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It's probably not used very frequently, but I am inclined to think Ruakh is right about it meriting inclusion because of its usage in A Clockwork Orange: that satisfies criterion number 2 of our CFI. — Beobach972 06:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


Protologism? The Wikipedia page has nothing to do with this definition. SemperBlotto 22:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The first definition may be a protologism, but I can find two 19th century citations. The first is from John Boyle O'Reilly's poem 406, and seems to mean "a supernatural entity". The second is from chapter V of Lewis Carroll's Sylvie and Bruno, and seems to mean "the supernatural world" as oppsed to the natural, physical one. This second definition could fit with wither the second or third definition as given for the entry. --EncycloPetey 18:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

águila sangual

20 hits on Google; is this a typo of something? (note, if removed, the translation on osprey needs to go, too.) Dmcdevit·t 02:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know the word sangual in Standard Spanish, but I think it might exist in The Argentinian/Uruguayan dialect (in the sense of osprey). —Stephen 17:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can ascertain, it is Argentinian. However, even there águila pescadora is preferred. And, yes, it is the osprey. I would recommend that this be deleted as this is not a dictionary of Spanish dialect terms. The correct translation for the rest of the Spanish speaking world seems to be águila pescadora. -- Algrif 16:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
"[T]his is not a dictionary of Spanish dialect terms"?? Sure it is. We include dialect words all the time. See Category:Regionalisms for scads of examples. If this is attested and idiomatic, it gets in, even if it's only Argentine. No? (Not that it appears to be attested, based on Google, mind you.)—msh210 17:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You can find some hits on the images. -- Algrif 12:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

a Charlie

Is this a protologism? The definition seems to come from a television character, so has this got supporting citations? --EncycloPetey 18:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the contrib is confusing with the defn. we already have at Charlie The example sentences in sense 2. would indicate this, and sense 1. seems to be an attempted etymology. Surely, the TV character would have been named Charlie because of the connotations already existant. -- Algrif 15:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
If the sense predates the charatcer, then certainly. This is a sense of the word I'm unfamiliar with. --EncycloPetey 00:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

trots dat

I have never heard it, but maybe it was used prior to 1945 by some people. Quotes please Jcwf 00:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Yes there is a bunch of google hits but they are all of the type
..wij zijn trots dat wij ..
..we are proud that we ..
FWIW, it's not in Calisch's Engels-Nedelands / Nederlands-Engels Woordenboek (a 2-volume 19th century translating dictionary). --EncycloPetey 01:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Mallerd is native Dutch, so perhaps he could provide an example of usage. It is very close to the German trotzdem, so maybe it was only used in an eastern or southeastern Dutch dialect. —Stephen 14:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
It is indicated it is archaic, although I think it is too archaic for any dutch person to know the construction (I never heard it before). So I don't see why it should be included here, as the chance for someone to find it it very close to zero (I think, having Dutch as my first language) Grunnen 20:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

April 2008


Not sure how to tag this, it gets plenty of google books [21] hits but mostly rather old ones. Kappa 23:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

{{obsolete}} perhaps? Thryduulf 23:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I would regard this as a common mis-spelling. Dbfirs 08:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


On stil#Norwegian the POS section is Verb, but according to the translations section at style this is a noun. It is the same IP (Special:Contributions/ who added both the Norwegian section at stil and added the different translation at style. SPQRobin 12:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

weak cardinality

Any takers? Term exists - but proper definition seems to be about Turing machines etc. SemperBlotto 15:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The results from the field of logic (i.e., about Turing machines, etc.) seem to be weak cardinality theorem, a weak theorem about cardinality, so irrelevant here. This is not my specialty, but that's the way it seems. But there are a number of results not from logic, with some other meaning, although I don't know whether it's the one in our entry. To search, try using theorem as a stop word.—msh210 16:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe the definition we have is correct, though it's possible there are other definitions as well. —RuakhTALK 02:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


This was previously tagged as {{obsolete}} but this was removed by an anonymous contributor. I've had a quick look through the post-1950 bgc hits that do not include the word "Shakespeare" and of the ones I can see there are no obvious modern uses (there are modern reprints of older works, and modern works that quote older uses), but this requires more investigation than I have time for at present. Note that I'm only querying whether or not the term is obsolete, not the definition. Thryduulf 13:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would tag it as {{archaic}}, since the term isn't used anymore but its meaning is still understood and recognized by readers. --EncycloPetey 17:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I would have agreed straight out with EP, but occasionally it is used properly as a stage direction in contemporary drama. It is used as a noun meaning exit: "His noisy exeunts". And it is used as a kind of humorous or pseudo-barbaric synonym for the verb "exit", as in "He exeunted from the room." Does that make it "literary" or "archaic"? DCDuring TALK 20:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Also used occasionally in literary allusions. DCDuring TALK 20:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd say it's archaic. That doesn't mean it's never used, only that it's, well, archaic. :-P —RuakhTALK 22:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
If we exclude the contemporary allusive jocular literary use, then this entry is a particularly poor application of {{en-verb}}. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. What a mess. Exeunting and exeunted could probably pass RFV (barely), but not in the sense given. But then, what part of speech is this, anyway? And if it is a verb, how do we separate the real, non-inflecting use from the modern (and very rare) bogusly inflecting use? They surely have the same etymology. Perhaps the first sense line could just be labeled {{invariant}} or some such? Will need a usage note in any case. -- Visviva 05:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Would we be better off to ignore the literary use of the fully inflected verb, which is certainly rare? I enjoy reading some of the authors who use it, but Stephenson certainly lapses into some silliness. We also should have the Latin inflected form on the page. The noun seems harder to ignore. If we keep the inflected verb, which we probably should, it might warrant a seperate etymology, connecting it to the stage direction. I seem to recall some such entries here. I would like to hear from some others about this one. (And we should try to get Neal Stephenson to write Wiktionary into his next novel or endorse us on his next book tour.) DCDuring TALK 11:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The Latin entry is being held up by a recently discovered problem with the templates used for standard Latin verb format. --EncycloPetey 21:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


According to French declension rules, this should be spelt conservatrice, but a few web hits suggest this is quite common, maybe in Quebec/Canada French? Keene2 08:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the web hits are misspellings of conservateur. I think the rest are barbarisms. —Stephen 14:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


RFV for the Scots meaning "A guttural sound unusual in modern speech". Is heich a Scots noun that means "a guttural sound unusual in modern speech", or is heich itself a guttural sound unusual in modern speech? Either way, can it be verified? Angr 19:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


2. (of time or music) Having two beats in a bar. ??? -- Algrif 13:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a definition I've heard. It was added by Beobach972 (talkcontribs). [22] --EncycloPetey 23:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


WT:CFI#Fictional universes requires that this word, as coined for a fictional universe, have "three citations which are independent of reference to that universe" to establish independence. I don't think this one passes. Dmcdevit·t 18:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


WT:CFI#Fictional universes requires that this word, as coined for a fictional universe, have "three citations which are independent of reference to that universe" to establish independence. I don't think this one passes. Dmcdevit·t 18:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

sock puppeteer

#A user in an online community, who has two or more account set up by that user so as to seem to be for different users. 

Used outside the WMf community? Keene 18:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not updated on the format on groups.google quotations/cites, so here it goes...
First uses I can find are from late 1997, according to [23] at least...
\Mike 09:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

impuesto a bienes y servicios

Very few Google hits for this exact phrase. I suspect this might be a too-literal translation of something that has another common name in Spanish as this doesn't appear to set phrase used, but I'm not sure. Dmcdevit·t 07:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this phrase is actually used — but only to translate the English goods and services tax or Goods and Services Tax or GST. And even for that, impuesto sobre bienes y servicios is much more common on both b.g.c. and Google. —RuakhTALK 12:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It's SoP in both Spanish and English. Also, you are quite right, Ruakh, sobre is much more normal anyway. Delete -- Algrif 13:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I would keep it as a redirect to impuesto sobre bienes y servicios. It’s a standard term in Spanish commercial language, and translators search to find the official translation of it whenever they encounter it. —Stephen 16:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that both are valid. In Spain, the taxes tend to be "sobre" something and in Americas, "a" something, but there are a lot of exceptions. In Nicaragua there is a law called LEY CREADORA DE IMPUESTO A LOS BIENES Y SERVICIOS DE PROCEDENCIA U ORIGEN HONDUREÑO Y COLOMBIANO, LEY No.325, Aprobada el 06 de Diciembre de 1999. I give a keep for both. Hekaheka 23:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


The Random House says that this word must be hyphenated: will-less. Is willless a valid spelling? —Stephen 05:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say that hyphenation in English is largely optional and also somewhat dialectical. Whichever of the hyphenated or unhyphenated forms of a word we should say is preferred, both is without doubt valid. (My personal impression is that hyphenation is more popular in present-day American English than in British or Australian English, although I'm not entirely sure of that.) -- 11:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I understand why AHD gives this special treatment. When I am without my glasses and tired I could not tell you whether there were 3, 4, or 5 "l"s in willless, especially in a sans-serif font. DCDuring TALK 11:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Sense 2 and 3 would be for a noun. I'll clean up. DCDuring TALK 11:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Not by our usual criteria. Hits for "is will-less" outnumber hits for "is willless" 882:5 on Google web and 165:3 on Google books. Based on a survey of the first few pages, the will-less hits seem to be pretty clean, with no more than 10% noise. So this wouldn't normally even rate a misspelling entry, let alone an alternative-spelling entry; but I think a soft redirect of some kind is called for in this case. -- Visviva 12:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to take this outrage up with AARP. This seems like ageism. MW3 also shows it as will-less only. DCDuring TALK 12:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
"will-less" gets more raw google cites, most of which seem to reflect the meanings. It seems to be at least as common as willless and more legible. willless gets 250 or so raw b.g.c. hits and would easily pass RfV. Does each sense need to be cited or is this just about spelling for the entry as a whole. I will create an entry for will-less also. I'm not sure whether one should really be primary or whether there might be differential preference for one over the other for different senses. DCDuring TALK 15:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
IMO willless should be a soft redirect only, since it is simply an (uncommon) error for will-less. It probably should be cited if we are going to claim it to be anything other than a misspelling. -- Visviva 04:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Although will-less gets more googles, Google doesn't sort out "will less" and "will-less", so search terms are combined. I suppose willless should be listed as an alternative spelling, but since the -less suffix is not usually hyphenated, not a misspelling. Teh Rote 17:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It is apparently possible to distinguish the solid spelling from the other two spellings by using "-willless will-less" and "willless -will-less". This generates many more hits for "will less" and "will-less" combined than for "willless". After excluding collocations that are not in the sense we are interested in, "will-less" seems much more common, but not overwhelmingly so. Alt spelling seems appropriate. I would still include a usage note touting the readability advantage of will-less. DCDuring TALK 18:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I decided to be bold and revert it, since telling why "will-less" has an advantage is clear POV- we don't tell readers which alternative spelling is accurate and why one "is more beneficial", they both seem valid by our criteria. Teh Rote 00:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


It may well exist, but I dont think I am the only chemist that never heard of it. Quote pleas Jcwf71.77.16.153 16:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


Coprophilia? Dmcdevit·t 20:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's metonymy, from a shortening of scatological or some such. —RuakhTALK 20:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
It's disgusting, but it's true. Some people are into this type of sh_t.--Dmol 21:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't disputing that the concept of coprophilia exists, or that some people are into it(!). But an anonymous editor added a slang for it that I hadn't heard of, so I thought I'd bring it here for more eyes. Dmcdevit·t 02:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Cites are available [24] Have fun. Kappa 10:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Dmcdevit - don't worry, I have never heard of "Coprophilia" before, I've always known it as SCAT...--BigBadBen 15:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

See [25], and even (WARNING: those who are squeamish would be advised not to visit what follows, nor should minors nor those who live in jurisdictions where downloading such images may be illegal) google.com/images?safe=off&q=scat -- 12:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


Top hits for 'gtmf + "google the"' are Wiktionary and UD. Found no indication of use on Usenet or Google News Archives. -- Visviva 04:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There once was the website gtmf.us],(archive) which still gets quite a few google hits but was deleted in 03/2007. This site had the title "gtmf - google the mother fucker!" but coined the slogan "Google muthafucka! Do you use it!?!?!" which appears in the front picture which is all the site consisted of. This site URL was then typically mentioned on IRC channels as an answer to "google questions". For example it appeared on #geekissues Efnet. Mutante 08:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Aer Lingus

This needs cites that meet the requirements of a company or brand name, see WT:CFI DCDuring 12:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

See general comments re airlines in Finnair section above.--Dmol 19:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisting, it was last listed in the middle of a debate and was overlooked a bit. - [The]DaveRoss 04:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


"Fixed that for you" sense. Actually used? -- Visviva 07:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

computerhope, acronyms.fd, UD, arstechnica forum, af, noslang,sectalk .... Mutante 08:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should have said "actually used in durably archived texts that are acceptable under WT:CFI?" But on closer inspection, I am seeing some genuine use on Usenet; will try to get this cited sometime soon, if nobody beats me to it. -- Visviva 08:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to cite this, and running into the problem that examples really don't make sense out of context. The most common use seems to be when person A says "blah blah blah" and person B quotes person A, but modifies the quote, and follows it with "FTFY". As in, person B is supposedly "fixing" person A's comment. —RuakhTALK 18:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Now cited, but not spanning a year. I just couldn't slog through all that spam. —RuakhTALK 19:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

abstinence only

[abstinence only#Adjective]

The noun sense was cited then the adj sense was tagged, should be hyphenated? - [The]DaveRoss 15:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


While difficult to search (as compounds generally are), I could find no evidence of usage. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Protologism at best. Bad capitalization. I would have just moved it to the list. SemperBlotto 07:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I initially simply deleted it on sight, but since it was re-entered I figured it would be better to get whole community's approval rather than engage in a lone wheel war. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Clocked out. No support at b.g.c., scholar, groups, news. DCDuring TALK 16:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


(teasing sense). As a native speaker i dont understand the "teasing" sense. And for the plural of Miete which i added it would have to be Template:f. Mutante 20:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sense is clearly WRONG... I second the notion... teasing = (foppen, sticheln, witzeln, hänseln, frotzen)...--BigBadBen 19:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
removed the sense and {rfv}...--BigBadBen 19:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


This is not German, Schweinehund is German. Schweinhundt must be an americanized spelling variant. Mutante 20:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It may not be standard modern High German, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid for some period or region or version of German. The Bohemian records I have from the 16th century frequently alternate between -d, -t, and -dt at the ends of words like Hart or Hund. That doesn't mean we've got support for this particular spelling, only that we shouldn't dismiss a spelling just because it isn't the standard modern one. --EncycloPetey 22:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Schweinehund is German of the 20th+ century... Schweinhund is German of the 19th century and before {Source: DWB von Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm}... and I agree with EncycloPetey that variants do exist, where the endings D, T or DT are concerned... but I believe that the word should be annotated as to the correct NEW German spelling, so as to not confuse or humiliate someone trying to learn German...--BigBadBen 19:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
removed the {rfv} and added the {archaic}, with note...--BigBadBen 19:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

gat (Verb)

The entry for gat has had To shoot someone with a pistol or other handheld firearm, added as a verb recently. I couldn't find examples of this, but in looking found we are missing an archaic verb form for get.--Dmol 20:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, not one I've heard, but I can imagine that it's contracted from "Gatling gun". It might be an archaic term from the '40s or '50s. --EncycloPetey 22:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It's marked Hip hop slang, (Sorry, I trimmed this off my cut and paste), so that is modern. I read lots of old crime fiction such as Chandler and Hammett, and it never appears as a verb there. BTW, a Gatling gun is huge, not a handgun.--Dmol 20:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Russian reversal

This would have no complaints on WT:LOP#R, of course. But do we allow for trendy (humorous) terms like this in the main namespace? (Apologies if this should be on WT:RFV instead, for the political science and Russian grammar missing definitions. Please move it, if I goofed.) --Connel MacKenzie 06:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete. If it were RFV'd, I believe it would pass, but just barely, and only on the strength of Google Groups hits. The phenomenon is real and warrants Wikipedia coverage (which it has), but this term for it is just barely real. Furthermore, the vast majority of instances of the word "Russian" followed by the word "reversal" are not in this sense, and while we've never to my knowledge discussed an orbit-clearing ("Classical Idiom") criterion for inclusion, this would certainly fail it if we did. —RuakhTALK 06:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't doubt it's mentioned in different places, but it should be sent to RFV for cites of use. DAVilla 01:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
In Soviet Russia, entry deletes YOU!! -- 14:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Wikipedia is supposed to be a free dictionary, not a censored one. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 10:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC).
moved to RfV - [The]DaveRoss 23:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Obsolete legal sense: chattel. This RfV is directed solely at soliciting quotations concerning whether this word is used to refer to single items and whether it ever takes a singular verb. Perhaps that information can shed some light on other senses of the word. DCDuring TALK 15:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about the singular, but note that "goods and cattles" is actually better-attested in early modern English than "goods and cattle." At least that seems to be the case, from the limited smattering of usage that turns up on b.g.c.; what is really needed here is a specialized corpus of early modern legal English. That would argue pretty strongly for normal countable-noun behavior. By the time (~19th century) people start writing "goods and cattle," they were also writing "goods and chattels," and it is frequently difficult to tell whether "cattle" is meant in the modern sense or not. -- Visviva 01:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Sense 2. Hinge ?? -- Algrif 17:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A far as I know, "hinge" is actually the more common meaning. It appears in dozens of dictionaries. [26] Dmcdevit·t 11:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Not very impressed by that selection, I'm afraid. A lot of examples of "sacar de quicio" = "un-hinge", and some Portuguese rather than Spanish. It's possible that it has some usage in S.American Spanish, but not in European Spanish, which is why the question. I've never heard in all my years in Spain anyone refer to a hinge as un quicio. I mean never. Not in any of my dictionaries either. Perhaps keep with an S.A Spanish tag? -- Algrif 14:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


I found insufficient evidence at Google books of usage. Goldenrowley 04:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's being used in SiFi, but like you said, no Google Books... examples: [27] SiFi Game, [28] SiFi Game... I think it is a fairly new composition, due to the death of Arthur C. Clarke, as a kinda remembrance of that great author...--BigBadBen 19:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I am on the fence ...3rd citation please? Goldenrowley 04:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

RFV fail. Deleted. Goldenrowley 05:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


The sense " to make an exception of; to except" Hekaheka 16:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

2 of my 3 dictionaries don't have the sense. MW3 says it's archaic. It is not in my experience. I have marked it as archaic. Is it worth citing? DCDuring TALK 20:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I tried, but discovered I had difficulty in distinguishing it from the other senses in practice. For instance, if something is reserved from a particular activity (e.g., a territory is reserved from settlement), does that mean it is held back or that it is "excepted"? In the end I wasn't really sure what this sense implies that the other senses do not. So I would be inclined to delete this sense without some unambiguous examples of use. -- Visviva 13:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd say merge with sense 1, which unnecessarily limits the definition to keeping for oneself. --EncycloPetey 16:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

guided capitalism

Any takers? Needs formatting and moving to lowercase if OK. SemperBlotto 07:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Cited. please inspect and comment. First cite indicates pre-set phrase usage. Others indicate vagueness and need for more specific definition. Nevertheless the term seems to specify some range of capitalistic political economy among Reagan/Thatcher "laissez-faire", "gangster capitalism", and Chinese dirigisme. DCDuring TALK 15:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Of five cites, you say one is SOP; then two more are mentions, and one is arguably a mention. I think this might need some more use-y cites. :-/   —RuakhTALK 02:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


This entry appeared and I cleaned it up; as I don't speak Sicilian, I just want to make sure it is a term. sewnmouthsecret 16:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, beddu is Sicilian for bello. —Stephen 17:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Protologism? SemperBlotto 06:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

if you replace the savise with devise in the examples shown, it does not alter the meaning of the examples at all... so it is my belief that these are bad scans or some such... also another variation, he/she meant savvy or savvies, but this would change the meaning of the examples...--BigBadBen 15:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Searching b.g.c. for the forms "savising" and "savised" generated only scannos. I didn't go through all the "savise" and "savises" hits yet, but they seemed mostly in French and the Google language filter isn't very good for this purpose. DCDuring TALK 16:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Note: the title of this section was previously ==[[Panarchy]]==.

Any takers? Definition is of "Panarchism", not "Panarchy". Caps? Plural?

According to the OED panarchy (q.v.) has a totally different meaning. SemperBlotto 07:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up a bit. moved to panarchy. There is a word. Cites will help clarify. DCDuring TALK 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Apparently widely used in "green" writings. Meaning not very connected to panarchism, which has much older history, but much less usage. DCDuring TALK 14:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added one cite for each of five senses. (I'm a little concerned that sense 5 may never have been used outside of Festus, but since it's the first known use of the word, it seems a shame to leave it out.) -- Visviva 14:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

smart aleck

I happen to think the sense in question is fine, some other editors don't though, and keep reverting it without any more explanation than to attack the contributor. Language Lover 02:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this sense is OK. In support, "wise guy" is given as a sense in The Random House Webster's Unabridged Electronic Dictionary, which in my considered opinion is an excellent dictionary of American English. -- WikiPedant 02:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to my putting the sense back in with an RFV-sense, Ullman has gone and reverted that and put a protect on the page. Can a sysop kindly restore the rfv-sense'd sense for now and allow the community procedures to run, as opposed to a single editor having carte blanche? Language Lover 02:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Known vandalism from a WP blocked/banned vandal that has threatened other contributors. Entry is locked for now. Feel free to discuss, but make sure you understand clearly that the pattern of this vandal is to use socks to support his/her position; you will be suspected—or presumed—to be such a sockpuppet. For now, we keep the prior entry. If it needs changing, fine, I'd suggest you take it to the talk page. Robert Ullmann 02:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't care about who the contributor is and I don't care about any scare tactics you want to use. If the contribution is bad, then it won't pass muster here at RFV. This has nothing to do with who made the contribution. If the contributor in question wrote had written our current entry for cat, would you delete and protect that? Language Lover 03:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. This is a serious vandal, trolling you successfully. That is what that sort of emotionally disturbed person feeds on. Is much better if you do not feed them; take whatever they did out, good or bad, leave the entry as is for a while. Later, meaning months later, go back and see if the entry can use some improvement. Plenty of other stuff to do. Robert Ullmann 19:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, he may be a vandal (which isn't really relevant), but *I'M* certainly not. And the most recent edit you did was to revert *MY* contribution. There are plenty of people on this page vouching for the validy of the contribution. I lack the power to fix the entry because you blocked non-sysops from doing so. That means the only option will be to put the edit up for a public vote. Language Lover 21:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
This ([29]) does seem like a perfectly valid sense, in fact is how I would understand the term out of context. Good material does sometimes come from bad sources, and I don't see anything particularly undesirable or suspicious in LL's actions here. -- Visviva 05:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I would also say that particular sense is valid, at least in the US. That sense is not covered by the other definitions. --EncycloPetey 16:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems OK prima facie. Let's see if it can be cited. DCDuring TALK 19:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I would say it's a better sense than the others for how I (in US) have heard it and might use it. If the source has been a problem, it was certainly worth caution, but it looks better than my MW3's defs. DCDuring TALK 19:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reinstated the sense in question with its rfv tag intact. However, bear in mind that this is an rfv, and so it will need its three cites if it is to survive. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hard to find cites for a specific sense like this because many of the uses are such that it's tough to tell at a mere glance which sense applies.

  • Jim Aylesworth, Jennifer K. Rotole. "Jim Aylesworth and You". 2005. p80
    "This book is all about this smart aleck fox that goes all around pulling tricks on nice ladies. I am sorry to say, but every time he pulls a trick, Mr. Fox thinks it's funny."
  • Virginia Mae Axline. "Play Therapy". 1989. p278
    "Emma: I sure do. (She grinned impishly.) I'm a smart aleck, too. And a sassy, smarty-pants.
    Therapist: Oh! You think you're a smart aleck, and you think you're sassy too.
    Emma: I'm the meanest brat here at this dump."
  • Paul Wellstone. "How the Rural Poor Got Power: Narrative of a Grass-Roots Organizer". 2003. p19
    "Being a smart aleck, I stayed two years in seventh grade."
  • Shelby Anne Wolf. "Interpreting Literature with Children". 2003. p64
    "Bart subsequently decided that a smart aleck would have his own distinct mode of discourse. In the next rehearsal, he added a flippant tone to his character's voice and ended some lines with "baby" or "honey", explaining that since the fox was "sly" he ought to talk this way. His group agreed. His first attempt in practice sent them into high giggles. and they encouraged him to keep his sarcastic tone."
  • Upton Sinclair. "Wide is the Gate II". 2001. p704
    "A century or two ago some wit in Europe had paraphrased the verse, apropos of the success of the Empress Maria Theresa in enlarging her dominion by marrying off her sons and daughters. "Let others make war, you, happy Austria, marry." Lanny, the smart Aleck, only sixteen at the time, had thought it fun to write: "Let others make war, you, happy Budds, make money." His father hadn't appreciated the jest"
  • Giovanni R. F. Ferrari. "The Cambridge Companion to Plato's Republic". 2007. p100
    "To distinguish him from the "wise guy" Thrasymachus, I shall call him a "smart aleck.""

Language Lover 00:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Two of these seem to favor humor as an essential element of the definition, IMO: Wolf and Sinclair. I don't think that the "smart aleck's" laughing at his own jokes (Aylesworth) is illustrative. The others don't provide obvious evidence of the humor/sarcasm element. The attestation cites don't seem to be giving us good illustrations of usage. DCDuring TALK 03:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


wrestling move? Do we take that? Mutante 06:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

With proper verification, yes. However, I doubt we'll find it for this particular "move". It is the signature move of a particular wrestling entertainer, Brock Lesnar. --EncycloPetey 22:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but still, if its a move, isn't it a noun instead of a verb (or both?) Mutante 06:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The one usage I've seen was as a noun, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be verbed. --EncycloPetey 12:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


The poker definitions "A player who plays many hands" and "A strategy which involves playing many hands" define nouns, but this they are in the adjective section. Are senses nouns or adjectives? — Paul G 10:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In poker "loose" refers to the quality of the hands played rather than the quantity. In this sense "loose" might be considered synonymous with "optimistic".


Google suggests this is an unattestable Urban-Dictionaryism. Dmcdevit·t 13:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In the grammar of colloquial vulgar invective, I would have thought this was clearly widespread, albeit SoP. Synonymous with pissass. DCDuring TALK 10:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


rrfv-sense verb: interweave, intertwine. not in my MW3. DCDuring TALK 11:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole should be deleted, reason: 1.) there is no singular form entrail in the english language, 2.) it links to entrails which correctly states that it is not used in singular form... and in entrails the first sense should be removed...--BigBadBen 21:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I found the archaic sense in MW3. Feel free to RfV it. Archaic and obsolete terms are supposed to be part of Wiktionary though they are supposed to meet WT:CFI just like anything else if challenged. Most of the entries based on MW1913 have some archasic senses. The OED probably would be a better source than MW3 for both the verb and the arcahic singular noun. DCDuring TALK 01:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Then it is fine by me, if it is listed in the MW3... the Cambridge I use did not list it, and I do not have access to any other dictionary (paper) anymore (to broke to buy one), so I need to rely on online dicts... I knew that Archaic and Obsolete terms should be in the Wiktionary, but thought the word was just wrong--BigBadBen 16:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Cited, more or less. Not sure if "bind" and "intertwine" are exactly the same sense, but they're clearly closely related. In later use this appears to blur off into a synonym of "entail," but I haven't tried to document that.
Next question: is the heraldic use of "entrailed" a verb form or a free-standing adjective? I added it as the first, but looking over the b.g.c. I fear it is actually the second.-- Visviva 15:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The etymology of the noun and the verb/(adjective) seem likely to be distinct. Do you have any thoughts, especially on the verb's etymology. DCDuring TALK 16:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Etymologies split, based on good sources for "gut" noun meaning. Maybe the verb is simple from "trail", but the heraldry? DCDuring TALK 17:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Heraldry Sense Cited...--BigBadBen 19:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Scuba sense. The only correlation between Donovan and scuba I can find has to do with an American lawyer who bought Fidel Castro some scuba gear. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have heard this adjective used in the Phoenix area in SCUBA Dive stores and at the lake. —This unsigned comment was added by Nsweeney (talkcontribs) at 21:39, 23 April 2008.


Adjective sense and first noun sense. I guess I don't know if this is true or not, but I think if we're going to stay respectable, we should at least have cites for these. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reorg'd the entry, and tagged the senses which you were referring to (since they have now changed location). Also tagged one more, "common misspelling of lighter," of which I am rather dubious. But I'm not sure exactly how to verify that one. -- Visviva 10:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Because we show "lite" in Category:English simplified spelling variants, it seems inconsistent to show liter as a misspelling. DCDuring TALK 17:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
From the POS header, I assumed that was meant to refer to lighter#Noun, presumably of the cigarette kind. If there is actually a comparative form of lite#Adjective, that would not be a mis-spelling, just a execrable one. -- Visviva 17:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
In the US there is so much commercial use of "lite" that it wouldn't surprise me, but I have yet to identify a practical way of establishing it. We have an entries for lite and -lite don't we? DCDuring TALK 16:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I have found references to different "UK dialect" noun, verb, and adjective PoSs (2 additional etymologies). The verb makes the noun "liter", "one that lites" somewhat plausible, but it would also be "UK dialect". I have no idea how the comparative form of the UK dialect adjective would be formed. I examined the first 100/670 b.g.c. hits for "litest" and found scannos only. I tried searching for "liter lite beer" and "litest lite beer" with 0 hits. DCDuring TALK 17:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


The networking definition in the noun section has an example where "flapping" is a verb, not a noun. Is this actually a noun, or is a meaning of the verb "to flap", (in which case it should be moved to flap)? mdash; Paul G 08:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, but only used as gerund or participle. Never "flap", "flapped", or "flaps" that I've ever heard ... Robert Ullmann 12:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
cited... rfv-sense removed...--BigBadBen 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Hard to find verification for this, especially the "reboot" sense. Dmcdevit·t 12:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this Shut up and reload? (kidding) Robert Ullmann 12:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


The 2nd English verb usage is used in video games. "The pros schooled the n00bs so bad, they have a negative rating now." -- HAYSON1991 02:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Peter David and Alvin Sargent. "Spider-Man 3". 2007. p216
    "You again?" Sandman demanded. "I guess you didn't learn your lesson."
    "This time I'm gonna school you."
  • Ed Michaels, Helen Handfield-Jones, Beth Axelrod. "The War for Talent". 2001. p97
    "He doesn't let me dwell on my screw-ups. I totally blew one presentation and he immediately told me I wasn't ready for prime time. But a few weeks later he slated me to present something to the board, which I nailed. It made me more confident, in a way, because he had totally schooled me."

Plus the cite which is already in the entry. Language Lover 23:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The 2002 cite could easily be the first sense of "school" and, judging from the context, I would bet on it. I would try b.g.c. searhc using (subject:fiction OR subject:games OR subject:gaming) (schooled OR schooling). DCDuring TALK 23:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Which 2002 cite are you talking about, I see 2007 and 2001 cites here and a 2006 cite in the entry. Language Lover 03:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it was just a typo; he was referring to the 2001 cite. Reading that whole paragrah (which starts with "But learning from Johnson wasn't easy") it is clear sense #1, "To educate, teach, or train" is meant. In any case, I've added your Spiderman citation and another one of my own for a total of three. Dmcdevit·t 08:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the typo. Entry looks good. DCDuring TALK 13:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

clasificación periódica

Surely this should be tabla periódica? Is this a variant? Dmcdevit·t 16:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It’s a synonym. —Stephen 13:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


Found one apparent reference in a gun dictionary, but it was mention (and seemed to be an alt form), and I can't find any other cites. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"leade" "rifling" generates cites. DCDuring TALK 18:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I just learned another way that Google can waste a searcher's time: by not actually limiting the results to pages that actually have the search term (or at least a scanno). "Leade" was not included in most of the pages. I have one usage. "leed" and "lead" are suggested as other spellings, but "leed" only gets one b.g.c. hit. The term does get included in some glossaries. DCDuring TALK 19:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


The sense - To affect negatively. is plainly wrong here... example: take the usage note The economy was hit by a recession. and replace the recession with boom (the opposite of a recession) - negativity is lost... so the only thing that is negative is the word recession... either the sense needs to be amended with a positvely or merged with sense 1 ... --BigBadBen 17:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Consider a sentence like, “That year, about a third of the students got hit with asestology reports.” To me, this sentence seems clearly negative. I don't know what asestology reports might be (no one does, since I just now made up the term), but they sound just fine in the sentence “How's your asestology report coming along?”; so I must conclude that hit in this sense is primarily negative, even if it can be positive. (I'm making a guess here. To me, “The economy was hit by a boom” sounds completely nonsensical; but obviously it sounds fine for you, so obviously for you it's possible for hit in this sense to be positive. Even so, I'm guessing that in your English hit in this sense still prefers a negative interpretation. If I'm guessing wrongly, please say so.) —RuakhTALK 18:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Ruak, you bring up an interesting point there... in the interpretation of the usage, in the example above, it is clearly negative; but you could also be "hit" by a stroke of genius", which is clearly positive... hmmm... which leads me back to it being merged with sense 1...--BigBadBen 15:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008


replaced wikipedia 'fact' template by rfv for Australian entry

The "fact" template did not belong there, since we don’t have that template. However, are you rfv-ing the Australian or the U.S. entry? You put your rfv with the U.S. entry, and I’ve certainly heard this for many years. —Stephen 16:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I've added rfv-sense to the Australian sense and split entry into its three etymologies. DCDuring TALK 19:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
"Widespread use" US slang sense. DCDuring TALK 19:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


rfv-sense: collective noun for baboons. I find mentions not usage. Keep in appendix? DCDuring TALK 18:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I added 1 cite showing usage; I will try to drum up some more. sewnmouthsecret 14:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I find these things cute, but often not used. Excellent Appendix material anyway. We need more of them in the Appendices. DCDuring TALK

PKK and PK

English sense, def. given is Player Killer Killer. Has some web hits, but all seem related to the game Diablo. sewnmouthsecret 17:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why being related to Diablo precludes their being examples of the sense. --Ptcamn 09:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe the key word was all: if they're all related to the game Diablo, then they're probably not independent. —RuakhTALK 15:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It is a pretty common term in the computer RPG world, especially PK.
I see hits for Ultima:
Asheron's Call
also both Diablo and Diablo II, as well as one hit for Sega Dreamcast which isn't a multiplayer platform. Also having played RPGs growing up I can attest that it is in widespread use. - [The]DaveRoss 17:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Used all over the place in MUD games. If you search bgc for "pk mud kill" you can even find a couple printed cites.

  • Peter Ludlow. "High Noon on the Electronic Frontier: Conceptual Issues in Cyberspace". 1996. p336
    "But i went on a few no pk muds recently and it was constant harassment."
  • Patricia M. Wallace. "The Psychology of the Internet". 2001. p94
    "Due to the fact that we have allied with the Anti-PK Unification ..."

Language Lover 22:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

laissez faire

second sense "Whatever the market will bear". I'm not certain that this is either an adjective use or if it is, how it is distinct from the first sense. Thryduulf 13:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

How do we handle terms that originally had a technical meaning whose meaning is extended partially for political ends, partially out of ignorance? The sad fact is that the term may be coming to have the disputed meaning. Economists do not own economic terms or do they? To verify the disputed meaning we would probably have to go to News, especially political opinion. If 90% of the usage were found to be more or less correct usage of sense 1 and 5% were sense 2, what would we decide?
I would argue that "what the market will bear" is a phrase that has its meaning primarily in terms of the pricing decisions of an organization or business, although it is being extended to mean "as much as I can get away with" in non-market applications. It is about the actions of competitors.
"Laissez faire" is about the supervision of competitive processes. Originally it was about economic policies of a government. It is now extended to refer to any policy of non-intervention in a competitive process by any entity with supervisory powers. Perhaps one might say that (truthfully or not): "The US Democratic National Committee has adopted a "laissez-faire" policy toward the party's presidential nomination process." "Laissez faire" is also used where "laissez passer" might be more apt. DCDuring TALK 16:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Sense should probably be at laissez-faire, but seems real; numerous b.g.c. hits for "laissez-faire prices," presumably referring to the sort of prices charged when no controls are in place, thus whatever the market will bear. -- Visviva 00:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I had neglected to look at the PoS. All the senses given are nouns. I think the PoS ought to be a noun, though many usage examples will be in attributive use. In attributive use the hyphenated form would be less ambiguous, more "correct", and possibly even more common.
Let me take a look at that kind of citation. You might well be right. But it is a kind of usage that upsets the economist in me. DCDuring TALK 00:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not seeing very much usage that does not have punctuation between "laissez-faire" and "prices" at b.g.c., Scholar, or News. I'm happy to say I'm not finding clear support for the disputed sense. I'll see it I can find some other collocations that might be consistent with it. DCDuring TALK 01:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's no bright line between using laissez-faire to mean "of or pertaining to laissez faire" and using it in this putative sense... but "laissez-faire prices" is a valid non-punctuated phrase in 5 out of the 14 b.g.c. hits ([30], [31], [32], [33], and one more not visible in preview). Still, I would have to call this inconclusive. -- Visviva 15:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I should have added that I didn't find the valid uses of "laissez-faire pricing" supportive of the "what the market will bear" sense. In some of the cases in question that phrase only comes up in somewhat technical discussion of price regulation. If the sense is to remain, I think it is more likely to occur on blogs and be attestable from Google News in editorial and opinion pieces. DCDuring TALK 16:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep sense as rewritten by Ruakh. Seems like this should be satisfactory for all concerned. -- Visviva 11:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree the rewrite makes the entry very significantly better. Thryduulf 12:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


rfv-sense: thick-headed uk slang. Confirmation? DCDuring TALK 11:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not one I've heard, but a bgc search for dateless stupid (no quotes) brings up plenty of mentions in publications about various English dialects in places as geographically spaced as Cornwall, Huddersfield and Sussex. One gives a plausible origin of the term as being so stupid as to be unaware of the passing time. I've only spent a few minutes looking, using a few different search terms, but I only found one possible use - I couldn't check that as the snippet view didn't actually contain the relevant portion of text. I wouldn't write it off yet though. Thryduulf 12:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not in any rush to have it removed. It seemed plausible. I thought it might be colloquial and widespread in UK. It would be nice if it had some citations illustrating usage. DCDuring TALK 15:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


Someone claims that girl is related to the Slavic word for whore, kurva. I don’t believe there is any basis for this. —Stephen 02:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This seems plausible when looking at the suggested Proto-Germanic word. Yiddish, which is a Germanic rather than Slavic language, uses the word korveh for whore, which supports the relation between these words, as vague as it might be.


Both this entry and tennerùmmeca are labelled as Neapolitan adjectives, but the definition given is tenderness (a noun). What is the correct part of speech for each entry? --EncycloPetey 15:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Does this meet brand name CFI? Conrad.Irwin 16:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Already defined as style of wandering, I added a definition as also a style of gait. __meco 17:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

working emotion

This was passed without cites last time, would be great if it got some cites. - [The]DaveRoss 21:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


From RFC - Heading is funky, needs a looking over by someone who knows some Indonesian. - [The]DaveRoss 21:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


I was actually creating this for a definition that I cannot present yet. This definition is that of subordinate secret orders being "obediencies", i.e. when you are the Grand Master of a lodge or an order, you can set up an "obediency", which I understand to be a charter for a subordinate group which is wholly subordinate and its leadership sworn to obedience. Since this is a bit close-circuit, I don't know where to look for references to this usage, as my source, though credible and authoritative to me, is inapplicable here. Also, there is the issue of the difference between obedience and obediency. __meco 16:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I notice the term obedience occurs in the sense I present in the Wikipedia article Martinism. __meco 21:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


As a beer - three citations, please, as specified in the CFI.--Makaokalani 15:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got three cites not (I think) meeting the brand-names criterion, but that's okay, as it's not a brand name but an informal reference to a particular brand. But if you disagree with that analysis, then that's one problem with the citations. Whadday'all think? Additional problems with the citations: (1) The sense can be split into two — one uncountable (a particular brand of beer) and one countable (a serving of such) — and if we split up the cites among those senses then we don't have enough cites for the countable sense. (Of course, someone might find more citations; I didn't look very thoroughly.) (2) The citations are often for Stella beer rather than Stella; do they count?—msh210 16:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I have cites at Citations:Stella for some without beer, but that would probably not meet brand name standards. DCDuring TALK 20:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Brand name citations must not identify the product, so any citation with the word "beer", "drink", "pint of" is invalid. Try replacing Stella with "Astrophel", and it's quite clear that Astrophel is beer or some kind of alcohol. One citation by DCDuring might qualify: "I grabbed one of the remaining 4 packs of Astrophel" - maybe it's cigarettes? do they come in packs of 4?- but if you read the whole page, a few lines later "Karen takes a gulp of her beer". Female names are often used as brand names of drinks, food, fashion, toilet paper. There's no need to define such usage as long as the citations explain it themselves.--Makaokalani 13:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This is complete bullshit. British people know that Stella is a kind of beer, and British writers known they know that so they won't bother to explain. Wiktionary users on the other hand will be fucked. Anyway, defending the "4 packs" quote, this person could be been drinking beer quite independently. Also why the fuck should people be expected to read half a page forward before they go to a dictionary. "i was pissed off and we left the house two minutes later after necking some Stella". "Forget the presents get some Stella. Yeah stella. And look at the city" "He only embraces police rules with such fervour so that he doesn't need to feel resentful,' I said, pouring some Stella on to my own resentment." and of course "Sheila goes out with her mate Stella, it gets poured all over her fella". PS why am i angry? Because it's not fucking good enough to know that a Winnebago is a kind of vehicle, I need to know it's an RV. Kappa 00:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
See Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names. We had two votes and a long discussion over this. The Sheila song looks valid; I've added it. Add two more valid citations, and the matter is settled. "Stella beer" will produce wrong results in the b.g.c., search for "Stella" alone. Wikipedia is the main source of information about brand names. Sheila is listed there as a brand name of nine products, etc.--Makaokalani 13:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


Definition is given as - Similar to the Icelandic word plebbi: A pathetic person seeking wealth and fake happiness. A typical "low-life." This term is perfectly described in "Plebbabókin" (The book of pleb) by Icelandic comedian Jón Gnarr.
So does it exist, and is it English?

If it does it seems like a very specific pejorative use of the first sense, "Common people. Person out of their class at an event or gathering.", indeed it feels too specific to me. Thryduulf 21:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


I'm not all that against the spoken Sanskrit (such as the one in Mattur; there's even this site where you can look up words such as cellphone), but I'd rather that these pass normal RfV process, rather than be entered on hear-write evidence which would be impossible to distinguish from literally translated protologisms (which this most likely is) --Ivan Štambuk 02:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


rfv-sense: A place where dates are stored, etc. not in MW3, didn't find it at b.g.c. DCDuring TALK 07:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


meaning: preference. Mostly scannos for "preservation" AFAICT. Rare appearances in technical articles that may be by non-native speakers.


Australian English sense. Seems to be trying to define a noun and a verb at the same time and not doing a brilliant job of either. Also how standard is it - slang? informal? Thryduulf 22:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


Looking for verification of two plausible senses, for which I haven't been able to find any substantiation:

  • Australian slang sense: A gram of marijuana wrapped in foil.
  • Military sense #3: A line of infantry in a landing craft. -- Visviva 23:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I seem to recall the latter sense referring to a planeload (C-47, WWII) of paratroopers. DCDuring TALK 14:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
We have that as military sense #2 (#27). So far, every promising-looking cite I've found for this has turned out to involve parachuting rather than landing via a landing craft. -- Visviva 14:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I took a run at this searching for "stick-of" and (Marines OR beach OR landing or surf) and still got references to helicopters (!) or paratroopers. The helicopter sense would easily fit with #27, although it is distinguishable and derived. DCDuring TALK 15:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

pretty boy

The "homosexual" part, which Connel doesn't appear to think worthy of discussion. Kappa 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I never thought this was limited by sexual orientation, except that some use of the term might have been a sly drawing-of-the-attention to the question of the person's sexual orientation. DCDuring TALK 23:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


WT:CFI#Fictional universes requires that this word, as coined for a fictional universe, have "three citations which are independent of reference to that universe" to establish independence. I don't think this one passes.. Dmcdevit·t 19:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


As above, though this one has lots of non-Star Trek uses, but I don't think any of them are about the fictional sense (looks like a real chemical compound?). [34] Dmcdevit·t 19:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Searching b.g.c for "trilithium -"star trek"" sans the outer quotes returns 497 results, among them a dictionary of inorganic compunds and several hits from a journal of molecular biology. 00:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Turkish words of Serbian origin

Please do not cross post on multiple pages. You already started a discussion [35], and that's where the conversation is taking place. Nadando 04:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


There is an rfv-sense tag for this as an English word, but since I don't find a section about it here, I create it hereby. __meco 13:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • No evidence for it being English that I can find. SemperBlotto 07:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


3 rfv-senses tagged since July 2007. May never have been at RfV. Worth a look, but hard to cite. How will we ever cite this kind of polysemic entry without our own corpora and a system for annotating it? DCDuring TALK 19:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

In areas like this, IMO humility is the best policy. If a (verifiable) sense is recognized as distinct in respected dictionaries, it behooves us to keep it. If not, it should only be kept if it is clearly not covered by an existing sense (and verifiable).
In this regard I note that the attack, travel, and cook senses are all recognized as separate senses in Longman's DCE, as well as being fairly easy to cite. IMO that should be good enough, barring any strong counterarguments; or at the very least they should be on RFD instead. ("Attack" is actually given by the DCE as a specifically British sense; I'm not sure what to make of that.)
On the other hand, the "be well/take care of" sense is absent from the dictionaries I have on hand. Also, the examples that were given clearly didn't fit that sense (I've moved them to more suitable locations.) It could very well be legitimate, although I'm having a hard time imagining how it could ever be used to mean "take care of" in contemporary English without causing horrific misunderstanding. -- Visviva 15:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I was just the messenger, but think that RfV tags inserted in an entry are worthy of some kind of consideration. I'd like to be able to cite these things. I usually lack the Sitzfleisch.
My MW3 has the travel and cook senses (and several more that we don't have, though my working memory is not capacious enough to really tell for sure in an efficient way).
MW3 does not have the attack sense.
MW3 actually has a sense "provide", saying that is used with "well". Their usage example is from w:Arnold Bennett speaking of "lunchers doing themselves ... well" at a restaurant. DCDuring TALK 16:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Definitely; I didn't mean to be dismissive of the tags. I do suspect, however, that the tagger really meant to tag these as {{rfd-redundant}} rather than {{rfd-sense}}. There is not much question that all of these (with the possible exception of the "take care of" sense) are in clearly widespread use. Three cites can certainly be given for each, but that seems like a bit of overkill.
Still, to bring the spirit of verification to this issue, I've started a general data page at User:Visviva/do. It's interesting to compare the treatments given in various sources. Thinking of moving it to Appendix:Dictionary treatments of do or something like that (though that table needs some cleanup first). -- Visviva 15:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

mentally ill

RFV sense.—msh210 20:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Note that if this cannot be verified then the remaining sense is likely deletable as a sum of its parts.—msh210 20:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how we'd verify this, but that's what it means to me. I'd use "mental illness" for just about any mental disorder, but "mentally ill" for very few — only the ones that I might call "crazy". (So, for example, people with major depression, or obsessive compulsive disorder, or generalized anxiety disorder, or attention deficit disorder, all suffer from mental illness, but aren't "mentally ill" in my book.) —RuakhTALK 23:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
WordNet agrees with this. [36] -- Visviva 15:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be used with a specific legal meaning which is not too far from the one given. [37] Black's does not define the adverb, but gives two senses for "mental illness" which are more or less in line with this sense (substantially incapacitated; requiring care). Difficult to find unambiguous non-legal use, or intelligible legal use. -- Visviva 15:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


"To take care or responsibility for oneself." This is what fend for oneself means, but does fend mean this by itself? Kappa 00:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

google books:"to fend as" date:2000-2008 has more than enough cites to meet RFV. My impression from various searches that I tried is that fend might be used in this sense only when there's something attached to it that kind of gets in the way of the "for oneself", if you know what I mean. (I really can't say for sure, though. b.g.c. is a decent tool for finding cites, but a less-decent tool for discerning patterns of use.) —RuakhTALK 02:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Good cite. fend seems to be in a small number (three?) of possible constructions for most of its usage. I wonder if it has much non-literary usage apart from the three idiomatic or set phrase constructions. DCDuring TALK 02:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, more than three constructions, but not too many more. It also sometimes appears as "'fend" as if it were a more current dialect abbreviation of "defend" rather than a 600+ year-old one as the etymology reported in Middle English dictionaries suggests. DCDuring TALK 16:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Please consider this 1867 definition: "an aphæresis from defend; to ward off." In boating, to fend - to prevent from touching or harming; fender - an object placed between the vessel and something to prevent abrasion or harm. Last has a similar use in automobiles. - Amgine/talk 22:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


Senses.—msh210 2008-05-14 (9 Iyar 5768) 21:44 UTC

crossway breezer

This one seems only slightly better than hopeless, based on an initial google search, but it's got the one quote which seems to be legit. Anyone care to spend time on this? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Slightly better than hopeless sounds hopeful. We are talking about the origin of a vulgar phrase,
used once in popular culture, based on a sly reference to an old country term. But some people are interested, so they speculate. Without the original referent, the phrase "She was a real crossway breezer" makes no sense. Some of the google searches bring up goofy racist guessing.
Atelaes, this is my first run at wiki. I will try to find proper attribution for the first definition. --Jim4of6 05:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Atelaes, I have just edited the second definition to put on a finer point, not to be pornographic.

--Jim4of6 02:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember how I got onto this but I'm not wrong. It bothers me to see speculation handed out

as information.

clocked out. I can't find the first sense at all, even just as a web search. The other sense is findable in Groups, but meaning not clear from cites. Both senses are plausible. DCDuring TALK 18:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There is lots of inconclusive speculation about this at IMDB and alt.usage.english. Let it go. DCDuring TALK 18:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


(And illithids.) Is this used outside of the Dungeons & Dragons universe to satisfy WT:CFI#Fictional universes? Dmcdevit·t 06:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Given its copyright status, I'd be very surprised. --EncycloPetey 13:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't have said that D&D is a single fictional universe, but Forgotten Realms certainly is. Still, if Usenet is acceptable, there seems to be some use independent of reference to FR or D&D: [38] [39] . -- Visviva 14:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
They race is used in lots of MUD games and such, eg [40], [41], [42]. One can argue about whether these are durably archived but they're certainly examples of the language being used. Also, I'd dispute whether all of Forgotten Realms counts as just a single universe. By that logic, all books set in Atlantis, are just a single universe, all books set in Camelot, are just a single universe, and so on. I think for Forgotten Realms and similar series, we should equate "universe" with "author". Language Lover 22:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
That would be a significant departure from what we decided. It opens up Star Wars, Star Trek, and Doctor Who for similar reasons. Each has a large series of books written by many different authors. --EncycloPetey 23:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Rememer the idea is to find independent usage. If works are in the same "family", like Forgotten Realms and DND they aren't really independent. Kappa 23:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If the words can not be found outside the family, put them in an appendix. bd2412 T 01:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


This looks like a typo for Anthea, and the definition is copied from it. Actually I'd like to put it in RfD, but I seem to get no feedback there.--Makaokalani 16:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it a valid alternative spelling or transliteration? Any google book hits? DCDuring TALK 17:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
4 b.g.c., 4 770 google hits. There seems to be a German book (1999) Antheea und Jonathan. The Greek name is sometimes transliterated Antheia, but not this way. I've found a total of 3 human beings named Antheea ( US ,Canada), and that's practically same as zero, from the statistical point of view; could easily be typos.--Makaokalani 13:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


USAF acronym? Not implausible. DCDuring TALK 18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep. That's exactly what it means. I've heard it many times over the years as I have an interest in aviation. If I get a chance I'll find a few cites, but as it's informal there might not be many available.--Dmol 20:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
A cite, contexts tags and whatever else to enhance it would be great. I'll look in fiction. DCDuring TALK 20:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Found these on google:
Hope it somewhat helps. Nwspel 10:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


English? (Needs formatting) SemperBlotto 18:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP has it in de, sv and nl. Mutante 20:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


Alt spelling of "was", and slang form of "worry". If it passes, it also needs some serious cleanup (and I wouldn't be terribly offended if someone decided it wasn't worth the effort and simply deleted it). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you being serious? What kind of world are you living in if you have never seen "was" interchanged for "woz"? The term "woz" when used as a substitute for "worry" is less common, and I think more common in the UK than in the USA, but try typing in "dont woz" on google (i think better results come up without the apostrophe in "dont"), and you will see it is certainly in use. Nwspel 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The thing which you must understand is that, while we do include slang terms, our criteria for them are somewhat higher than, say, the Urban Dictionary. Find three instances of use in printed media and you're golden. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Many other articles which are far less likely to be true do not have references, but I know from experience at Wikipedia that policies do not allow this to be a good enough reason, so:
Hope that's enough. Cheers. Nwspel 12:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to cite woz, synonym for "wuz". In doing so I might find citations for the worry sense, though I doubt it. Does anyone have any idea of the context in which the "worry" sense might be likely to arise? DCDuring TALK 15:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I have split the rfv into three rfv-senses. Each needs to be cited I think. DCDuring TALK 15:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Are the citations I gave for it meaning "was" (wuz) not good enough? And the term usually appears in a phrase like "dont woz" when talking about "worrying". Nwspel 15:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the punning reference to "Woz" counts (or should count, anyway). I personally don't like titles as a source because they rarely "convey meaning"; they are teasers. Title usage is often not repeated in the body of the text. DCDuring TALK 15:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
As mentioned above, google:"dont woz" gets 2k+, all very informal, no g.b.c hits. May take a bit to cite if possible, May also be ephemeral; I didn't really try to date anything. Robert Ullmann 15:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe groups has some cites for the worry sense, but they need to be over a few years. DCDuring TALK 15:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
There are two other references I gave, btw. O_o Nwspel 15:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The Sun article is an illustration of the title teaser problem. The only use of "woz" is in the title, AFAICT. "Was" is used in the body. I personally would never have challenged the "be" meanings of "woz". I'd never heard of the "worry". BTW, I can't find "wozd" and "wozing", even in Groups. DCDuring TALK 16:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I find "don't-woz" and "dont woz" in only one group, 2 independent cites here from 2001 and 2003. No cites from Books, Scholar, News. This wouldn't meet our citation standards. DCDuring TALK 16:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
So the "was" version is agreed to be ok so far? Looking around, I can't actually find anything to cite about the "worry" definition. I know this one most certainly can't be used as a reference, but just to prove I'm not lying, after typing in "wozing" on google, I got to this bebo profile, where someone comments saying "talk about nyfink wozing or bothering u at all" (talk about anything worrying or bothering you at all). I know it can't be used, but it's just to show that it is used, and that I'm not sending you on a wild goose chase or anything. But anyway, that's "wozing"... there appear to be plenty more sites mentioning "dont woz". Nwspel 17:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've consolidated the "first-person" and "third-person" senses, since a) IMO this should be a soft redirect to was anyway, and b) first-person plural and second-person cites are also readily available, but having a separate sense for each of these seems fatuous. I'm not sure if the old eye dialect use should be considered distinct from the modern deliberate-misspelling use; both are pretty clearly widespread, though.
In citing, I came across a number of publications in the late-XIX phonetic spelling system called phonography. I have studiously avoided citing these, although in theory this use could merit its own sense line (and context label, and category). -- Visviva 05:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought we don't allow redirects here, since it's policy to have a short article on everything? Nwspel 08:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, generally. In Wiktionary parlance a "soft redirect" is a entry which simply indicates that the word is an alternative/incorrect/etc. form. See for example the contents of Category:English alternative spellings; most of these would be considered soft redirects. -- Visviva 08:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
But there are two meanings; one is a misspelling of wuz, and the other means "worry", so I'm not sure a soft redirect would be the best option here. Nwspel 09:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Right, what I mean is that this section should be a soft redirect to was. Since (in this section) it is simply a misspelling of "was," this section should simply point the user to that entry for information on how this word is used. This seems more efficient (and stable) than independently specifying the word's use as a first, second, and third person plural and singular form, with varying degrees of nonstandardness, in the woz, wuz, and was entries. -- Visviva 09:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok I agree with that, but if anything, it should go to wuz, not was. Nwspel 09:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This website makes 3 uses of 'woz' as a worrying sense. I would like to draw to people's attention that there is a difference in pronunciation between the 'wuz' meaning, and the 'worry' meaning. Nwspel 08:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


Is this correct starting with "一". Could a Japanese native speaker sort this out please. Mutante 12:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, non-slang senses are found in dictionaries; slang sense can be verified with a Google Images search. Don't know if that's enough; citations would of course be ideal. -- Visviva 14:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no problem with having as the first character of a noun, where it means "single", "one", "whole" or "a". There are quite a few of them. —Stephen 14:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

stand forth

"To come forward in order to inform about or attract attention to a previously undisclosed matter." I'm not a native English speaker, so I took a chance here creating this page. __meco 13:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

call out

I am unfamiliar with 3 of the senses given:

  1. Template:intransitive To be absent from somewhere.
    I had to call out from work because I was sick.
  2. Template:transitive To prove wrong.
    If you lie about this, you will get called out.
  3. Template:transitive To bring particular attention to.
    I'd like to call out Leslie, because it's her birthday today.
  1. I had always thought it would be "call in" sick and wouldn't have expected the opposite adverb to yield the same meaning.
  2. I am aware of a sense "challenge", that would arguable include this.
  3. Never heard it.


  1. To arrange for a professional to call at your home for some purpose.
    I had to call out the doctor after she fell and broke her wrist.

I would have thought that I could call (anyone) in, out, or over. This seems just SoP. DCDuring TALK 20:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. I share your reservations about this.
  2. I'm familiar with the second sense ("To prove wrong"), although it also exists in the form "to call one out" (e.g. "he'll call you out on that if you're not careful"), it might be related to "call one's bluff".
  3. I think the third sense is possibly someone being called to the front of the group, or similar. If so there are hundreds of possible formulations for this so I'd be tempted to say that it is a sum of parts of "to call" + "out".
  4. Given the use as a noun in the phrase "call out fee" the last sense would seem to be very plausible.
bgc and ggc are currently just giving me server errors so I can't check any of these hypotheses. Thryduulf 17:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
"Call out fee" has a UK sound to it to my US ear. Perhaps there is a regional difference.
Is it actually "prove wrong" or "challenge"? It is possible that the "challenge" sense is less colloquial than I had thought. DCDuring TALK 17:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thinking about it, it does mean "challenge" more than "prove wrong", although probably with the speaker expressing the opinion that the person being challenged will fail/be proven wrong. Thryduulf 21:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding "call out fee" (or the seemingly more common "call-out fee"), bgc hits do seem to suggest it is mainly British although not exclusively so. Thryduulf 21:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


"Political scientist" sense. Can't recall having encountered this, and various plausible b.g.c. searches ("the politician Aristotle," "politicians researching") turn up nothing. -- Visviva 04:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Roget's Thesaurus

Blank and replace with {{only in|in appendix|Roget's thesaurus classification}}}} (or delete) if it doesn't meet CFI for brand names (which I'm pretty sure it doesn't). If it's not a brand name (see talk:Roget's Thesaurus), then presumably it should have a lowercase t, and then it needs cites.—msh210 19:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added Roget's. DCDuring TALK 19:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


Is this a prefix or is it an entire word? Can someone give some cites for its use as a separate word? Nadando 22:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears in recent medical dictionaries, but not in MW3. 1 cite so far. b.g.c. is having server problems. DCDuring TALK 01:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I've added three citations to the article, someone may wish to merge them with ones on the citations: page, although I'm not certain which location we'd want them in. Thryduulf 09:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
As to the definition, I am not at all certain that a mammalian kidney is referred to as a "nephros". It seems to be a "kidney-like" organ in a taxonomic group that includes non mammalians. I believe that our context tag implies that it has to do with human anatomy. DCDuring TALK 11:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

blinker fluid

Jocular. mostly mentions. DCDuring TALK 03:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

muffler bearing

Like as blinker fluid. DCDuring TALK 03:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


The first two noun senses

  1. A person, territory or period that is or was formerly controlled by an outside state.
  2. A person from a country that controls or controlled another.

The first seems to be trying to define colony and/or an adjective sense. With the second I'm familiar with the the opposite sense, "person from a country that is or was controlled by another" (which I've just added), but not with this usage. Thryduulf 11:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The control issue seems like a red herring or, at least, a complication to be avoided. I think a "colonial" (person) is just an inhabitant of a colony. A colonist I think of as the first generation of colonials (not born in the colony). I don't think of "colonial" as including the native peoples, though interbreeding and assimilation create gray areas. There are also "colonials" that are objects by, for, or in the style of the "colonials" (people). —This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talkcontribs).
There is though usage, not unlikely UK only, of modern Australians, Americans and Canadians as "colonials" - search bgc and ggc for "bloody colonials" (exclude "buffy" on the latter as there are lots of quotes of a w:Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode). Thryduulf 21:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that one of those put-downs that depends for its humorous or other effect on being counter-factual? I am personally disinclined to credit humor, irony, insults, and poetry in trying to get at basic meaning. And can we really capture those kinds of twists of the basic meanings? DCDuring TALK 21:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: "A colonist I think of as the first generation of colonials (not born in the colony)": I don't know, my grade-school history textbooks used colonists to mean “Americans” up till the Revolutionary War. w:American Revolutionary War does the same. —RuakhTALK 00:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't very precise in my statement. Though my narrow sense may be one possible extra sense for colonist (and correspondingly for colonial), they are much more commonly just synonyms, I think. DCDuring TALK 14:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I was not able to find any support for either sense, checking available dictionaries and trying various searches on b.g.c. I suspect the author was simply confused. -- Visviva 13:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


This is correct. See http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_%281913%29/Mystery

No 4, A particular sequence of events in the life of Christ has some legitimacy but should be expanded to convey how it would normally be used. If I recall right, it is part of the decade of the rosary.--Dmol 19:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


rfv'd sense: "A confusing situation in which a person is overwhelmed." This seems like a plausible figurative use, but is it common enough? Also should the sense include the emotional reaction or just the idea of overpowering (conflicting ?) currents ? DCDuring TALK 23:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

By "is it common enough" you mean you doubt that three citations can be found? That's all that is required for the sense to be verified. --EncycloPetey 13:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. That's what I meant, but I'm not sure that the sense to be verified should even include the emotional reaction. DCDuring TALK 14:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. As the riptide of disaster swept over new cities, beleaguered bankers turned frantically to Washington, some demanding cash by airplane! 1936
  2. Life immediately after the surgeries and complications was like a riptide in which the incoming waves meet together obliquely and create an undertow that can pull a person from the shore and safety. 2007
  3. As HR divisions expand their functions to help each sex understand each other's sense of humor, men will understand what feels like a riptide to a woman, and women will see the riptide as an opportunity to develop their skills of "going with the flow". 2005
- Amgine/talk 23:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


(Moved from the discussion page of Madonna)

Removal of comment and ref.

I have taken out the following comment. Rather than keep it on our own talk pages I am moving it here.

Original comment was <BR> Used mainly in the US since early 20th century, but never popular. [1]

Contributor's comment.
The Oxford Dictionary of First Names (Hanks&Hodges,2001) says of this name: "Its use as a given name is a fairly recent phenomenon, arising among Americans of Italian descent". It's not US point of view to record that. The mention of the pop star might be POV; I've removed that, and added "mainly" US. If you want to contest that, please add references, instead of deleting my references. If Madonna has been a recorded in Ireland in early 20th century or before, for example, and you have good data to show it, it would be a scoop for the Wiktionary.--Makaokalani 10:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My reply.
You're missing the point. I wasn't disputing the fact – rather pointing out that it is a US perspective, and ONLY a US perspective. I just had a quick look at other name origin sites and some even disagree with you even from a US POV. [46] even claims "Madonna is a popular female first name … (source: 1990 U.S. Census)". Popularity is not normally put in the definitions so I have removed it once again. If you still disagree with my comments, please put it under Requests for Verification.--Dmol 11:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
--Dmol 11:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added short notes about the popularity of given names to hundreds of entries. E.g. UK usage to Claire since it is mainly British, and UK and US usage to Jennifer, since they are different. I'm not saying that such names wouldn't ALSO be used elsewhere in the Anglo-Saxon world; of course they are. Such information is particularly helpful when a name has additional meanings, like Madonna. The readers will know that in 19th century texts it is Virgin Mary, not a woman's name. I can make a separate "Usage note" if Dmol feels that it is cluttering up the definition. Baby name websites are not reliable references. www.behindthename.com is the only one worth noting, but we can make Wiktionary much better if we try. In my vocabulary "popular" means a name with at least 0.5 per cent frequency for ten years. --Makaokalani 13:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This is not nameyourbabytionary.org. Perhaps you could try there? Popularity of a name does not have widespread consensus here; on the other hand, it has been rejected flat out in the past. User:Dmol is correct in removing it. --Connel MacKenzie 16:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also point out that Hanks & Hodges is notoriously unsourced and often unreliable. While it can make a nice start for research into the use and origin of a name, it should never be relied upon as the final word. The book frequently (and silently) perpetuates errors from other secondary sources. --EncycloPetey 19:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

But there must be some way to explain that the name Madonna is different from the name Mary. My original reference was US Government statistics. I always check several statistics websites before entering statements of this kind. There are some 19th C Madonnas, also in UK, but most of them really are American and born in the first half of the 20th C. And Hanks&Hodges is still better than the baby name websites used by Dmol.--Makaokalani 13:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you still ignorant of my reasons for removing your comment, are you deliberately trying to cloud the issue. I am not interested in the reliability of the site you quote, nor bothered to compare it to the one that contradicts it. I am stating the NONE OF THESE comments are appropriate as part of the definition. It is a US POV that should not be part of the definition. It is for that reason that I removed the comment in the first place. I also can’t figure out why you feel the need to show that Madonna is different from the name Mary when the difference is patently obvious.--Dmol 21:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm probably missing something, but it seems like saying that a name is "used mainly in the US" is actually the opposite of a U.S. POV: a U.S. POV would ignore that the rest of the world exists, and would simply say "used mainly since early 20th century", as though everyone else used it exactly like the U.S. did. Am I wrong? —RuakhTALK 22:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I see what you are saying but still disagree. Why should any, (repeat ANY) comments as to its popularity be part of the definition.--Dmol 16:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's a different point. :-)   I think popularity comments might be appropriate in a sense line, just as we tag things by region ({{US}}, {{UK}}), time period ({{dated}} and {{archaic}} for terms, {{historical}} for referents), commonness ({{rare}}, {{context|obscure}}), and so on; and, for that matter, just as we indicate the gender associated with a name. And it can be useful to readers to know this sort of thing, since a novel will frequently trust that its readers recognize the associations of a name like Archibald vs. those of a name like Ahmed. But if you disagree, I won't push.
Question, though: why this was brought to RFV? Does anyone disagree with the claim?
RuakhTALK 19:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
A good question. It was my mistake to bring it here instead of Beer Parlour. It's a matter of policy. There are no clear rules about what to include in given name entries. But Dmol suggested RfV, and each time he struck out my contribution he gave a new reason : 1.POV uncited info; 2.US POV; 3.US POV plus what you can read above. No wonder this discussion didn't solve anything.--Makaokalani 12:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
We have a lot of things that might benefit from more complete specification now that Wiktionary has more experience under its belt. This seems like one. If we became a more definitive nameyourbaby.org, that doesn't seem bad to me, but it is a general policy matter. We have the question of how to present the name words we put under the Proper noun PoS header, which matter is being voted on now at WT:VOTES#Plurals_from_proper_nouns. Looking at that and the discussion preceding it may give you an idea of how hard it is to come to conclusions. DCDuring TALK 13:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

add fuel to fire

Isn't this always "add fuel to the fire"? I've never seen the form without "the". — Paul G 14:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I would have thought, too. But b.g.c. shows almost as many hits for the RfV'd form as for my preferred form. DCDuring TALK 14:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Not to add fuel to the fire, but when I discount the correct form (with the) from those search results, I do not see "almost as many." What searches are you doing on b.g.c.? --Connel MacKenzie 16:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
What is the source for the correctness of the "the" form? I hadn't noticed that there was any overlap in the raw counts. I only used the lemma form. The bolded text never included any of the other forms, either way: with the and without the. What did you use? DCDuring TALK 16:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I added one of those quotations to the article. I can't figure out from b.g.c. whether the phrase has also been used by Burns, or only in dictionaries (ie in a definition, not a headword) that define words Burns used. If it has been used by Burns, I think that could qualify it on the grounds that Burns is well-known (even if he is Scottish ;) — Beobach972 04:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not in his actual writing, but in the glossary which has been included in various editions of the Poems and Songs going to back to (at least) 1804, as the definition of "beet". -- Visviva 06:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems that our use of the definite article in constructions like this has changed a bit over the past centuries. In 18th-century English, I think "add fuel to the fire" would mean adding fuel to some very specific fire (which is actually the meaning you would expect from the). So it wouldn't be used in references to the general act, as in definitions or in constructions like the one quoted ("not to add fuel to fire, but ..."). Gradually we have come to tolerate (or even expect) the definite article even in indefinite constructions, so a modern glossarist would probably define "beet" as "add fuel to the/a fire." -- Visviva 06:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


Secondary sources only, apparently. --Connel MacKenzie 16:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've heard this one in recent American television commercials. --EncycloPetey 00:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

See the page's history.—msh210 17:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Now cited. —RuakhTALK 02:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


See {{nosecondary}}. --Connel MacKenzie 16:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Cited by Visviva. —RuakhTALK 02:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

untime and untimes ("related words" in time article)

the red links untime and untimes are in the time article both with "old english" in hidden comments. Google search suggests that untime is similar to untimely but if that is the case what would untimes be? 00:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that "untime" is certainly Middle English and Old English, judging from the number of dictonaries that have it and that there seem to be some cites available. It seems to be an adjective meaning "unseasonable", "untimely", "inopportune". "Untimes speche" means "speech out of turn". I'm not sure that it gets other than mentions in English in this sense. There appears to be some rare poetic, religious, musical, and other modern usage. DCDuring TALK 02:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
untime was an adjective but it was also a noun (="the wrong time"); untimes is sometimes the plural form of the noun (which was a common way of using it), and sometimes the genitive singular being used adjectivally (ie. what we'd now write as untime's). Awesome words though!— should never have died out. Widsith 07:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


rfv-sense: Lacking poise. Never heard of it. Possibly regional colloquial. Need some specifics if it is regional. DCDuring TALK 16:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


Not in the OED.SemperBlotto 21:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible dictionary word. [47] Can't seem to find it in use. -- Visviva 03:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
These are what I found:
Nwspel 11:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
This book lists it as borrowed from Arabic (or a transliteration of Arabic) and meaning "weenie"; I'm not sure which sense thereof (but a look in the book itself would clarify that, presumably). This book concurs, for a specific sense of "weenie". I don't see any other English results here.


The Latin does not appear in any major dictionary I have checked, nor does it turn up on a search of Latin wikisource.

I think I have found a clue about this at [51].

That is not to say that I would defend the entry. DCDuring TALK 20:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The next breadcrumb, I think is "Lloyd's Encyclopedic Dictionary" 1895, published by the newspaper magnate, probably not a definitive source. I can't find the entry in question. DCDuring TALK 23:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It is in my Latin dictionary - marked "NeoLatin - vary rare" SemperBlotto 22:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Which Latin dictionary is that? If you mean the electronic one you mentioned before, then I have not been impressed with what I've learned about it. It seems to have indiscriminately included words from numerous unnamed sources which therefore cannot be verified. --EncycloPetey 22:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


Added by Teh Rote, this entry needs citations. --EncycloPetey 19:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your motivation is for listing this here. It's easily cited — see [52] [53] [54] for three b.g.c.-full-view examples — and I know that you dislike the idea of including proper nouns' anthimeric-common-noun plurals, be they attested or not. If you want to RFD this, please do, but RFV-ing it first is just asking a fellow editor to waste his time doing something you don't actually want done. —RuakhTALK 19:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Move to RFD or, more simply, await the result of the current discussion there about Jesuses.—msh210 21:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps EP was concerned that it had been added purely to get a rise out of one of our sysops - but that would be the practice of a troll, wouldn't it? SemperBlotto 21:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a valid concern — especially since the editor in question has had a number of questionable edits, and has interacted significantly with a certain well-known troll-churning-out admin — but bringing this term to RFV doesn't seem to address it. (Which is to say, the term is easily cited, and IMHO we should keep it, though I know that other editors disagree; but that doesn't tell us anything about the editor's intent in creating it.) —RuakhTALK 21:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess keeping it is less feed the troll than deleting it. Mutante 22:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we should keep it, and I think we shouldn't feed trolls; but I don't think a desire not to feed trolls is a reason to keep it. If an editor adds content we don't want, the correct response is to calmly discuss it (unless it's a clear-cut case), to calmly remove it, and in some cases, to calmly block said editor. —RuakhTALK 18:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This term is clearly in common use and so easily meets the CFI. Starting another discussion before that regarding Jesuses is finished wouldn't imho be a good use of our time. Thryduulf 08:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If it is "clearly in widespread use", then I would have expected to have heard it used at least once in my life. I haven't. If this is so easy to verify, then why not please provide 3 suitable citations as befits an RFV request? --EncycloPetey 13:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
"The Connels lived right down the street from me." "All the Connels I'd ever known were sweethearts." We might have good reason to dispense with separate entries for plurals of surnames and given names, but plurals of both are commonly used in that kind of expression, into which any English personal name could slot. If there is a policy issue about determining when a plural "proper noun" deserves an entry, then we should face it. It seems that we need to distinguish uses that are absolutely generic such as my two examples from those more specific to the particular name. For example, Guidos (in a use I am familiar with) would be a keeper IMO, whereas Connels would not. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: "please provide 3 suitable citations": [55] [56] [57]. :-)   —RuakhTALK 18:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that, except in the rare cases where the plural of a first name has come to denote a type of character or person (as with a bunch of regular Joes), first names should be understood as intrinsically singular. Sure, there's more than one Tom, Dick, and Harry in the world, but it would be overkill and just plain silly to create separate entries for all the plurals of proper first names -- for all the Toms, Dicks, and Harrys (not to mention the Annies, Bobs, Cathys/Cathies, Daves, Emmas, Freds, Gails, Henrys/Henries, Ingas, Jakes, Karens, Larrys/Larries, Monas, Norberts, Oprahs, Percys/Percies, Quincys/Quincies, Rondas, Sallys/Sallies, Teds, Ursulas, Vinces, Wandas, Xaviers, Yolandas, and Zacharys/Zacharies and a gazillion more). I'd be happy to see this moved to RFD and then deleted. What could be more resistant to typification than a Connel? -- WikiPedant 05:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep It'd be pretty silly to create all the plural entries for all the bazillions of common nouns too, but we do that. If it is wanted these forms can be added trivially by a bot, but it seems that that isn't really necessary. That said, as terms that clearly do exist we'd be being very petty to delete them if they are created. Conrad.Irwin 21:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Ignoring community politics altogether, Strong Keep. It is in use; and so what if it would be "overkill and just plain silly to create separate entries for all the plurals of proper first names"? As an online dictionary with no space limitations these irrational fears of potentially millions of entries are rarely added and if they are added, it is of no harm. sewnmouthsecret 17:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The citations provided show collective proper noun use, not plural proper noun. If this had been the statistically more common spelling, I might not balk. But clearly, the troll who entered it, did so only because I was the one who caught them on the first round. My adversary providing questionable citations for a plainly incorrect entry (even spelled correctly, would require a vote to be included) of dubious value is, well, expected. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 00:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
  • Note: target page Connels is still tagged. --03:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Cites inserted. Cited. They look plural to me. I don't get what would make them any more 'collective' than the words "geese" or "lions". DCDuring TALK 03:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: target page Connels is still tagged. --06:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


rfv-sense. "To twist someone's words to fit a desired meaning that was not intended by the speaker." I don't think that this specific purpose is inherent in the word, though I have done it myself often enough. DCDuring TALK 17:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In the sense of meaning "to practice Sophistry", yes, it appears correct.
Nwspel 11:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


Verify sense: "(Christianity) the essence of God, its own revelation." (what does it even mean?) —Stephen 07:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like it might be a reference to John 11:25 (KJV “Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:”). Dunno if this extended sense is citeable, though; and even if it is, it likely needs a context tag to indicate what Christian movements use it. —RuakhTALK 09:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Since this would fall under the "one use in a very prominent book" exception of CFI, we should probably go to an expert in ancient Greek, or whatever language the apostle John wrote his letters in, to figure out what is really meant here. Language Lover 00:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
(I didn't notice this one before today!). It is very simple really. This sense as written here is almost meaningless. Jesus said "I am the resurrection, and the life" In other words, someone who is resurrected, lives thanks to the power of God, through Jesus, to effect the resurrection. There is a meaning here, if it is rewritten. The "life-force" attributed to God that maintains a person alive. for instance. It still needs a theological tag of some sort, as this is not limited to Christian theology. -- Algrif 08:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


Trundling through Category:Phobias, I came across this one, my current thoughts are delete as misspelling of hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia, but whether that entry should exist as a real one, or only as an {{only in}} is harder to decide. The usage it gets on usenet is mainly to make a point of using the word, but it is sometimes given without explanation. Anyone else want to chime in? Conrad.Irwin 22:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems cited to me; I think we should keep it as a {{misspelling of}}.—msh210 22:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


I'm only seeing this in "interesting words to impress your friends and loved ones" type books. Can anyone find instances of actual usage? If not, I believe Conrad.Irwin came up with a rather clever solution to these types of words, but I can't recall exactly what it was. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This one is a link to the report of the 2005 spelling Bee:
I think it may be useable.
Nwspel 10:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
See w:Use-mention distinction. -- Visviva 13:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
We don't allow any useage of simply "mentioned" words?
I thought, as an online dictionary, we were supposed to include every word we could find?
nwspel tork kontribz 13:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Please trim that signature, it's incredibly annoying.
Yes, words which are used. Per WT:CFI, three durably archived citations of use to convey meaning are required. Words which are never used to convey meaning will never need to be looked up, and furthermore their meanings can never really be verified; therefore, they are not included here. -- Visviva 13:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
For the mention-only phobias I am using {{only in}} to point to Appendix:Invented phobias. I'm slowly trying to churn through Category:Phobias to remove the remaining ones. (See ablutophobia). As the "Note to editors" on Appendix:Invented phobias implies, I am only including words that would meet CFI if we allowed mentions, and so the "really" obscure ones (i.e. less than three durably archived mentions) are being deleted. It may be the case that we want a similar list of -ology words, or perhaps a more generic "Appendix:List words". It is interesting to note that our CFI is still looser than the OEDs, as acarophobia which clearly does exist according to our CFI, is not included by them. This word certainly fails RFV, however also certainly exists. Conrad.Irwin 13:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Our CFI are not really "looser" than those of the OED, simply different; there are also various words that they include with nothing more than a quote from an older dictionary. —RuakhTALK 15:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It would seem that we might need "Invented ologies" and "Invented philias". Or could they all be combined by just grafting the suffixes to the stems in the List words appendix ? DCDuring TALK 00:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

wait for

Moved to WT:RFD#wait for. -- Visviva 06:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

June 2008


Doubting this one Goldenrowley 01:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you believe "'sfoot", a 17th century contraction for "God's foot" [61]? I wonder if the entry was based on an earlier interpretation of the same citations. DCDuring TALK 01:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I have tracked down the source of the entry (a graphic for a 2005 article on swearing in the New York Times). I looked at the source of the information in the graphic Swearing, by Geoffrey Hughes and found one mention of "'sfoot" in a table together with zounds and similar words. I will correct the entry without adding the apostrophe. DCDuring TALK 01:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
RFV Pass on the context of "God's foot" oath is a vast improvement. I just added quotes from major playrights. Goldenrowley 07:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Should this be moved to 'sfoot? Widsith 07:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh. Widsith 07:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved to 'sfoot. Goldenrowley 08:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


Protologism? SemperBlotto 21:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Not really. It shows up on Urban Dictionary, as well as in a few literary blogs and discussion forums. --Benji 18:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Template:FAQ:cites Conrad.Irwin 18:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems to fail, but it's hard to tell because of the excessive usage of the other two senses. Conrad.Irwin 18:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


rfv-sense 1 "More than one, but not as many as usual or as expected." What??? DCDuring TALK 00:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly widespread use, but if you disagree with the wording, feel free to fix it: this is a wiki, after all. —RuakhTALK 01:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
How could anyone know that this sense was in widespread use? This might be two senses as the "but" hints. I tend to leave the determiners to my betters. I have enough trouble with prepositions. OTOH, if my betters don't step up, .... DCDuring TALK 01:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) I've tweaked a bit. The key distinction is between "a few" and just "few", where the former is a fairly neutral estimate of a number ("How many came?" "A few.") and the latter is a negative one ("How many came?" "Few."). Feel free to tweak further. :-) —RuakhTALK 01:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I am at sea on Determiners. I have no intuition for making a contribution. Where would "the few" (as in "The few, the proud, the Marines" go? In the first definition, aren't there restrictions on which determiners can precede "few"? I would love to be able to do a survey of how many of our naive users (and even contributors) have any idea of what a determiner is or even what it is "like". It would probably be comparable to the number who can use our pronunciation section (excluding homophones). DCDuring TALK 02:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: "Where would 'the few' [] go?": That's a good question; I think the semantically definite determiners ("the few", "these few", "said few", etc.) can actually go either way.
Re: "In the first definition, aren't there restrictions on which determiners can precede 'few'?": Yes. The most common is "a"; "some" also exists, but e.g. "such few" is almost unheard-of in this sense (rather, "such few" ="so few", with "so" being an adverb).
Re: Naive users, contributors, etc.: Yeah, this needs work on that front. Can I really not convince you to be bold?
RuakhTALK 02:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not willing to be bold on something I don't favor. The more I experience determiner entries, the more concerned I am for our naive users (i.e., our future, the justification for our efforts, a group of great interest to WMF funding sources). If I were to be bold in this regard, I would be likely to revert to pre-determiner versions or develop alternate-universe entries. Maybe I will come around in a few months. DCDuring TALK 02:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

rfv-senses 2 and 3 (meteorology) This appears to be real [62], but it is defined somewhat misleadingly as if it were an adjective. I doubt that "few" would appear alone in a weather report (the sky is few!), but rather as determiner to the word "clouds". I leave it to someone native to formulate a nice definition out of this. --Hekaheka 13:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I added those meteorology senses way back when I was new and didn't understand about CFI. They are used in weather reports but probably shouldn't be entered as english terms. See also scattered and broken Language Lover 00:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I found a NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) definition of the term few clouds. Added it, and removed rfv-tag from the meteorological sense. --Hekaheka 14:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


rfv-sense. to move along slowly. not in MW online. never heard it. UK? DCDuring TALK 12:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Plausible. "Putting along" and "putting around" bring up significant numbers of hits, although there is a fair scattering of golf meanings in it.--Dmol 12:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Not that common, but yes. Like a very old car. Putt-putt-putt. Putting along. UK tag probably. -- Algrif 14:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Of course. I just didn't see it at the time. I should have taken this to the tea room or put in an rfex. I wonder if it is "influenced by" (confused with) "puttering around". DCDuring TALK 14:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


Comment copied from [[Wiktionary:Requests for verification#bet]]:

Esperanto noun added here and to beet by Pietaster. Common nouns in Esperanto end in -o. The only nouns in Esperanto I've seen ending in a consonant are onomatopoeias (e.g. la ratatat) and foreign proper nouns (e.g. Miko Sloper - first name is Esperantized; last isn't). PierreAbbat 16:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

RuakhTALK 02:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


This word appears to have some usage, but it's not quite what is given. Also, the editor has a history of adding protologisms. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Substituted rfv-sense. Added sense I know similar to dictionary sense. DCDuring TALK 19:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I added some stuff to Citations:smush - but there's an awful lot more out there. Conrad.Irwin 19:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


Doesn't seem to have much support in the usual places. DCDuring TALK 01:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Only 6 book hits, and half of them are dictionaries or lists. Like phobias, -ology can be tacked on to anything, and this seems like a case of something+ology.--Dmol 08:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep, per w:felinology. And that it is in dictionaries is now a bad thing? Mutante 09:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Dictionary hits are obviously useful references. But for attestation purposes they are "mentions" not "uses", like inclusion in a list of "interesting words." See WT:CFI#Attestation and w:Use-mention distinction. DCDuring TALK 11:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


  • Sense 2: "an oppressor",
  • Sense 3: "an extortioner" Thryduulf 21:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The three senses were copied straight out of Webster 1913, FWIW.—msh210 21:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


Isn't this Anglicized, as described on wikipedia? If so it shouldn't have the ==English== heading Conrad.Irwin 23:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

See also Category:Books of the Poetic Edda. Conrad.Irwin 00:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


rfv-sense: (noun) something wring or incorrect. Has this crept into usage? DCDuring TALK 03:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Never heard it in U.S. English. Here it’s only an adjective in that sense. —Stephen 09:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

on the level

rfv-sense: "A discreet reference to freemasonry." Usage example given: Are you on the level? (meaning: "Are you a freemason like myself?").

And I don't believe the freemasonry etymology either. DCDuring TALK 16:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I had always thought that there was a reference to Freemasonry in this expression. However, the reference given has this quote "The use of the terms "square" or "level" as metaphors for honesty and trustworthiness also can be found in the annals of Rome, Greece, Egypt and China. They were not invented by the freemasons." So there you go. Probably needs a usage note though (to stop a readdition). SemperBlotto 21:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't really take the Masons' word for it either, one way or the other. But my dictionaries suggest that "level" and "square" in the figurative meanings we have today certainly go back to Classical Latin. I am willing to be proven wrong about this term. DCDuring TALK 23:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


Gay slang sense. (Added by Paul G, so I'm inclined to believe it, but an anon questioned it on the talk-page, so I figured I should RFV it.) —RuakhTALK 22:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

this maybe? —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 22:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC).


Hard to find clearly English citations, as opposed to transliterations.

Actually, I'm not sure how to distinguish the two.—msh210 20:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Definition is "a surname" - doesn't actually tell us anything. SemperBlotto 21:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Not sure what else you want. Surnames don't have definitions. They have etymologies, of course, and their lowercase versions sometimes have meanings, but the names themselves are, well, just names. No?—msh210 21:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
      • So, what is the verdict? I added it here, since it is linked with the words Venizelism and Venizelist and these words exist at the Oxford dictionary online. For a similar example see the entry for Lenin and Leninism and Leninist. Thank you in advance. A.Cython 01:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


Not in any of my dictionaries. SemperBlotto 07:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

citations:lappa has now but two cites.—msh210 20:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


The verb sense - is it ever used without "about"/"around"? The example uses "boss". If it is always "boss about"/"boss around", then this should be stated in the sense, something like this: Template:italbrac. What then happens to the derived terms is questionable. — Paul G 09:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not look to me that it is always with "around" or "about". Verifying this does not address your issue, which seems more of an TR thing.
One sense of "boss" is like "head" or "chair" used as leadership verbs. In that sense it doesn't take "around". A qualifying phrase like "usually with around or about" would probably cover it, but additional senses also seem necessary. There is almost always a case to be made for additional senses for entries, in my limited experience. DCDuring TALK 10:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


This looks as though it qualifies as a neologism, and I have marked it as such. However, I could use help gathering sufficient citations to meet CFI, just to be sure. --EncycloPetey 16:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Where are you finding support? Groups? I'm finding that people named Gaymer write a lot and are written about a lot. DCDuring TALK 17:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It depends on what time frame you consider a word to be neologism. The word "gay" being a homosexual wasn't coined until the 1930s and then it was considered to be slang. Many slang dictionaries does reference this word. The New England Blade (an LGBT newspaper from Boston) does list the word in this article. I don't see this as being any neologistic as the words dittohead or bull dyke. -- 17:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The Wikipedia article has some references that you might be able to use. (Some of us are only familiar with the cider) SemperBlotto 18:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

you people

Sense #2. There are cases where this can be applied to all groups, not just African people...

I’ve heard you people many times in my life, in school, at work, in the military service, at parties, and at get-togethers, but never once in regard to Africans, or even African-Americans. —Stephen 18:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it is possible that it is not used with respect to African-Americans because it is feared to be offensive.
I don't see that this is a "racial slur", even when used to refer to a racial group. It betrays racial stereotyping, probably, but is not, in and of itself, pejorative. It might be termed offensive. In the US, it has been one of the archetypical indicators of racial (especially) and ethnic stereotyping. It wouldn't surprise me if the "offensiveness" was changing. The offense might be taken by any individual stereotyped in this way. Is this issue applicable at all outside the US? DCDuring TALK 20:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Then it must be regional. To me it has no racial overtones whatsoever and cannot be used offensively. If there were a protest or demonstration of some sort by whites, blacks, or Hispanics, which came to require crowd control by the police in Texas, the police would not hesitate to shout "you people, get back", and nobody would take offense at "you people". If anything, they might take offense at the command to "get back". —Stephen 20:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not as sure about regional as situational and generational. The scenario you describe would work the same way in New York and other states of my acquaintance. But sentences like "What do you people do when it gets hot?" or "You people have taken over all the dash events at the Olympics" indicate probable stereotyping on the part of the speaker, IMHO. I think the phrase has a non-SoP meaning that conveys this. DCDuring TALK 21:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of an offensive tag is to warn speakers about how hearers might take something, not to indicate the true state of mind of the speaker. DCDuring TALK 21:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I hear stereotyping in the assumption and the accusation, but in no case does "you people" sound the least bit offensive. If you change the subject in both of those examples to "you fellows" or "African-Americans" or "black people" or "nonwhites" or any other term, it comes out the same. It’s the accusation or the assumption that is offensive, not the "you people". —Stephen 21:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You might be right. But it was not an accident that the original contributor and I find something special in this phrase. It is a question of how to put it, what context tags, usage notes, etc. And this is RfV, so cites would be nice. DCDuring TALK 23:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at the citations page. DCDuring TALK 23:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn’t see anything at all in those citations to indicate that you people is in any way derogatory or offensive. The offense was in addressing and labeling an entire class of people. As I said before, you can replace "you people" with almost any term or phrase to address almost any large class, including: you guys, you Italians, you Canadians, you Southerners, you Yanks, you Brits, you Continentals, you Asians, you Koreans, you New Yorkers, you actors, you waiters, you gays, you blue-collar workers, you investment brokers, you lawyers, you politicians. Just about the only time you can get away with pidgeon-holing or labeling an entire class of people is when men do it to women, or women do it to men...and that’s because men and women are innately attracted to one another, and so the labeling is often seen as humorous and all in good fun. There is nothing wrong with the term you people, it’s only the act of labeling a class of people, and any other term will work the same way. —Stephen 01:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
You did notice that in some of the cases the people involved clearly said or implied that they found the phrase as an indicator of offensiveness. That is basically the point of having an offensive tag. It is not about whether folks should be offended, but whether they are offended. I'll put in the one about the riot. Perhaps that will help. DCDuring TALK 01:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
That’s because that was the easiest way for them to understand and express what was happening. People often complain of an aching left arm when actually they’re having a heart attack. When people involved said it was the phrase, what they meant was the act of demeaning an entire class with a broad stroke, and if the offenders had used any other term in to say the same thing (such as you nonwhites, you other-colored fellows, you eyeteyes, you Parisian types), the effect would have been just the same, and those offended would, as they did their best to analyze it, have said that the offence was in saying nonwhites, or other-colored, or eyeteyes, or Parisian types, or poor people, or whatever term was actually used. Everybody can see the offense, but not everybody can understand and express clearly exactly what the offense is. I don’t know which one is the one about the riots, but all of the citations are the same...the offense is not in the term you people but in the act of besmearching a broad class. —Stephen 01:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
There is clearly something special about the term. I don't think that you can find any of the other apparently neutral terms that have quite the same effect. It is precisely because the speaker doesn't find anything wrong that the use of the term demonstrates a problem. In four of the five cites someone indicated that the term was "impolite", caused the first black riot in US marine history, caused the speaker to say "oh, oh", or got a US presidential candidate into trouble. How much clearer could it be? If "offensive" isn't the right tag for the term, please suggest an alternative. DCDuring TALK 01:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I would call it either a plural of you or simply SoP. The term did not cause any riots, it’s not impolite, it didn’t get a candidate into trouble. It’s the other end of the sentence that is the problem. I see nothing special about it at all, and the other apparently neutral terms, used in the same way, will have the same effect. "He said some cleaning compound was missing and he suspects you because your sort are always stealing things." "He said some cleaning compound was missing and he suspects you because the darker races are always stealing things." "He said some cleaning compound was missing and he suspects you because black people are always stealing things." "He said some cleaning compound was missing and he suspects you because Asians are always stealing things." "He said some cleaning compound was missing and he suspects you because these people are always stealing things." "He said some cleaning compound was missing and he suspects you because those people are always stealing things." "He said some cleaning compound was missing and he suspects you because minorities are always stealing things." If there is anything that sets "you people" off from the others, it’s that it is so nonspecific and inocuous, so it gets the job done while still sounding innocent. If you get more specific and say black people, Italians, or Asians, then your "argument" is more vulnerable to attack and your "point" could be lost. And just as "you people" can be used to refer to black people, it can also refer to Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, illegal aliens, hillbillies, Jews, or any other large group. All it is is a vocative form for any class of people. You might as well say that "you" is offensive. And since there are many nouns and pronouns that can substitute for "you" or "you all", then almost all nouns, pronouns, adjectives and verbs are offensive. It’s not offensive per se, it’s the rest of the sentence that is offensive. Well, I’ve explained it every way I can think of. If you still don’t see what I mean, I give up. —Stephen 04:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Stephen, it could be a regional thing. But, the term "you people" is regarded as offensive by most of the African Americans that I know. In fact, this term was the subject of several memorable episodes of the 1970's sitcom All in the Family. It also got Ross Perot in a bit of trouble during a speech that he gave to the NAACP in 1992.[63] In fairness to your position, many white people are quite ignorant of the racially charged nature of this term, even in the US. -- A-cai 06:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I think there are four things going on here. Firstly, there is the stereotyping — the treating of a group of people who share one feature (e.g. race) as if they must share other features (e.g. just about anything). Secondly, there is the frequent negativity of the stereotyping, which obviously makes things worse, but is not an essential component. Thirdly, there is the tying it to a specific person — e.g. the assumption that, if I'm talking to a black person, then I can use "you people" to mean "black people" because obviously the primary salient feature of a black person is that they're black. And fourthly, there is this expression specifically, which has come to be associated with the preceding in a way that other putatively synonymous expressions have not. "You fellows", "you all", "you lot", and so on don't have these associations; to me, devoid of context, "you people are always making trouble" sounds like a complaint about a race of man, while "you lot are always making trouble" sounds like a complaint about a group of between 3 and 100 or so putative trouble-makers. Why? No clue. But if something bears note, we include it, even if we can't explain why it's the case. —RuakhTALK 18:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
In the UK I am not aware that it has racial connotations at all - positive, negative or otherwise. However, many people do find it offensive in that it tarnishes an individual with the generally negative impressions of a whole group of people. As a real world example, a few years ago my mother cut her fingers very badly and had to go to the local doctor's surgery for some stitches. It is only a small practice, with only a part-time nurse. The doctor, in a fit of good bed-side manner, said "you people always manage to injure yourselves when the nurse isn't here.", which mum always comments as being offensive every time she relates the tale. Perhaps we should mark the entry as (offensive, racially offensive in US). Thryduulf 19:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As someone who lives in the US, I can see both sides but ultimately think the issue here is that it can apply to any group, not just people of African ancestry. It's not an overtly racist phrase, indeed not even automatically derogatory (depends on how it's used), yet in the case of a white person speaking to a group for black people as with Perot, I understand how it can be taken wrong. It's not unlike the first reference on baby mama, a page created by the IP who listed this here. "Obama's Baby Mama" was an attempt at humor by someone who didn't understand the implications. Had it been "McCain's Baby Mama" people might say it was just a tabloid talk show trying to be funny and arguably failing - no one honestly thinks Michelle Obama or Cindy McCain fathered their children illegitimately - but the racial context amplified the mistake.

So basically, it can refer to any group of which the speaker is not a part, the inverse of the first definition, with the potential to be offensive, whether only in the US or not I'm not sure. Plausibly Deniable 20:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It all seems about right to me. I got agreement among almost all I asked. One person, from UK, not much in contact with blacks, wasn't aware of the issue. One took a position that the problem wasn't really inherent in the words (as Stephen). Four others would use it with care, especially with respect to any member of an ethnic or religious group.
Part of the problem is even more general than the first mentioned by Ruakh, in line with Thryduulf's comment. It is a bit insulting in the cultures I know to treat an individual you are talking to as a member of a group of any kind, having typical or average characteristics of that group, whether you are saying good or bad things about the group. It could be even a group one has voluntarily joined and whose button is on one's clothing. "You Tories ...." "You Harvard guys ...." "You baby-boomers ...."
"You people" is a particular embodiment of the problem that is a well-documented set phrase. It is often used in questionaires used to identify possible racist attitudes as part of training programs designed to combat racism in the workplace or elsewhere. DCDuring TALK 20:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
In the UK it has no racial connotations. I use it regularly when talking to groups of friends, "So what are you people up to this evening?" I'd also use it if I wanted to be sarcastic about a group of people, "Why is it that you people are always asleep in morning lectures :p?", though the emphasis would be on always so I'm fairly sure this is just the same use as above. Conrad.Irwin 12:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Here in the U.S., it's an obvious keep. Re: Conrad Irwin and others: We often keep entries which have blatantly sum-of-part meanings but ALSO have special meanings. Just because "you people" has an offensive meaning in certain contexts, doesn't mean you can't use it in the examples Conrad gave. Just like "bottom feeder" can be used to describe fish who literally feed off the lake floor, rather than the scum of society. Here's a link which goes to a forum and so probably wouldn't count as durably archived, but is relevant for the discussion anyway: [64] Language Lover 00:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


rfv-sense: One who cares for or tends to colts [young horses] or other young animals. No evidence for this from mw online or mw3. DCDuring TALK 00:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

room for a pony

PoS noun; defined as adjective: "spacious, roomy". from UK TV show. Needs clean up and citation by someone more familiar than I with its uptake into UK usage. Not a catch phrase in US AFAIK. DCDuring TALK 18:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Never heard of it (UK). SemperBlotto 06:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Three book cites now added.--Dmol 11:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Do the cites really indicate meaning that is not SoP? It's not obvious. Maybe it would be good to determine the relative frequency of the headword relative to "room for a" in some appropriately restricted search universe (like UK newspapers or real-estate books or fiction). Otherwise, it would be good to have confirmation from UK-based editors that it was special compared to "room for a garden" or "room for a workshop" or "room for an office". DCDuring TALK 11:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
All the examples you mentioned do exist, as does room for a pony when they literally were talking about a pony. But this is a set phrase, comically used, that parodies the jargon used by real estate agent when selling a home. Maybe it needs a better definition or a usage note. I can’t see how it could be SoP when there is not any real sense of what is room for a pony. --Dmol 12:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Sitting in the US I have no evidence of that. If some editors said they agreed with you, I'd be OK and I'm in no hurry. We could wait until October. As to your last point, people use vague SoP phrases, like "clean enough for Mom" that are not any more precisely defined. DCDuring TALK 14:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What is "SoP"? --Una Smith 02:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sum of Parts. See WT:GL for that and other Wiktionary jargon. In principle, if a phrase has no meaning beyond its component words, then it is not idiomatic and does not normally merit inclusion in a dictionary. See WT:CFI#Idiomaticity. DCDuring TALK 02:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks! --Una Smith 21:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"Room for a pony" is an idiomatic expression, that goes beyond SoP. People in the US and UK do say they want "room for a X" where X is a garden, swimming pool, pony, horse, whatever. But in the UK "room for a pony" has a special meaning: social climbing. A single pony is the absolute minimum required for entry to the ranks of the pony club set, the hunt club set, etc. Also, in the UK many horses are kept by less than wealthy owners in a rented pasture, a parcel of grass with a fence or wall around it. The pasture may be miles from the owner's house. To have room for a pony in the UK implies not only having a pony but also having a house with attached pasture and a stable. Likely an old house. That is the home of a landed gentleman, not a working man. --Una Smith 21:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The definition given is now "spaciousness, roominess (of land)." That doesn't seem idiomatic to me. If three cites show the meaning you suggest, then it would seem more idiomatic. Try to come up with a nicely worded additional definition reflecting what you believe to be the case. Do the current citations illustrate it clearly? If not, are there other cites that do? Sometimes the citations you find can take you in somewhat unexpected directions, so you might want to start with the citations. DCDuring TALK 00:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Found an older citation, revised definition. Better? --Una Smith 14:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
There is an inconsistency in having a 20th-21st-century etymology and a 19th century citation supporting it. Something's gotta give. Also, the citation seems more like the SoP sense. In searching b.g.c. you can put time bounds consistent with all aspects of the current entry. If that doesn't work, then figure out what's weak in the entry: etymology, definition, spelling? The citations are the raw material, the unyielding facts, though they can look different to different people and to the same person at different times (especially after a good night's sleep). DCDuring TALK 17:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


See talk page and reverted edits. Is the new definition reasonable? Nadando 04:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Easy to cite, but only one so far. DCDuring TALK 09:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The citation that I included before reading the talk page directly addresses user issue and "controversy". DCDuring TALK 09:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


"Quoted For Truthiness" sense. (If this fails, the link at truthiness will also need to be removed). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Cf. Talk:QFT.--Halliburton Shill 13:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I read the talk page. Your research is suggestive, but we need citations that convey meaning. DCDuring TALK 14:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand and it's being worked on. The citations are more than suggestive, it's a chronological Usenet history. QFT simply wasn't in use outside of its technical Quantum Field Theory until after truthiness came into use in 2005. That's a fact, not a suggestion.--Halliburton Shill 14:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't challenging the findings facts in themselves. But it's only suggestive for inclusion because only the cites matter. Happy hunting. DCDuring TALK 15:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


"Travel in a foreign place or as a fifth wheel." DCDuring TALK 10:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —RuakhTALK 02:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


I'm guessing the editor was thinking of attributive uses of the noun serum? —RuakhTALK 21:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Fwiw, which is probably not much, I've asked him.—msh210 21:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't particularly thinking of anything, just following the lead of Merriam Webster. Jonathan Webley 09:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


Through is not only a preposition it can also be an adjective or an adverb. Adjective - Being finished or concluding.

  • "I’m through with my dinner."

Adverb - As a whole or throughout

  • "After being caught in the rain, Sara was soaked through."

There are more definitions and examples than I can come up with right now and I'm sure there's a better way to phrase what I have said, but the page definitely needs to be looked at.

Thanks a lot for bringing it to our attention. (The Tea Room or Requested Entries would be the preferred choices for letting us know.)
Please take a look at the additions to both Adverb and Adjective parts of speech. They could almost certainly use further work. DCDuring TALK 00:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Doyle Brunson

Eponym for a poker hand. DCDuring TALK 17:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems very spammy, mention-y. DCDuring TALK 18:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


rfv-sense: living room (US). I think of it as a place for informal, often male, entertaining. DCDuring TALK 19:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The sense you know is the next sense listed. I don't know the tagged sense either, except to the extent "living" room means the other sense (it does include it, after all).—msh210 20:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd inserted that sense. Other dictionaries specifically refer to a den as being "secluded", consistent with the "lair" origins of the term. I think we might have to just wait to see if the RfVd sense rings a bell with anyone. Probably hard to differentiate those two senses from our usual sources. DCDuring TALK 21:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


I see a lot of noun uses, not matching this definition, but no verb uses. But I've only looked fairly cursorily.—msh210 20:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I only know this as a noun from ancient computing. It is what we now take for granted when using a PC - when we hit a key, the character is displayed on a screen so we can check that we hit the right one. SemperBlotto 10:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


Law? Canada? Taxes? Ety? DCDuring TALK 02:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Now rfv-sense. DCDuring TALK 11:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
There is now an entry at surrogatum principle. Does "surrogatum" mean "surrogatum principle"? Are there quotes of someone writing, say, "under surrogatum, this would be treated as a dividend" ?

[Note: the below comments have been merged from a separate section.]

  • Verification: See the Wikipedia article Surrogatum, complete with citations and court cases. WritersCramp 18:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
There is already a section for discussing this entry above. Please place all comments there. --EncycloPetey 18:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC) no longer relevant. --EncycloPetey 23:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Clocked out. DCDuring TALK 10:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
But see Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#surrogatum_principle below. DCDuring TALK 11:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


2 rfv-senses:

  1. strengthen, bolster;
  2. merge two into one.

Not in MW3. DCDuring TALK 02:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


I can't get Perseus to cooperate and my L&S is packed up, but this term strikes me as made-up. Medellia 08:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Etymology of accreditation is via French accreditee, but accreditum, is past participle of accredo is classical Latin. Who knows what might have happened in Late or Medieval Latin?
Delete; It's not in L&S, nor in Souter's Glossary of Later Latin, nor in Calepinus. It also does not appear in the RAE in the etymology of acreditación. A search on Google is pointless, since all the hits seem to be misspellings of accreditation (or maybe the large number of hits makes this an "alternative spelling" in English). --EncycloPetey 14:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


"InvestLink Group Number" Australian? Spam? DCDuring TALK 14:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


Mentions only AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 14:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Cited imho.—msh210 17:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks cited to me, much to my surprise. Many of this type of words my get life on Groups! DCDuring TALK 17:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


2 web hits, 1 group, AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 14:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No book or news hits. Delete. Teh Rote 14:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


rfv-sense "chilling or hanging out at a place of interest." teen talk. DCDuring TALK 14:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


Old rfv tag. 3 senses. jargony. DCDuring TALK 16:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


Not finding a lot of hits under this spelling. With space or hyphen it seems SoP. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


5 senses, all plausible. Are they all in use? DCDuring TALK 00:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I remember that an Economist cover story several months back used the terms Googler (Google employee) and former Google employee, if anyone has a copy of it. —RuakhTALK 03:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I could stipulate to the definitions "a regular or habitual user of Google search" (not necessarily an expert, that would seem to be an "expert Googler") and "a Google employee", even "once a Googler always a Googler" for early or long-term employees. DCDuring TALK 04:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem senses are 'a fan of Google', 'an efficient Google searcher', 'a Google search'. DCDuring TALK 04:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


rfv-sense purportedly marijuana DCDuring TALK 01:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


Not on wikipedia, no books hits. Nadando 18:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


Sense given may be a derived slang sense, needs real definitions as well. Robert Ullmann 17:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Rubbish. Real definition is a person whose heart has stopped and shows a flat line on the ECG trace. SemperBlotto 18:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


Incredible Hulk

Rfv-sense: Pejorative sense added by Angie Y. This is a use I've never heard, and which is unlikely to be in a dictionary. --EncycloPetey 23:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: English place-name sense. w:Chorlton-cum-Hardy disagrees with our explanation. —RuakhTALK 23:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


So this is rather interesting. I get zero google book hits, but quite a few standard google hits (all of which seem to jive with the given def). I interpret these results to mean thus: the word is definitely in use, but is incredibly new. I don't know what others think, but we may want to consider keeping this, but simply with a neologism tag. Thoughts? If this seems cool to everyone else, I am willing to let it go without cites and simply carry the neo tag, as I am convinced it's in use. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Restored for now, but moved to the capitalized spelling: Google News pulled up an unrelated hit from a year ago June, and I don't think we'll have difficulty getting some from now-ish. (That will only be two independent cites, in that the current Google News hits all mention Jon Stewart directly, but I think it's worth waiting a bit and seeing what the world produces.) —RuakhTALK 11:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I've created Citations:Baracknophobia. I don't think this is worthy of an entry, most of it is a direct quote of Jon Stewart. If anything this just shows how the -phobia suffix is widely used - it looks to me like we could have an entry for Bushophobia too. Conrad.Irwin 12:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
How about its converse, Obamania? --Una Smith 13:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


Any takers? (Needs formatting properly.) SemperBlotto 07:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


All of the web hits seem to be from here, not on wikipedia, no books hits. To SemperBlotto- where did you find this word? Can you provide some cites? Nadando 01:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So I've looked at w:Sugar beet, and after following a trail of links and Google searches, I've come to the conclusion that he was probably thinking of leaf beet, spinach beet, or beet greens (all of which seem to be well attested synonyms for Swiss chard or white beet). —RuakhTALK 03:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
We'd be doing the world a big favor if we could do the map among vernacular names and the species names (current and obsolete). Of course, it's a realm of rampant marketing puffery and euphemism exploiting polysemy. DCDuring TALK 04:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


Is this used except for Meatfare Sunday? And does it have a capital letter then? Conrad.Irwin 12:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


misspelling of n00b?? Mutante 18:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Uncommon variant of noob. Delete.--TBC 00:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
clocked out DCDuring TALK 16:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


If newly coined... would we class this one a protologism? Goldenrowley 04:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

  • The definition was added in 2004 - maybe it is OK by now (needs a bit of wikifying though). SemperBlotto 07:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Well I found it has been around at least since 1975 in college manuals so removed the phrase "newly coined". I added 2 citations and 1 ref. there is only 3 hits in Google books & they are not very strong refs. Goldenrowley 15:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
RFV pass. Goldenrowley 04:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


Seems to have some use as a noun. Though I think the adjective is defined correctly and isn't just attributive. Anyone else have an opinion? Conrad.Irwin 22:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a noun sense, please take a look. —RuakhTALK 03:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I was unable to work out whether it meant a very small laser, or a laser with a very small beam, and I got bored after trying to decipher a couple of far too indepth manuals! Conrad.Irwin 16:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


This entry has been previously deleted numerous times. Ptcamn has been kind enough to provide us with a proper entry to chew over. I don't spend enough time with rfv's to know whether the citations provided qualify or not, but I figured it deserves a proper trial at least. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as Internet slang is concerned, this is probably as good as we'll get. The verb form is mostly a variant of the verb use of "lol" (e.g.), though. A very common derivative is for the lulz, which is pretty much the same as "for shits n giggles" ("just for the hell of it"). Our coverage of current regular and Internet slang is not that good, and actively impeded by the limitations on what we are allowed to cite. IMHO, if a citation can be reasonably expected to last a year or two, by the time it vanishes, we'll probably have more solid ones anyway. Circeus 06:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: verb. I doubt that it is spelled solid. "strike over" seems much more likely. DCDuring TALK 08:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: transitive? not in MW3. DCDuring TALK 15:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


Loads of mentions for scranny, few uses. Three are this by w:John Clare, this,and this, where it seems to mean "crazy" but may, I suppose, mean "deformed, damaged, wrecked, etc." (and hence, in context, "crazy"), as our contributor would have it. There's also an easy-to-find quote from w:Percy Bysshe Shelley, but I have no idea what the word means there: perhaps the same as "scrawny". It looks like it means "scrawny", or something like it, here. And there are a few more results. Most of the mentions say it means the same as "scrawny", note. Not sure what to make of this. In any event, it's certainly lowercase.—msh210 18:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

July 2008


Protologism? If it is real, then I suspect that the correct definition would be something like "the refusal to take any action to save one's own life". SemperBlotto 09:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

game show

Rfv-sense surely included in the more general Sense#1. —Saltmarshαπάντηση 10:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

copied for Tearoom:
I would mark the second definition with {{rfv-sense}} and post in RFV. I've never heard of a single episode of such a program referred to as a "game show"; I've only ever heard the term applied to the program(me)/series itself. Consider: "There were two Price is Right game shows each morning." doesn't sound right. There might be two episodes or two airings, but there is only one game show. --EncycloPetey 16:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
But if one watches a "game show" today, isn't that only one episode. I would expect both definitions to be true and readily attestable. In a frequentative use of "watch" it would have to the the first sense" "I watch may favorite "game show" every day." DCDuring TALK 21:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Surely this applies to practically every entry. —Saltmarshαπάντηση 10:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with EP. I think "game show" still refers to the show as a whole, even if you only watch one episode. Would you ever say "I watched two game shows today" meaning that you'd watched two episodes of a single game show? —RuakhTALK 21:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The facts of the matter are that it does not arise because a game show rarely (never?) airs twice in the same day.
I view this as something like magazine (serial publication). The term refers to a physical issue of the magazine ("The magazine was torn"), the business of running the magazine ("The magazine laid off three editors"), and the content of the magazine ("The magazine said ...."). If we want to save ink or screen space, we can certainly do so. Some words are almost identical to this in their functioning (show, newspaper). (Notice that both durable and ephemeral entities can be involved.) But not every series of things works the same way. A play is different, with the word applicable to the script, the production, a particular performance. "Senate" applies to an abstract entity, a specific body of office holders (optionally including the staff), and a two-year term of the body.
I suppose we don't say that we will include all senses of all words in all languages, but I'm not sure that I know how to draw the line among senses to include and those to exclude. The meaning of "game show" looks different to someone who is likely to only see one episode or a fragment, a habitual watcher, or someone involved in putting on the show. DCDuring TALK 00:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The facts of the matter are that some game shows do regularly air twice in the same day because different networks set different air times for their programs. I can watch Jeopardy! three time a day (if I wanted to). I view this as more like cop show; if someone says they watched three cop shows today, I automatically assume they mean three episodes from three different titles. This, like game show is a case of reverse metonymy, where the name of the whole is used to stand in for referring to one of its instances. And just as we wouldn't define every possible metonymous sense, we shouldn't try to do so here either. --EncycloPetey 02:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Which ones do we define? All the non-redundant senses that are verifiable, I guess. So how would one write definitions to eliminate the need for multiple senses such as of magazine ? DCDuring TALK 03:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
No, we stick with the one sense, and leave it to the reader to understand metonymy. Otherwise we'll be diluting useful information with a mountain of trivialities. If you want to start a vote to include all metnymic senses of words, please do. All previous discussions we've had rejected the idea. --EncycloPetey 03:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I just took a look at book to see how a common word might reveal the principle of "understood metonomy". In that case I found a def. of book as a bound collection of pages (and many other defs.), but not a sense that I believe corresponds to "He wrote a book", "He has a book in him", "He wrote the book on that". (Examples may include more than one sense.) I may well not understand metonymy. If there is a weakness of that entry I would like to understand how that entry can be improved to include what seems to me to be the missing sense. DCDuring TALK 18:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
A discussion of book probably ought to be separate. I will open a TR discussion TR#book DCDuring TALK 18:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)



This phrase has certainly been used on British IRC and talkers/MUDs for at least a decade as a term for Americans, along with "merkia" for America, and "merkish" for American English.

  • As an American with a sense of humour, I find this sense hilarious. Even if it isn't true, it ought to be. - HowardBGolden 01:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


Any takers? Caps? Plural? SemperBlotto 15:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


You are correct. "Dar cuenta" it is used as "To notice".


"natural gas (mixture of gaseous carbon associated with petroleum deposits)." Isn't natural gas a hydrocarbon? Is aardgas something different? DCDuring TALK 10:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That entry was created by Tbot (one of Robert Ullmann's bots). The odd wording is due to the odd translation gloss at [[natural gas]] (which I've now fixed). I won't de-list this because I don't speak Dutch and can't actually attest to this, but I don't think there's anything suspicious or doubtful about it. —RuakhTALK 13:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


Please revisit this word. I believe it has been verified. Thanks. -- HowardBGolden 18:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Procedural comment. This was RFVed back in August of 2007; this is the last edit I see to that section in the history of this page, but, obviously, some later edit I'm not seeing deleted that section.—msh210 20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The quote from The New Republic, while perhaps a good quote from their paper version, is a dead link to their Web site. Can anyone confirm it in print, and ascertain that the meaning intended is the same as our sense? The other quotes are several from the same author, and one from the Boston Globe's Web site (and, perhaps, newspaper); these seem good to me. So if the one from The New Republic is good, this is cited, imho. (And no, Ruakh, that's not a bleached conditional.)—msh210 20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, here is a copy of the article I found using Google. Perhaps this will save someone a trip(pi?) to the library. — HowardBGolden 01:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


Listed as the relationship between two people who have a biological cousin in common, but who are not biologically related. Nothing found in a quick search of books, although there is an occaisional play on words for a female cousin. I've added the soup sense that i found while searching.--Dmol 20:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


This one needs to be checked. Goldenrowley 06:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Our definition seems rather more specific than the common use of the term, although I'm not 100% sure. The word definitely exists, though, and should be very easily citable on Usenet, possibly even in books.—msh210 17:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


On a lot of "weird words" sites. Not in OED, or Chambers; can't find any real usage. Widsith 20:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No examples of it being used in news sources or in academia. From the Google results, it looks like a neologism used mainly on blogs and social networking sites. Possibly RfD.--♠TBC♠ 02:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: noun, one who illegally copies or receives such copies of copyrighted material. Now, I've heard the verb sense, to be sure. But a noun sense? "Heidi hasn't bought a CD in years, she get's everything off the net. She's such a pirate." just sounds really odd to me. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that we will find attributive use of the noun in phrases like "a pirate CD-duplicating factory". DCDuring TALK 19:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I have split the sense into "making copies" sense (easy to cite) and "receiving pirated goods" sense (not as easy to cite), both with rfv tags. I have broadened the "making copies" sense to include all intellectual property (trademark, design, patent}. DCDuring TALK 19:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Cited "make illegal copies" sense. DCDuring TALK 20:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, the adjective sense. I've only ever heard a participle of the verb used in an adjectival sense. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I've inserted an rfv tag at the adjective, but perhaps it should be an rfd. It seems like attributive use of the noun. The only uses of "more pirate than" is in expressions like "more pirate than shipping agent". DCDuring TALK 19:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It sounds very odd to me as well, but google books:"software|music|movie pirate" gets a few hundred hits. There are a lot of nouns like this, that can't easily be used alone, but that follow specific patterns of meaning when they take attributive modifiers. A similar (but slightly different) case may be seen at [[waterfall]], where you can say "a waterfall of ____" but can't easily let "waterfall" stand alone unless you mean a literal cataract. I think such senses are worth including — certainly software pirate, music pirate, etc. don't all warrant separate inclusion — but it's probably a good idea to use usage notes and {{non-gloss definition}}s to clarify everything. —RuakhTALK 23:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a PoV push that has to do with saying that receiving a pirated copy makes you a pirate. I don't think that usage has caught on. It may be a crime but it isn't called piracy. DCDuring TALK 00:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I remember hearing the use of pirate in the 1960s to refer to a "pirate radio station," (Wikipedia entry) which might have been a radio station set-up offshore (of, e.g., the UK) that broadcast to the mainland. The use of "piracy" (and therefore "pirate") to refer to illegal copying of music, etc. may have followed from that. Though I think these uses of the words have been planted for the benefit of publishers — "piracy" sounds a lot sexier than "illegal copying" — I believe they have become common usage. — HowardBGolden 02:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (US) Someone living, or who was born, above the Mason-Dixon line. Seems overly specific, but I'm not sure.

That would be a southern US usage. The southern border of Pennsylvania was the Mason-Dixon line. Maryland and Delaware were slave states, though part of the the Union in the Civil War. The Mason-Dixon line is extended figuratively along the Ohio River. West Virginia, Missouri, and Kansas are "gray areas". Yankee is more common in the South than Yank, I think, for this meaning, which is declining, I think. DCDuring TALK 23:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And rfv-sense: (pejorative) Someone from the USA with bad manners while visiting another country. Doubtful. (Note that we already have the sense (elsewhere) Anyone from the United States.)—msh210 22:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we say "sometimes perjorative", and omit the behaviour abroad. This sounds like someone's personal prejudice, and certainly reads more into the word than exists in its general usage outside the USA. (Same for uncapitalised yank unless we find citations for specialised London usage.) Dbfirs 19:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
This is RfV. There is not much to discuss until the senses are cited. Can we find 3 uses in the sense mentioned? But it can't just be someone who is called a "Yank" and has bad manners. I'm still unclear as to how this is supposed to work. Would it be necessary to find usage where someone who is not actually from the US is called a "Yank" pejoratively ? DCDuring TALK 20:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
That "bad manners" part is a stereotype of Americans in general, and can apply to any slang referring to Americans. I think we should remove the sense; it's like adding "likely to go to war" or "likely to be fat" as definitions.--♠TBC♠ 19:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


Formerly: Transwiki:Doctrinalism

Rfv-sense needed: The current definition sounds biased, but I can't find this word in a good dictionary to verify and improve the definition with. Goldenrowley 05:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

One RFV-sense failed. Removed the one about Catholicism. Goldenrowley 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: I am just not sure of the religious definition, and see it being used in religious texts, but having trouble finding it in the regular dictionaries. Goldenrowley 05:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The New Encyclopedia of Islam defines exoterism as the "domain of rituals, of moral precepts, of institutions". This is in contrast to esoterism, which the encyclopedia defines as "transcendent wisdom and mystical union, of realization through direct knowledge of the Divine". In this context (and correct me if I'm wrong), exoterism seem to refer to the institutional aspects of faith, not necessarily a devotion to doing good.--♠TBC♠ 02:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I will update the word using the above research, thanks.Goldenrowley 02:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

RFV Pass. One context verified and passes. I'm just going to remove the context that failed to verify ("The practice of devoting oneself to good and avoiding all evil. The practice of kindness to everything and avoiding the destruction of all things.)Goldenrowley 14:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense. The defintion "Used to indicate temperature" seems to me not to be justified. It tags along with "Used to indicate age", "Used to indicate height", and "Used to indicate weather conditions", however, I don't think we can say, for instance, "It's 65 today" with the ease that we can say "it's warm today" or "he's 5'10" ". The example given, "It’s in the eighties outside, and next week it’s expected to be in the nineties!", also suggests that this definition isn't able to stand on its own. __meco 12:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems like it might be converted to an "rfd-redundant sense". The last five senses all seem to be instances of using "be" with a bare number (not exactly a noun or adjective) to indicate a count or measurement. The senses above (5 and 6, I think) that give non-gloss definitions of "be" as link a subject to an adjective or to a noun phrase. Is what is needed here {{non-gloss definition|Used to link a subject to a count or measurement}}? DCDuring TALK 17:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the three count/measurement definitions (age/height/weather) can be done away with that simply. They are idiomatic in a way that would be lost in the generalization which you suggest. You can say of a person that "she is 43" and everybody would know that the unit implied is years. If you did the same about an arbitrary tree or a car ("it is 15") you would most likely engender a confused stare. I don't think I fully grasp the implications and use of the non-gloss definition template, but I sense that it is perhaps part of the solution here. __meco 17:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that the specific meanings depend on context and not on inherent meanings carried by "be". "She is 98" could refer to weight, body temperature, or age. The value of the number and the context of the discussion usually limit the number of senses possible. Nor is it limited to people. A tree or a car could "be 10". Certainly my pet could be. I doubt that you would have much trouble with many native speakers with "The surface of the Sun is only 10,000, whereas the interior is 15 million." The common element is the linkage. Arguably the linkage to measurement differs from the other linkages defined at "be". DCDuring TALK 18:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: "I think that the specific meanings depend on context and not on inherent meanings carried by 'be'": Yes, I agree; however, I added those senses as a result of Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#he is n, where two editors (Rod and EP, though Rod sounded iffy) expressed a desire for them. The argument was basically that many other languages normally use other kinds of constructions for these meanings; not a great argument, since most of these senses apply to all or most English linking verbs (not just be), but there you have it. (Note: since three editors eventually expressed opposition to these senses — you, me, and msh210 — it might be worth RFD-ing them.) —RuakhTALK 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
We've had this conversation before, and IIRC we agreed that an appendix on English copulae, linked from the several words that function this way would go a long way towards solving the issue. --EncycloPetey 18:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
That seems like a good idea. It's a little hard on users to have five virtually redundant senses on top of ten others. The translation tables and such an appendix could carry the burden of precision while the entry itself could be a bit shorter. Maybe we can put off any RfDs until we have the appendix, which many of the more learned among us will team up to do in their copious free time. DCDuring TALK 19:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
google groups:"it's 65 today" gets two relevant hits, and google groups:"it's 65 outside" gets another six. You're right that it's not as common as age, height, etc.; I think the reason for that is that we tend to be less precise with weather than with personal statistics, and when we are being precise, we generally include units. —RuakhTALK 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: To remove a spot. Tagged June 2007, but never brought to RfV, AFAICT. Spurious? Widespread use, IMO. DCDuring TALK 16:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Reword it to indicate that it usually refers to removing spots from one's clothing. From the American Heritage Dictionary: "To remove spots from, as in a laundry." --♠TBC♠ 19:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
But it doesn't say that in the AHD; they have merely provided an example, not a "usual usage". You've read too much into their definition. --EncycloPetey 18:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I've never heard of "spot" in this general sense having any application for material not a fabric. Has anyone else?
Whether the meaning is restricted to fabric or not, I would have thought this is in widespread use. Does anyone agree? DCDuring TALK 19:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The sense is usually used in the context of clothing. It's rarely used in other situations. From Dictionary.com: "to remove a spot or spots from (clothing), esp. before dry cleaning"--TBC 22:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
And agreed, the sense should be kept.--TBC 22:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Correction: "fabric", not "clothing". You're still adding specificity to information that isn't in the source you're citing. FWIW, I've never heard "sopt" used to mean "removing stains", and would have assumed it meant the opposite before this discussion. It is regional in use? --EncycloPetey 22:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Look again. It specifically mentions clothing in the verb section under the Dictionary.com definitions. As for regional use, I'm not sure. The American Heritage dictionary doesn't list it as regional or informal, so I'm assuming it's neither. --TBC 00:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Just an abbreviated form of spot-clean - jargon in the cleaning business. Dbfirs 20:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


From RFD.—msh210 17:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the five cites (b.g.c. only). First two might be mentions. Others are better. Chic lit is the best place to look for cites. DCDuring TALK 20:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The definition "deep love" doesn't seem right. Some mentions put it between "like" and "love". Anyone with teen-aged girls to ask? DCDuring TALK 20:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Noun not yet cited. DCDuring TALK 20:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


See lurv and its previous deletions and failed RFDs. --Connel MacKenzie 19:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Noun and verb cited. DCDuring TALK 20:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


See lurv and its previous failures and deletions. --Connel MacKenzie 19:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Not even on groups, except for one possible, but in quotes. DCDuring TALK 20:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

motor-racing circuit

Rfv-sense - Means a group, series or league that does a set schedule of races each season. SemperBlotto 16:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a sum of parts to me, using a meaning of circuit. --EncycloPetey 19:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
In that case move to RFD. DAVilla 21:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

jackrabbit start

Sum of parts? Pretty sure it's a noun. (Needs formatting, and a better definition) SemperBlotto 16:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Found numerous references of it, indicating that it is commonly used. If you count the second sense for jackrabbit, I guess it could be considered SoP, but I'm not sure. It does need to be cleaned up though.--TBC 21:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it's sum of parts; this is merely using jackrabbit attributively. --EncycloPetey 19:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

laced banana

No obvious Google hits. Protologism or invention? (Needs formatting properly) SemperBlotto 07:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


I don't have anything to say about the existing definitions, however, I wonder if there exists another definition, not yet entered, which is the position at bars, nightclubs, sexclubs, etc. of trying to "propaganda people in" from the street. I'm watching a 1997 British TV documentary called Ibiza Uncovered where this occupation is described as "public relations executives", "props" for short. __meco 08:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

b.g.c. is being flaky about this cite (it claims the book is limited-preview but is treating it as no-preview), but it seems likely to be in the sense you describe:
  • 2000, Bernard L. Peterson, Profiles of African American Stage Performers and Theatre People, 1816-1960,[65] Greenwood Press, ISBN 0313295344, page 32,
    [] as a performer and hostess, then as the prop, of the club (1924-1927).”
RuakhTALK 14:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the statement given in the TV documentary may be of too informal a manner to be usable as an authoritative reference for this sense. I'm open to what others feel about that though. __meco 09:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
It isn't really the informality, it is that they were apparently talking about the name of the profession, e.g. mention and not use. Or did they just use the short word? Also, Ruakh's quote almost certainly is "prop" for proprietor, very frequently written "prop." (comma scanno for the full stop, comma doesn't belong there!) Robert Ullmann 10:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Also: the snippet is about Ada Smith, who did become the proprietor. And opened another club called Chez Bricktop. (;-) Robert Ullmann 10:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Well then, never mind. :-) —RuakhTALK 02:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense UK Sold on the basis of misleading financial advice. I doubt that all of that is conveyed solely by the word "mis-sold". I don't find any indication that "mis-sold" in comparable or gradable on any of our Google sources. DCDuring TALK 16:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be the common understanding of the term in the UK. Google books has several entries (aside from obvious verb usage) for each of "mis-sold pension", "mis-sold endowment", "mis-sold policy" etc.--Dmol 18:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes. And there is no dictionary I have access to that shows either "missell" or "mis-sell" as a verb. So this follows the other model of a participle-like form that has no non-participial verb forms (I haven't checked "mis-selling" or "misselling".) and therefore can only be listed as an adjective. Arrghh. DCDuring TALK 19:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that necessarily follows. If I recall correctly, babysit is a backformation from babysitting, which is baby + sitting (and used to be hyphenated); but babysitting is not an adjective. Rather, certain kinds of compounds tend to form only with participles (though backformation frequently generates the other verb forms afterward). (However, I don't know whether this applies to mis-sell, and if it does, I'm not sure how we want to handle such cases. You can see one approach at [[shareholding]], but I can't say I'm particularly happy with it.) —RuakhTALK 20:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, back-formation, certainly. I was following canons of plausible reasoning, not logically inevitability, in line with my general fallibilism on almost all matters, including most people's (including my own !) application of what is purported to be "pure logic". A wiki is a particularly good fit with fallibilism, IMHO.
In any event, in this case, mis-sell seems to exist, whether by back-formation or not I don't know. Assuming my reading of the b.g.c. hits is correct, we will have stolen a march on the other on-line dictionaries. I think we should verify the lemma. DCDuring TALK 20:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems like the verb is accepted then. Originally I asked whether this is an adjective as well as a past participle. If it is also an adjective, does it mean selling 'on the basis of misleading financial advice' or in a more general sense to sell 'misleadingly, fraudulently or in violation of laws or regulations' (as in mis-sell)? Pistachio 16:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it hasn't been cited, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions. From my researches it appeared to be used mostly in the UK and mostly arise in some kind of regulatory/legal context with which I am not familiar. DCDuring TALK 16:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


Better the lemma than the past/past participle/adjective. DCDuring TALK 20:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


I was trying to find the plural form of this so I could add {{en-noun}} when I found there are only 24 Google hits, most of them from wiktionary or similar sites and none indicating usage. Perhaps it is a misspelling. Pistachio 17:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a book hit, published 2003 before the wiktionary page, so at least it isn't completely made up. Nadando 21:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I've got some information, but not usage of that name. Another name like gwarri or guarri might be better. DCDuring TALK 22:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Do we know this is English? The book Nadando found is using African language examples, and the word boom is Dutch for "tree" (and presumably means the same in Afrikaans). This might be an Afrikaans word. --EncycloPetey 00:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (slang) A person incapable of completing a simple task. This person could be also referred to as someone who "sucks at life" (slightly derogatory). Plausible, yes. Real and distinct from other meanings? DCDuring TALK 18:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly merge it with the third sense?--TBC 21:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


Defined as "backward", I think (if this exists in English) it is more likely to be interpreted by an English speaker as "toward the rectum". --EncycloPetey 00:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Cited more or less in "backward" or "ass first" sense. Others senses possible but seem rare. DCDuring TALK 00:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
But not cited to mean "backward" in a general sense. All uses apply to direction with respect to a human body only, and seem to mean "in the direction of the ass". Also, all uses are adverbs; there are no citations for use as an adjective. --EncycloPetey 03:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Only backwards for something that has an ass end, I suppose. And that would be why I removed the adjective senses and amended the definition in line with the citations once they were in hand. Thanks for the close attention you have given these words, which both seem to meet CFI and are not in other dictionaries. Such words can help Wiktionary seem to offer more coverage than competing dictionaries, one hopes. I am sorry that the sense that you were seeking does not seem supported by the citations provided. It is a wiki so please feel free to make whatever emendments you feel are appropriate, including finding citations that support your intuitions. DCDuring TALK 04:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
But only if I find citations, and the literature I normally read is unlikely to be helpful ;) --EncycloPetey 04:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Nor what I read. I search b.g.c. to find cites for words that are a challenge to cite, as these two. Some are more edifying than others. A lot of vulgarities, invective, slang, and recently trendy stuff is in fiction, usually chic lit and tough-guy novels. I never would have gotten to these two except for RU's "not counted" list. DCDuring TALK 05:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


As with assward, above. --EncycloPetey 00:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Cited more or less in "backward" or "ass first" sense. Others senses possible but seem rare. DCDuring TALK 00:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
But not cited to mean "backward" in a general sense. All uses apply to direction with respect to a human body only, and seem to mean "in the direction of the ass". --EncycloPetey 03:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (Internet slang)) polyamorous. DCDuring TALK 17:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Does http://groups.google.com/groups?q=poly%20bi help?—msh210 17:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't sort it out from that. How could one tell what poly was short for? Books give more context. Anyone who could figure out a good search to separate wheat from chaff ought to be able to cite it, but I don't have the patience for it. DCDuring TALK 18:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Adjective (the only sense RFDed) cited imo. Since it's not techie or Internet-related, I wouldn't assume it's Internet slang, but what do I know.—msh210 22:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if perhaps the definitions are too precise. I've heard poly used as an abbreviation for nearly every word which begins with poly-, largely dependent upon context. Now, this would be a nigh impossible claim to back up, and so perhaps it should simply be left as is. But, I still think I'm right on this one. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
True and interesting. That probably applies to more than one abbreviation. Seems like good uses for {{non-gloss definition}}. DCDuring TALK 23:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

key log

Rfv-sense: The key issue or problem, which if (re)solved, would make the current task easy to complete. The issue around which the whole problem revolves. Also: Literal sense seems SoP: The log which, if removed, would free up the whole logjam. DCDuring TALK 18:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Found some references for the second sense. "Electric utilities are the key log." TIME Magazine, "the "key log" of the economic jam was the public utility situation" TIME Magazine, "Vietnam Negotiations: The Key Log" New York Times, "The key log In the educational jam is the department" New York Times.--TBC 13:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Unable to get access to the NYTimes cites. Inserted Time cite, qv. DCDuring TALK 14:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
As for the first sense, keep as per keystone. Also, I believe it's a technical term in the logging industry (not sure about it, though).--TBC 13:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice to have even one real usage of the logging sense. DCDuring TALK 14:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

television system

This entry was originally defined as a Canadian synonym for "television channel", and was recently redefined as "a group of television stations which shares common branding and programming but is not a full television network." No quotations have been provided for either one. They seem like possible definitions, but without citations, how can we tell. (really, User:JesseW (see w:en:User:JesseW/not logged in)) 22:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Whitley whiff

One books hit, 143 raw google. Is used independently, over time. Seems to be used "generically", i.e. not specifically referring to the Whitley plant. Robert Ullmann 10:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


I think this is a "protologism", or nearly. It seems to be hardly used at all. Also, the few Google results seem to use it in a different sense than the one given on Wiktionary: "Let's go buy a few big-name game franchises, and Microsoftify them!"; "management should not be able to Microsoftify any of the products" -- these do not refer to loading (a computer) with Microsoft software. I feel the same about the supposed verb Microsoft. 17:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete. No results show up with a books search or a news search. Purely a neologism, and an uncommonly used one at that (75 Ghits). --TBC 18:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Some cites of a sense slightly different from the one we have, but I'm not sure whether they are enough to meet CFI, as the word is in distance quote marks.—msh210 21:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider Usenet postings sufficient enough to count as reliable sources.--TBC 06:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
There are long-time users who agree with you, but the current practice on enwikt is AFAIK not that way. Incidentally, why do you keep writing "delete" in sections of this page? This is not Votes for Deletion. See the intro atop this page (and contrast the intro atop RFD).—msh210 06:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

so be it

Sense2: A translation and echo of amen. Not sure I get this. Does it add anything beyond sense1? -- WikiPedant 17:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"so be it" would be an alternative sense for "amen", not the other way around. As such, delete this sense, and make "so be it" a separate sense on the "amen" entry (currently it's combined with the religious sense).--TBC 18:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what you're saying, TBC. Do you mean that amen also means "(indicating acceptance of a bad situation)"? I'm unfamiliar with that sense, though that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.—msh210 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me clarify; I' trying to say that sense1 for amen should be split into two. "End of prayers" is hardly synonymous with "so be it" (also, so be it does not necessarily always refer to accepting a bad situation).--TBC 06:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's a literal translation of אָמֵן (amen), but do think it means the same as amen does: it expresses a wish/prayer that something just stated occur. I imagine that that's the RFVed sense means. Did you mean this to be a request for verification of that, WikiPedant?—msh210 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, msh, that sense (expressing a wish/prayer that something just stated should happen) did not occur to me. It would be distinct from sense1. I wonder how well it can be attested. I ordinarily associate "so be it" with a situation which the speaker finds less than congenial but which he/she is prepared to accept (after swallowing hard). -- WikiPedant 20:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that what amen is? Our definition for amen is "so be it"! Perhaps both should be rewritten as "(expressing a wish/prayer that something just stated occur)" if it's citable. Or perhaps something else is meant by the "amen" sense of so be it and by the "so be it" sense of amen. Any ideas as to what else it could be?—msh210 20:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think I disagree on two counts. First of all, it's true that taken literally, "so be it" is a jussive use of the subjunctive and therefore expresses a desired state (just like "G-d's will be done", "be it resolved that [] ", etc.); but my experience matches WikiPedant's, that it always means "O.K., fine, whatever, I can take it." Second of all, in my experience "amen" indicates agreement with something just uttered — "This is the best country on Earth, and everyone who doesn't like it can get the Hell out." "Amen!" — and expresses a wish/prayer only in the special case that the thing just uttered was a wish/prayer — "I wish the people of this country would learn to live together in peace and harmony." "Amen!" (though in some religious circles there's a tendency to blur the distinction between what should be and what will be, such that "Someday everyone will live together peacefully." "Amen!" means both). —RuakhTALK 23:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the "echo of amen" sense given for so be it is evident from [66]. And it's definitely a sense distinct from the "I can take it" sense. But you're right: amen means agreement with a recent statement, not only expressing a wish for the future.—msh210 17:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


This was down as a 'stand in' (initial revision). Thats not what other dictionaries have so I changed it based on the german entry, to a 'disagreeable person'.--

Several dictionary entrances seem to have it; See here
G:books: [67] [68]
I didn't find anything relevent on G:groups.
--nwspel tork kontribz 11:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


-ness terms are supposed to be uncountable. The speedy delete tag I put upon it was removed, with the remover saying "see Google books". I looked, and only one result popped up. No results whatsoever found in Usenet or Google News. This seems to be unworthy of inclusion. Teh Rote 15:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That may be a prevailing pattern for -ness words, but you will find many, many exceptions. For this one, OTOH, I found just one cite, from a well-known author, if not a well-known work. DCDuring TALK 15:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The blog citations do not seem to be from "durably archived sources" and, hence, do not help attest this form. DCDuring TALK 16:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, the blog citations may be removed if wanted. I don't know more about this word than the abovementioned fact, that it is used in a book. If people decide that the book as the only citation simply won't suffice, I'm not going to insist on impetuousness being countable. By the way, thanks to Teh Rote for bringing it to RVF instead of speedy deletion after my remark. --Eivind (t) 17:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
BTW, it is not that the concept can't be in the plural. Approximately the same meaning can be delivered by using impetuosities, for which cites are abundantly available. It may well be that a word ending in "-nesses" is not much used if a synonym (especially from the same root) is available instead. DCDuring TALK 19:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure, the concept can be delivered in plural, but blog cites don't usually work except for slang phrases, which this isn't. I'm sorry for being a bit quick with the speedy tag; the term seemed to remind me of "sightlessnesses", which I created before knowing of the anti-nesses and SB deleted it quickly. Maybe this can be added to some sort of appendix, such as Appendix:Unverified plurals? Teh Rote 02:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I acctually just had the same thought, and think that might be great. There is quite a lot of plurals that I find with just a few (or only one) citation. It might be a good idea to have an appendix for these. --Eivind (t) 07:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Citations on the Citation page will remain after entry is removed. The Appendix is an interesting idea. It would also apply to inflected forms of verbs and comparatives and superlatives of adjectives that had been challenged and under-attested. DCDuring TALK 12:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I've created the appendix and replaced the page with {{only in|{{in appendix|Unverified plurals}}}}. Conrad.Irwin 13:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Great. Just to let y'all know, impetuosity was declared "uncountable" by a contributor, though the evidence is to the contrary. Please check before declaring something uncountable. DCDuring TALK 16:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "one who studies the Great Pyramid as related to the Bible, as opposed to a pyramidist". --EncycloPetey 22:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the b.g.c. hits, this seems to be real; it looks like roughly astronomer:astrologer::pyramidist:pyramidologist. I'll try to add cites sometime this weekend, if no one beats me to it. —RuakhTALK 22:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the added sense is redundant. The Institute of Pyramidology (mentioned in an early etymology for pyramidology) states that "the Great Pyramid is a divine revelation". Divine and supernatural are basically the same thing.--Dmol 22:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but it might make sense to merge the senses rather than simply delete one. —RuakhTALK 23:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


I think this is French. The English is stagiary according to the OED. (Needs formatting properly) SemperBlotto 07:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the French, never heard of it in English. We usually say trainee or intern if it’s a noun, or probationary if an adjective. —Stephen 15:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems like the word is used quite some times in English too, probably just directly stolen from French. To give some examples, [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79]. --Eivind (t) 16:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the Council of the Inner Temple in advertising training posts with, for example, the European Commission, the United Nations,etc use the "french" spelling, without, however, italicising as they would for Latin or other foreign words. I was unable to find any recent use of "stagiary" in this sense, whilst all the post-graduates I spoke to recognised "staadj-ee-air" but not "stagg-ee-airy". —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 10:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC).


google:"mandy rice davies applies" does pull up support for this, but does it meet CFI? —RuakhTALK 13:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


The section that I recently started was just deleted/archived, however, Wikipedia has just received an article on informatization. __meco 13:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if that article was written by Warren Spier or Andrew Sutherland. If so, it is pure spam. However, there do seem to be sufficient hits in Google Books, despite my dislike of the word! Dbfirs 19:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
(later) What is the difference between informization and informatization? Dbfirs 19:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
(& even later)I can't find out why the original was deleted, but the word exists in six forms (cites available from Google Books if anyone doubts it). I think they are all horrid words, but I've entered a basic definition for the most common form. Please improve on my definition (- or substitute yours, Meco). Dbfirs 21:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


I can verify that Mandar is indeed a(male) Indian name Infact it is of indian(Sanskrit). What it means is open to interpretation with more then one meaning possibly being true. One interpretation is that it is a type of tree, and another is that is is one of the names of Lord Ganesh.

My name is Mandar and I was born in Pune, India, in the state of Maharashtra. I also know others by the name of Mandar, born and currently living in india. It is not an uncommon name.

  • I think that you must be thinking of Mandar, not mandar. SemperBlotto 11:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Apologies, you are correct I did misread it as Mandar.

As Mandar doesn't exist, can it be created and this description added?

Only if you put it is the correct alphabet, which I assume would be Devanagari in this case. —Stephen 18:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

English is one of the official languages in India where this name originates. While it can be cited under Hindi/Marathi/Sanskrit/Devanagari as well, it is extremely prevalent in English (just google Mandar to see the hits that come up for example) and can be considered as a true crossover name. There should be no distinction for English names derived from Hinduism or from Judaism or from Islam or from any other religion and language of origin, as long as the name spelling and usage is highly prevalent in English.



here's more info: mandar tree (tree of heaven):

Scientific Name Family Common English Name Common Marathi Name Erythrina Indica


Indian Coral Tree

pangara/mandar 1 2

Interesting trivia I collected about this tree from the Internet :)

1) Bangladesh' traditional warnings of an impending cyclone: Leaves of the mandar and cotton tree turn upside down

2) image of Mandar Ganesh: Image of Ganesh being developed naturally under the roots of white Mandar tree is worshipped for the purpose of unexpected financial gains.

3) [81]



Mandar teerth is named after a celestial tree called Mandar.This sacred place of pilgrimage is situated at the foothills of vindhya mountain.There is a large mandar tree overthere which has some unique qualities.This tree is visible only on auspicious days of dwadashi and chaturdashi and becomes invisible on the rest of the days.Some other holy places situated in the vicinity of mandar teerth are Prapan,Modan,Baikunthkaran,etc.

There is another holy place called mandar but it is situated on the Meru mountain.This holy place is also known as'Syamantpanchak'One important characteristic of this holy place is that there are huge rocks resembling a mace,a wheel,a plough and a conch.

--Mmmm 00:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


This seems made up. Goldenrowley 17:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added three citations from books.google.com + moved it to a more correct name, but I'm not sure if it meets our criteria still. --Eivind (t) 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
RFV pass Goldenrowley 14:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


Homosexual slang? DCDuring TALK 20:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


Pejorative sense "unquestioning religious fanatic"? I don't find support in other dictionaries, and the citations don't use the word "evangelist" pejoratively. They merely state that some or even most evangelists are fanatic, at least according to the writers. --Hekaheka 06:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Fanatic" is more of a connotation associated with evangelism (specifically, Christian evangelists) than a denotation. I'm not sure whether or not that merits inclusion, though.--TBC 21:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Surely it would come under point "6" on that page, under the same meaning? --nwspel tork kontribz 21:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This def is included under number 6, but that could be expanded to end with "particularly with regard to religion".--Dmol 13:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


User:Doremítzwr is back again with his spellings dowdied up with Christmas decorations. He claims that pœem and poëm are valid alternative spellings of poem. —Stephen 18:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Poëm has three (book) citations. Is that still enough for verification, or have things changed? I’ve tagged poëm and pœem as “rare or archaic” and “chiefly archaic”, respectively, both in the entries themselves and in the alternative spellings sections of the entries which link to them, so their validity is much qualified. Is there some other (legitimate) objection of which I am unaware?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Now poëm has six book citations; that’s enough, surely…  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • poëm is fine. But I have serious doubts about pœem. The two cites listed just seem like misprints to me. For reference, the OED lists the followed attested spellings: poeme, poëme, poëm, poemme, poyeme, poyam (the last two properly Scots). Ƿidsiþ 12:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I just added a citation that shows an explicitly intentional use of pœem by Keats.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
That is not "explicitly intentional" at all. Keats is notorious for his misspellings, especially in the letters to his brother. In the same letter in which this famous quote appears, he also writes "whch" for which, "abov" for above, and "chrystain" for Christian. It is a mistake. Have you read any of Keats's correspondence? He spells this word time and time again as "poem"; this is the only occasion where he accidentally uses two Es, and it indicates nothing more than a momentary lapse of attention. Incidentally, the <oe> is not written as a ligature, so this isn't even a citation of the form under consideration. Ƿidsiþ 16:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I have not read any of Keats’ correspondence. I saw that quotation and assumed that the [sic] was to indicate the intentional use of that spelling. My mistake.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about it! But if you want to work on alternative forms you'd be better off going after some of the redlinks above than bizarre misprints... Ƿidsiþ 18:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I may just do that. However, it was the etymology (ποίημα (poíēma) — which would traditionally be Romanised as poeëma or pœema), not a misprint, which suggested pœem to me (after a discussion in which a friend erroneously spelt poem as pœm). Thanks.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Are there other English cases of <-œe->, or of <œ> pronounced /o/? —RuakhTALK 01:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm… None that I can think of. Œsophagus is sometimes pronounced as /oiˈsɒfægəs/ invalid IPA characters (g), replace g with ɡ, but that’s not really the same (and neither is it standard). Can you think of any other examples where an etymological <-œe-> has been reduced to an <-oë->?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


This might be citable. Used by Tolkein and at least one early source he used. Otherwise, it appears in some mentiony works about Hobbits, Tolkein, etc. DCDuring TALK 20:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Cited from The Hobbit, which may qualify as "a well-known source" for purposes of CFI. --EncycloPetey 20:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Found a few more citations on Google Books, dating back to the 1800's.--TBC 21:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The older cites are probably good (bringing us to three), but I would have thought that commentaries on Tolkein's usage would be only mentions, not uses, though I suppose the commentaries bolster the claim that it is a well-known work. To maintain a distinction between Tolkein's uses and, say, Rowling's or George Lucas's uses of words of their own coinage, it might be nice not to rely overly much on the well-known-work criterion. DCDuring TALK 21:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Should we consider a "well-known work" of literature to be of at least a certain age, such as fifty years, to demonstrate its staying power? In any case, I have yet to see Cliff's Notes on anything by Lucas or Rowling. :) --EncycloPetey 21:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Saved by publication and curriculum lag. DCDuring TALK 16:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

death grip

Any takers? Seems really to be a term in mountain biking. SemperBlotto 21:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll find some cites, I'm sure I've heard it before. Conrad.Irwin 21:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
There's tons of references out there. While the entry's current sense is the literal one, death grip can also refer to a "perilous situation or stalemate where failure is imminent" or being "trapped in a corner".--TBC 21:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Added something from the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times.--TBC 21:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
For the literal meaning, I've normally heard this used in references to the clenching of the hands at of near death, so that items in a corpse's hands must be pried out. So when used figuratively, it is a very tight bond, and not necessarily related to imminent danger. --EncycloPetey 21:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily imminent danger, but imminent death. Like the idiom "in the grip of death" (which is possibly where the word was derived from). I'm not sure of the "hands clenching at death" etymology though, I think it's more of a personification of Death.--TBC 22:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree; I'm inclined to think the word originates from the sense I described above. See for example the following quote. --EncycloPetey 22:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The "personification of death" etymology dates father back.--TBC 22:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • 1851 - James Dennistoun, Memoirs of the Dukes of Urbino, Illustrating the Arms, Arts, and Literature, page 197
    His body was under the icy grip of death ; his spirit had fled to its awful account.
Older does not demonstrate it is the etymological source. I posted the quote for context. I quick search of Wikisource finds an 1852 quote from Nathaniel Hawthorne for "death grip". Additional searches may find older quotes. --EncycloPetey 22:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
My mistake, the above reference is actually a quote of another book (The North American Review, page 422), which was written in 1613, making it the earliest reference of the term. A Google search shows there was an older reference, made in 1600 by United States Government Printing Office, but I'm unable to access that source.--TBC 22:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
No, their mistake. The North American Review and United States Government Printing Office didn't exist that early. The date should be 1913, not 1613. --EncycloPetey 22:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess you're right. So it's the other way around then (a quote in 1913 based on the 1849 source). Either way, it's likely that the term has two etymological origins, as evident by the different senses.--TBC 22:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's another example, dating back to 1849, which confirms that it was derived as a personification of death (notice that death is written as a proper noun, referring to w:Death (personification).).--TBC 22:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • 1849 - William White, Notes and Queries, page 127
    After all, such a gesture will do little to release the spirit from the grip of Death.
And M-W dates death grip to 1829. Even if "grip of death" (for the personification) is older, who's to say that "grip of death" for a person in the throws of death isn't equally old? Age never demonstrates etymological origin. --EncycloPetey 22:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It's probable that there's two etymological origins, since there are two very different senses for "death grip."--TBC 22:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The earliest I found for this was the 1792 quote, which is (as far as I can tell from the incredibly convoluted context) an example of just "tight grip". From what I was reading it seems likely that the definition came about either from the grip of a killer or the grip of a killee - I didn't see anything that I would have interpreted as the grip of Death, but then I wasn't looking. I've used some non-standarad formatting to delineate the subsenses of "Tight grip", whether this is a format that wants to be considered or reverted, I'll leave it to someone else to decide. Conrad.Irwin 22:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm betting that "grip of Death" and "death grip" began as two entirely different terms, and that the senses were mixed up with each other over time. I could be wrong, though.--TBC 22:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


Verb sense: to have two members of the same team finish one and two in a competition. Supposedly went through RfV in 2006, but cites out of format, don't seem durably archived. Search didn't reveal any archived discussion of RfV process. Verb might be citable. DCDuring TALK 04:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

google news archive:quinellaed|quinellaing gets more than 133 hits; the sense seems to be “to win both first place and second place in (a competition)”, usually in clauses of the form “<competitor> and <competitor> quinnellaed <competition>”. It doesn't seem to be a given that the two competitors must be from the same team; and even aside from this, our current definition needs to be rephrased to correctly identify the subject. —RuakhTALK 11:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
That's something I didn't get. I thought at least that the horses would be from the same stable, the Olympians would both be from Africa, if not Kenya, etc. The problem with with subject derives from the sense of the "sides" being a little nebulous, but, to me, unmistakable. I wonder if a bettor can "quinella" a race, so that the "same side" is more open-ended than def. now shows. Though the noun usage is mostly about betting, the verb didn't seem to be. Most of the usage seemed to be from the Melbourne Age and a New Zealand newspaper that might be repeating the same stories. I didn't check bylines, but this might be the product of one writer. DCDuring TALK 11:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it does seem that the two winners have to be "same" somehow, just not the same team necessarily. The problem I meant about the subject is that our definition implies the subject should be some third party, since this sense of "have" is used to mark a non-participant as a topic ("yesterday I had a good friend get hurt in a car crash" means something like "yesterday a good friend of mine got hurt in a car crash, and you can imagine how that makes me feel"). So according to our definition, the subject could perhaps refer to the team/stable/continent/country, or to the bettor/audience/venue; but in fact, it seems usually to refer to the first-and-second-place winners themselves. —RuakhTALK 12:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I suppose you don't want to hear of trifected, which is what Kenya often does in the distance events. (Unless Ethiopia is also there ;-) (yes, there are a few random googles, but more are mis-forms of trisected)Robert Ullmann 12:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
RU: Do you have google alerts set to notify you when Kenya comes up in Wiktionary? DCDuring TALK 14:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


The definition says that it is the name of a patented medicine. I'm not sure that would qualify under WT:CFI. This link provides a description of the medicine. -- A-cai 12:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's apparently a brand name of a liquid patent medicine produced in Guangzhou, which can be found in pretty much any Chinese herbalist's shop or Chinese supermarket with a traditional medicine section). It's so prevalent among the Chinese communities around the world I think it could appear here like Tylenol, Prozac, Rohypnol, Kleenex. 16:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
It is not a "patented medicine" - our definition of "patent medicine" is was wrong; it is a medicine that was originally proprietary, but is now generic so that anyone can make their own version, just like anyone can make aspirin, which was itself once a trademark. bd2412 T 09:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


I can't see how this is valid Japanese. It can't be written in kana. Should this be kept or what?--50 Xylophone Players 13:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete it as a made up Japanese word. "Manji" is not a script used in Japan.--TBC 15:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The word hisoka (ひそか) is Japanese for secret. I suppose manji must refer to the Manji era (1658 through 1661). If so, then perhaps the forms hyskoa and hiuszka might be remnants of an old transliteration system. Needs more research. —Stephen 17:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Never mind then. That sounds like the likelier possibility. :) --TBC 22:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Stephen.At any rate I'll begin working on 密か, ひそか and hisoka. Hopefully the nature of this will be revealed in the near future.--50 Xylophone Players 22:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


Has anyone heard of this as a noun meaning 'lumpy sweet, white, refined sugar'? Pistachio 16:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone had removed the noun out of process and converted it to an adjective. I found cites that could be misconstrued as the noun, involving listings of tonnages of various forms of sugar:
  • 1868, Titus Fey Cronise, The Natural Wealth of California: Comprising Early History; Geography ..., page 608
    The monthly yield averages 7000 barrels of white sugar, 4000 barrels of crushed, and 50000 gallons of syrup.
    Clearly, crushed is a simple ellipsis for "crushed sugar" that only can be understood in the narrow context of such a list or an immediately following sentence. This is a fairly generic construction. If "crushed sugar" were a valid sense, then so would "crushed marble" based on an analogous citation. DCDuring TALK 16:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Nothing on g:groups or g:books. Looks like a neologism to me. --nwspel tork kontribz 21:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I've heard it used as an adjective to describe processed sugar. I can add cites as an adjective.Goldenrowley 05:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The citations of the collocation "crushed sugar" are much more easily interpreted as citations of the past participle of "crush". A valid citation of the putative adjective should not appear with "sugar", but with some other word. If the sense shown were valid, then the citations are of a meaning like "sugary sugar". Clearly the cites do not indicate that. They refer to sugar that has been crushed, in other words, the past participle of "crush". DCDuring TALK 16:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be missing the sense of "crushed", as in "crushed velvet". This sense does not necessarily refer to fabric that has been literally crushed, but to fabric that can be described as looking as if it had been crushed. DCDuring TALK 16:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

RFV-context failed. "crushed" is obviously not a noun. However I did retain and move crushed sugar and those quotations to a new page as a compound phrase.Goldenrowley 14:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


Someone needs to check whether merely being a Unicode codepoint satisfies WT:CFI. I don't think so. -- Prince Kassad 22:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I say keep it. If it's somehow typable (which, apparently, it is) then there's no reason not to keep it. It's kind of similar to the double-length letters like this, I think. Language Lover 22:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008


Rfv-sense: 1. The Devil; 2. An evil spirit, a fiend. I can find no support for these in any on-line dictionary. DCDuring TALK 16:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that fallen is sometimes used as a shortened form of the term "fallen angel" (which would explain the first and second senses). I'll have to find some cites, however.--TBC 18:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Google Books turns up some relevant results (using the search term, "the fallen")--TBC 18:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Insert at least three of the best citations for each sense and we'll go from there. DCDuring TALK 18:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Trying to find a few usable ones, but most of the results use "fallen" (in the demon sense) in their titles. I should be able to manage to find three, however.--TBC 08:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

twelve somethings

twelve eighteentwelve eleventwelve fifteentwelve fiftytwelve fifty-eighttwelve fifty-fivetwelve fifty-fourtwelve fifty-ninetwelve fifty-onetwelve fifty-seventwelve fifty-sixtwelve fifty-threetwelve fifty-twotwelve fortytwelve forty-eighttwelve forty-fivetwelve forty-fourtwelve forty-ninetwelve forty-onetwelve forty-seventwelve forty-sixtwelve forty-threetwelve forty-twotwelve fourteentwelve nineteentwelve oh eighttwelve oh fivetwelve oh fourtwelve oh ninetwelve oh onetwelve oh seventwelve oh sixtwelve oh threetwelve oh twotwelve seventeentwelve sixteentwelve tentwelve thirteentwelve thirtytwelve thirty-eighttwelve thirty-fivetwelve thirty-fourtwelve thirty-ninetwelve thirty-onetwelve thirty-seventwelve thirty-sixtwelve thirty-threetwelve thirty-twotwelve twentytwelve twenty-eighttwelve twenty-fivetwelve twenty-fourtwelve twenty-ninetwelve twenty-onetwelve twenty-seventwelve twenty-sixtwelve twenty-threetwelve twenty-twotwenty-five pasttwenty-five totwenty-twentytwenty hundred :P

Just to raise a discussion if we really want those, if we do lets create a category for them and sort them in. Mutante 19:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What a load of junk. I suppose there are also others, conceivable some 1500 or more of them. Shouldn't they be RfD'd en masse ? Or they be "only in" "Appendix:Time" ? I don't see that it does a user a lot of good to see these one at a time. They seem meant for a table of all the synonyms for the times. There are also a few that are not times of not purely times that might merit a true entry for disambiguation. "All words in all languages" indeed. DCDuring TALK 19:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
All (as far as I have looked) User:Shoof. Delete the lot of them. Robert Ullmann 16:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete all, not even worthy of an appendix.--Dmol 17:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The place for this is RFD, not RFV. However, delete all as sum of parts. All the twelve-somethings are twelve plus a number from one to fifty-nine (which could be a minute or a year). bd2412 T 01:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete, I agree with all abovementioned arguments. --Eivind (t) 10:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted all but the last four, as those are of a different nature, and I'm assuming were only included because the nominator (and the other participants) didn't take the time to check each entry individually (and with as much nonsense as there was in that group, one can hardly blame them). If they are to be nominated for deletion (which might be a good idea), they should be on a separate thread. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)



  1. (slang) A complete idiot.
  2. (slang) By association, any contemptible, inadequate, or unpleasant person.
  3. (slang) A person who is used in relationships for reasons other than love.

It is possible that these are real, but I haven't heard or seen them. If slang, where? who? DCDuring TALK 16:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

  • The first two seem OK to me (UK) - an extension of the penis meaning - like calling someone a prick. SemperBlotto 16:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I've heard all of them. But 1 and 3 are more common; someone who is used. Robert Ullmann 16:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Commonwealth? DCDuring TALK 16:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Do we have a sense for, e.g. "The police force is a tool of the government" ? SemperBlotto 16:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Like a basic figurative sense: "means"? No. DCDuring TALK 18:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, now, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 02:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Senses 7 and 9 should be combined, as they're based on the same general sense. Possibly into something like: "a person willfully being used by another person or organization"--TBC 03:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems that 5, 7, 8, 9 should be merged, with a lot of it moved to a usage note. They are all trying to express the same meaning but include connotations of it that are outside the denotation. The quote about the pawn best covers what the definition should convey. As an expert in shills, I would define it as: an unpaid shill. Someone ignorant, though not a complete idiot, of how they are being used to support something. It shouldn't suggest that they are incapable of discovering they are being used as a tool, which complete idiot does connote if not denote. Sports fans are tools of sports promoters. From a quick news search: "Ah, “supposedly”! There I go being a tool of the hegemonic MSM." [83]--Halliburton Shill 21:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The "complete idiot" and "person used in relationships" senses are definitely valid... not so sure about the "unpleasant person" sense, that might be too general. For example Adolf Hitler was definitely not a "tool", unless maybe you're a pretty crazy conspiracy theorist. Note: there's also a verb form. "I was talking to this hot girl. Then this French player guy came and tooled me! (Ie, made me look bad and took the girl)" Language Lover 21:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is very interesting, but there are no citations supporting these senses. I do not think that this is widespread use, which is the shortcut that we sometimes take for colloquialisms that are difficult to cite. Between groups and fiction dialog in books, if these senses are in use it ought to be possible to find citations for them. At the rate that citations have been added so far, at the end of the mandatory month that items stay in RfV, the number of citations will be zero and the senses would be subject to deletion. DCDuring TALK 23:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing the “{{slang}} By association, any contemptible, inadequate, or unpleasant person” is the result of someone trying too hard to write a gloss definition when “{{slang}} {{non-gloss definition|A generic term of abuse}}” would have been simpler and more clear. —RuakhTALK 21:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

avoir de la conversation

From the talk page:

Are you sure this is correct? "avoir de la conversation" means (literally) "to have some conversation". 00:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I can understand the idea, but I never heard it that way (and I'm french) -- 14:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems to merit an {{rfv}} procedure. -- Gauss 15:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I added this, which means I must have read it somewhere. Looking at the date, I'm guessing I saw it in Derrière la Porte by Alina Reyes. But it's easy enough to see where I got the def from – it's in my large Collins-Robert, marked as "old-fashioned". I also see a mention here, though the only possible actual usages I can see are on slightly less salubrious sites... Ƿidsiþ 20:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

patent medicine

Hippietrail tagged this as an RfV over a year ago, based on the discrepancy between our definition and Wikipedia's. I did some research and found the following:

  • "Patent medicine is an English term which refers to the registration with the British Patent Office of a given compound as a medicine. In the United States it refers to those drugs which are sold without a prescription. Thus, in the United States, the term "patent medicine" is a misnomer since no patent is required." Robert H. Coombs, Lincoln J. Fry, Patricia G. Lewis, Socialization in Drug Abuse (1976), p. 10.
  • "The term "patent medicine" originated in England and referred to "patents of royal favor" that kings granted to their bootmakers, tailors, and medicine makers. By definition, true patent medicines revealed their ingredients on their labels as a condition of maintaining their patent on that formulation. The so-called "patent medicines" produced in America were actually proprietary drugs in which the unique shape and color of the bottles along with the label designs were protected by trademark. The actual ingredients within the bottles, however, were kept secret — a practice that only added to the medicine's mystique. "Patent medicine" became a misused term due to the lack of distinction between patented and unpatented medicines in ads and on store shelves." Charles R. Whitlock, Ben Chandler, Mediscams: Dangerous Medical Practices and Health Care Frauds, (2003), p. 39.
  • "Just a word as to the distinction made between proprietary medicines and "patent medicines." Strictly speaking, practically all nostrums on the market are proprietary medicines and but very few are true patent medicines. A patent medicine, in the legal sense of the word, is a medicine whose composition or method of making, or both, has been patented. Evidently, therefore, a patent medicine is not a secret preparation because its composition must appear in the patent specifications. Nearly every nostrum, instead of being patented, is given a fanciful name and that name is registered at Washington; the name thus becomes the property of the nostrum exploiter for all time. While the composition of the preparation, and the curative effects claimed for it, may be changed at the whim of its owner, his proprietorship in the name remains intact. As has been said, a true patent medicine is not a secret preparation; moreover, the product becomes public property at the end of seventeen years. As the term "patent medicine" has come to have a definite meaning to the public, this term is used in its colloquial sense throughout the book. That is to say, all nostrums advertised and sold direct to the public are referred to as "patent medicines"; those which are advertised directly only to physicians are spoken of as 'proprietaries.'" American Medical Association, Nostrums and Quackery (1921), p. 6.

So it seems that what we have here is a UK/U.S. usage divide, with the U.S. usage clearly divorced from ownership of an actual patent. bd2412 T 22:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  • According to the OED: "a proprietary medicine manufactured under patent and available without prescription". You're right that in the US it seems to have become a synonym for simply "non-prescription medicine". Is it ever used this way in the UK I wonder? I don't think I've ever heard it. Ƿidsiþ 09:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


Figurative sense described as valid outside baseball contexts. --Connel MacKenzie 07:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe this in reference to Tiger Woods, but that isn't very far outside. Don't see anything not baseball or very closely related. Well, maybe this. Robert Ullmann 13:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

RFV sense failed; removed.msh210 22:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

cruz gamada

Portuguese: RFV-sense for use to mean the swastika.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

To note: I don’t doubt that this term is used thus, but I challenge whether such usage is correct. I am no speaker of Portuguese, but it is intuitive to me that suástica would mean swastika whilst cruz gamada would mean crux gammata.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You think this is doubtful why? google books for citation or just look at w:pt:Suástica Robert Ullmann 13:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Or just pt:svástica Robert Ullmann 13:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The two symbols are (understandably) often confused; I just wonder whether the same distinction exists in Portuguese (if only academically).  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't recognise a distinction in English. A crux gammata IS a swastika, or at least so I've always thought. Two names for the same symbol. Ƿidsiþ 09:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems a bit complicated, and the issue is not limited to the Portuguese entry. Usage note in Wiktionary article on crux gammata says: "crux gammata is often mistaken for the swastika". Also, the article on swastika does not mention crux gammata as synonym, although it lists more than a dozen of them. The two (or one, if one prefers) symbols have a different history going back thousands of years. Swastika is said to be originally an old Hindu symbol representing the sun or universe, and crux gammata is made up of four Greek gammas, connecting it to divinity in some complex way. Both symbols can be drawn in a number of ways, and some of the ways look same to the eye. There would probably be no problem, if the Nazis had not chosen swastika to their symbol, making it a "bad" symbol and a taboo. I suggest two changes: 1) change the usage note under crux gammata to "crux gammata should not be mistaken for the Nazi swastika", and 2) add crux gammata to the synonyms of swastika. --Hekaheka 12:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn’t put too much faith in the usage note that says "crux gammata is often mistaken for the swastika". That note was put there by User:Doremítzwr. —Stephen 15:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think their histories are separate. The symbol was around before the Greeks; they just called it a gamma-cross because that's what it looked like to them. Ƿidsiþ 08:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The OED partially distinguishes them, in that for swastika it has both a Nazi sense (#2) and a neutral sense (#1), and only the neutral sense says “also called gammadion”. Insofar as gammadion = crux gammata, I think Hekaheka's suggested changes sound spot-on. —RuakhTALK 03:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Neugeborene / Neugeborenes

Genitive form: I think the correct genitive form is Neugeborenen, as in "Die Haut des Neugeborenen ist rosa." Mutante 08:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Neugeborenes can't be the genitive, only the nominative/accusative, and only in syntactic positions where the strong form is called for, since this noun is inflected like an adjective. Angr 08:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

absolute (noun)

The grammar sense: "The first of the three degrees of comparison". I have understood that this is the definition of positive and that an absolute adjective is one that is used as a noun. --Hekaheka 11:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This is my understanding too. Examples of adjectives used absolutely as nouns are "mobile" and "portable", meaning "mobile phone" and "portable TV/radio/etc" respectively. I don't know whether "absolute" is a synonym for "positive" as in the three degrees of comparison, so I can't comment on that, but I suspect the contributor was confusing the two terms. — Paul G 09:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Short reply: It looks like this sense is real, but not a grammar sense.
Long reply: Going through the Google hits, absolute as applied to adjectives seems to have a few different uses, here in order of [my impression of their] frequency: (1) ≈incomparable, said of an adjective that supposedly cannot be compared for semantic reasons, (2) ≈substantive, said of an adjective used as a noun (or with an implicit noun), (3) ≈set off, said of an adjective that is not explicitly attributed or predicated to its noun. Notably, none of these matches the sense in question; however, the OED's sense 10 is “Viewed without relation to, or comparison with, other things of the same kind; considered only in its relation to space or existence as a whole, or to some permanent standard; real, actual; opposed to relative and comparative”, and it goes on to define superlative absolute as “that which expresses a very high degree of quality, as distinct from stating that it is the highest of a set compared together (superlative relative)”. On the other hand, not one of the OED's quotations is about adjectives specifically or grammar generally — its modify-ees are “height of mountains” (1666), “misery” (1753), “space” (1785), “motion” (1822), and “quantity of moisture in the air” (1878).
RuakhTALK 04:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


Any takers? Plus a clutch of related tosh. (Needs formatting properly) SemperBlotto 21:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Lots of references out there for the IP sense. Not sure about the first and third ones, however.--TBC 08:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Cited first sense (barely). Can't find sources for 3rd sense which comes up as "bogon emitter". The second is in widespread use in its field, as TBC noted. DCDuring TALK 19:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

RFV 3d sense failed, removed. Other tag, if any, already removed.—msh210 22:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


"In the sentence "That story has gone to press", is not "press" a noun? --Daniel Polansky 09:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)"

Couldn't find this in the archives. Was it resolved? DP's point seems correct. DCDuring TALK 05:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

proof of concept

Recently resolved on rfc, but now there is a rfv issue, namely the two plurals.

My initial reaction on seeing them was to think that "proof of concepts" should be deleted, in the same way that "mother-in-laws" and "court-martials" are frowned upon. On further consideration, though, I think there is room for two plurals here, but with slightly different senses.

I would say that "proofs of concept" is the "simple" plural, as in In every software house I've worked in the past, I've had to provide proofs of concept of my work. This sentence emphasises the multiple proofs. I would reserve "proof of concepts" for the concept of proving multiple concepts; that is, "proof" is uncountable in this sense.

Hmmm. And what about "proofs of concepts"? "Proof of concepts" doesn't sound right, but let the citations speak! DCDuring TALK 12:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
All three exist in number, "proofs of concepts" having 100 raw b.g.c. hits, the others 5 or 6 times as many. So much for it only being uncountable. DCDuring TALK 12:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

So there is a more subtle point here: does "proof of concept" have countable and uncountable senses? In This document provides proof of concept, "proof of concept" is uncountable, whereas in This document is a proof of concept, it is countable (and therefore allows for These documents are proofs of concept). If "proof of concept" is uncountable only (as I have always understood it to be), then we have no plurals at all, but if it is countable only or countable as well, we need a usage note to distinguish between the two plurals, as, to my mind, they are not interchangeable. — Paul G 09:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"a proof of concepts" (indicating countability) gets 29 raw b.g.c. hits, some of which are clearly countable uses of some noun sense. Interestingly, as I look at these I find that my own notion of "concept" in this collocation can refer to either the integrated concept of something as a whole or the separable component concepts. I'm not sure that we will help any user very much by trying to explain this in the "proof of concept" entry. "Concept" has different meanings, possibly, but not necessarily worth distinguishing in a dictionary entry. (It would be like having a sense for "container" saying that it was an object that contained other containers because it could be used that way.) Proof has both countable and uncountable senses. "Proof of concept" seems to carry over all the combinations of senses and plural/uncountability of the components, while still meriting an entry because it is idiomatic. Is it worth having a long-winded usage note about the combination plurals, when the component terms could carry most of the water? I would consider using {{infl|en|noun|head=proof of concept}}. The usage note could direct the user to the component entries. DCDuring TALK 12:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

preferences - senses

Rfv-senses: pluralia tantum that which one chooses over something else and computing}user-specified settings of parameters in a computer program

I don't see how def is p.t. and why the second is listed as a plural, or why it is deemed a "computing-specific" sense. But I could be wrong. DCDuring TALK 18:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

surrogatum principle

I have made this entry and cited it, but am unsure about two of the three citations. I could not find more. It may be that the citations should be used to support surrogatum in its disputed Canadian tax sense, which got pushed in June, without yielding acceptable citations. DCDuring TALK 11:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Also see Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#surrogatum above. DCDuring TALK 11:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


We should cite it. DCDuring TALK 12:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

  • By the same person who gave us bogon (see above) - probably other crud as well. SemperBlotto 13:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Some are more citable than others. This is probably one of the worst. There is a subculture of folks who like to use cluon, bogon, and bogosity, all probably citable, possibly even without recourse to Groups. DCDuring TALK 13:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: The closest I can think of this term is in "errored player" or "errored out", which is, it seems to me, adverbial, and rare. - Amgine/talk 18:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

So common in telecommunications that I didn't bother with citations, but I'm sure I can find them, especially in technical manuals. I've put some examples of usage under error as a verb. These are not adjectival, but you might like to check to see whether they are convincing. Would you prefer citations? I see some usage as adjectival, especially "errored seconds", "errored blocks" etc., but I'm not an expert in parts of speech. Dbfirs 19:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
b.g.c. gives a lot of hits for "errored bits", "errored second(s)", "errored block(s)", "errored frame(s)", "errorer cell(s)", etc. in the context of digital telecommunications. The evidence I can find is supportive that this is a true adjective. It is graded (<10 times) (very, too, highly), though not often. It does appear as a predicate. OTOH, it very rarely forms a comparative (less, more). DCDuring TALK 19:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I've provided three citations from different fields. According to b.g.c. the first cited book also contains "most errored" (proving the adjectival use?), but it won't give me the quote so I can't check. There is also "the least-errored neural network topological structure and the optimum rheology parameters were obtained using a genetic algorithm" which I will add to the citations. Dbfirs 20:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
(later) Apologies for prematurely removing the tag. Didn't intend to shortcut due process. Dbfirs 22:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


I might have speedy deleted this one, but there might be one citable sense among the six provided. DCDuring TALK 22:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately citation will necessarily require wading through groups. DCDuring TALK 22:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The two senses involving the proper noun Pratt can be readily dismissed as some kind of attack.
A derivation from prate seems implausible, undermining the excessive verbal output sense. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll begin to cite some, as I checked before moving it in from Transwiki there were enough instances to move in as a word although some of the senses seem completely over-blown or else limited. Goldenrowley 23:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
One definition is now supported by cites. 2 definitions marked for verification remain. Goldenrowley 01:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
RFV senses failed, removed.—msh210 22:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


Is this really a word in English? If not, should the language be changed to Hebrew? If its a surname only, it should be changed to a surname and proper noun. Goldenrowley 17:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say, but the word's plural form, which is said to be shalhevets returns zero hits on books.google.com. --Eivind (t) 18:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
google books:"a shalhevet" does pull up one use, but it's italicized and immediately defined, and the context is replete with italicized Hebrew words. This should probably just be moved to [[שלהבת]]. —RuakhTALK 02:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Good research. Hebrew (שלהבת) brings up 830 Google book hits. The word Shalhevet brings up 670 - as a surname Shalhevet: Enough citations to move either way. Goldenrowley 23:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

RFV failed; deleted.—msh210 22:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


I have no problem with the word itself, but I dispute the etymology.

dictionary.com's entry disagrees with our etymology. Surely the title of the dictionary Hobson-Jobson must come from the English word rather than vice versa. Can someone check some paper dictionaries to see what they say? — Paul G 17:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd considered referring the reader to the WP article for the etymology. Your point seems correct to me. The book took its name from the soldiers' expression. As it is, it seems as if Hobson-Jobson is a dictionary named after Messrs. Hobson and Jobson (like Merriam-Webster). The glossary title of course derived from the expression and may have been intended to mimic or mock Merriam-Webster. What conditions allow exemplar names to become names for what they exemplify? DCDuring TALK 18:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for the interjection POS, defined as a "slang, emphatic, and stereotypically urban" abbr. of word up. Really? -- WikiPedant 18:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, really. Cited, IMHO. It makes as much sense as "My word!", the expression of polite shock and disapproval. DCDuring TALK 19:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Yo, DC dawg—OK, I'm down wit' dat. -- WikiPedant 19:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Bro, I be down wit'chu. You da man! DCDuring TALK 19:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Passed; tag removed.—msh210 22:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


See the wikipedia article- it's a made up word but it may still be citable? I don't know what the precedent would be for words like this. Nadando 00:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's just a an old protologism, one of a few low-quality entries by the same contributor. It is an old example of an oft-mentioned, never-used word. DCDuring TALK 04:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Well-documented joke invention. Deleted SemperBlotto 07:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
We do have an entry on dord. Should that be deleted as well?--TBC 00:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Remove strikethrough; re-added word with cites. sewnmouthsecret 19:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion and w:Use–mention distinction. Of your quotations, only the undated one, non–durably-archived one is actually using the word (though the 2001 quotation does at least give the impression that a specific other person has used the word). —RuakhTALK 20:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to re-delete if you disagree. I couldn't find much in use, but felt the term deserved an effort. sewnmouthsecret 20:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I actually think that we should keep it — it's a century old, and it's not a phobia or obscenely long word or POVism or portmanteau or any of the other categories that generate so many fake coinages, so I don't think it's the kind of made-up word we need to worry about — but this being RFV, I have to point out when quotations provided don't meet the letter of CFI. —RuakhTALK 23:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


I'm only seeing mentions and not usage. Nadando 01:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Found two cites. One from the Miami Herald (needs registration) and one from the Boston Bar Association's Newsletter, which mentions that kedogenous is debtor terminology for something that is "brought about by worry or anxiety." There needs to be one more cite to meet CFI criteria.--TBC 01:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Boston Bar newsletter cite is just a mention, looks like a definition taken from an "unusual words" book. Let this one die. Same contributor dumped several of this quality on us today. DCDuring TALK 04:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

RFV failed; deleted.—msh210 22:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Verb to drive away. "Cite" looks like it is of attributive use of noun. Contributor may have been confused by it appearing as "to profligate". Webster 1913 showed is as obsolete Latinism. Webster 1828 showed it as "not used." It certainly needs cites. DCDuring TALK 02:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


"Adjective". 2 senses: drunk, totalled (like a car). I suppose usage would be: "After my car was wrote-off, I got myself wrote-off." We are only online dictionary with this as an entry. It looks like a misconstruction of "write off" to me, but usage surprises me. DCDuring TALK 03:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


To make dull. 0 hits at groups, scholar, news. 1 possibly English hit (but likely in Latin) on b.g.c. 0 hits on the whole Web. Same anon contributor as for Megapod, 2 phobias, zzxjoanw, kedogenous. DCDuring TALK 11:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Failed.msh210 23:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

spicy tooth

Seriously? bd2412 T 08:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've heard of "sweet tooth", but never "spicy tooth". A Google News search brings up six usable cites.--TBC 10:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense - This is supposed to be a word in the English language. The quotations given all seem to be mentioning the word rather than using them in a natural manner. SemperBlotto 13:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A tricky one, as Lojban is an invented logical language. So any reference to the concept of the basic root word (5 letters long only) will be limited to texts talking about Lojban. This [84] is an interesting site, which makes me think that it could be considered a valid English entry. -- ALGRIF talk 10:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
These are of use. Citation number one does define the word first, an iffy case, but then it goes on to use it as one would expect. The other two are also good. Consider:
"When two nouns are adjacent, the first one modifies the second".
The above is by no means a mention of noun. (Its use in the previous sentence is a mention.) DAVilla 07:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

off one's rocket

Is this a spelling mistake for off one's rocker? SemperBlotto 18:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I found 6 examples of it at b.g.c. as an eggcorn or mondegreen. Should we treat these as we treat invented phobias? There's a lot to be said for second-class citizenship for such things. Among other things, it prevents a steady stream of applications for first-class citizenship. DCDuring TALK 19:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
for all intensive purposes -- Thisis0 21:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd forgotten. DCDuring TALK 11:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Cited as adjective. 1 cite short as adverb. DCDuring TALK 12:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
"Mondegreen" refers specifically to misheard lyrics, poems, oratory, etc. -- Thisis0 17:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I can confirm the difference. We are the only general dictionary that defines eggcorn. The definitions of mondegreen are not essentially distinguishable. If we are going to be cutting-edge in including such a term, we should try to get if right. Accordingly, I will be rfving it so we collect some cites (and also definitions now offered on the sites that use eggcorn). DCDuring TALK 18:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, I noticed this re-inventing of the original phrase (rocket for rocker) had some currency and viability by 1959: [85] And, noticed that one of your cites may be an intentional malapropism for one of those classic featherbrained, yet pithy characters. [86] (read the paragraph just before this link; scroll up to the previous page ["She'd probably say one turd doesn't make a... She must be quite a card."]) I've also started a topic at Wiktionary:Tea room#mondegreen, malapropism, folk etymology, eggcorn. Thisis0 19:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


A new user (as his only edit ever) added an English section to this page as a verb meaning "to mince words; to be indecisive in conversation". Can we verify this, or is this a protologism? --EncycloPetey 18:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look real. One-look Dictionary entries are for Proper noun, not this sense. We can give it its month here. DCDuring TALK 18:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


entered into rfv August 2007, No discussion. Header removed.

def: slang: the blogging self. 0 good hits @ groups and scholar; hits at news and books are mentions (including a cite of Wiktionary), 2 possibles at books that are not visible. Bloggers don't seem to use the term consistently. DCDuring TALK 18:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a protologism. Earliest mention comes from 2005. --TBC 22:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Failed.msh210 23:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


Not citable (durable medai) except at usenet. en.wikt is only dictionary with the term. It is a valid term coined by perl maven Larry Wall. DCDuring TALK 23:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

carpent tua poma nepotes

Can this be saved? No explanation of significance. SemperBlotto 21:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


Possibly should be butt-woman, I found a couple quotes using that variation. Eden Phillpotts (1898) Children of the Mists Anyone able to cite this fully, especially the unhyphenated version? - [The]DaveRoss 00:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I added the entry - the unhyphenated version is as spelled on the memorial tablet in Emmanuel Church, Plymouth. I had never come across the word before. Regards Springnuts 06:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • A butt-woman can also be a woman who sells butts (flatfish). But in this instance it comes from the word butt meaning hassock; she cleans the church and helps the verger or pew-opener show people to their seats. SemperBlotto 07:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hollywood science

"The use, misuse, abuse and general ignorance of the principles of Science within the Hollywood film industry, and by extension, more widely in creative media."

Is this used this way? Is this ever used by extension? DCDuring TALK 16:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This sounds familiar to me, but searching Google Books, I found only two books that use “Hollywood science” as a phrase (and not, say, as part of “Hollywood science fiction”):
  • http://books.google.com/books?id=yEbXKtZNWMAC, page 14,
    Mr. Cordes paused the movie, turned to the class, and said,
    “Now, Star Trek is a wonderful show.” [][] But we’re not talking about American culture; we’re talking about science. You can see that if a character on this show uses big, scientific sounding words, the normal audience will think what they're saying about science is true. In this class, I want you to figure out what science REALLY is, not just Hollywood science. Watch this show to be entertained, but not to learn. []
  • http://books.google.com/books?id=rHYuA7VQn4EC, page 120,
    Really small organisms (viruses and rickettsia, for instance) aren’t motile (for reasons we will soon be able to guess), but we can explore the consequences of their hypothetical mobility by resorting to science fiction. In a classic example of Hollywood science, the cast of the film The Fantastic Voyage (1966) is placed in a submarine, reduced tremendously in size, injected into the blood stream of a human being, and asked to cruise to the brain to correct some malady.
The first of these seems to support our definition fairly well, even to the point of mixing “movie” with “show” indiscriminately; but the latter seems to mean “Hollywood presentation of science” in a fairly neutral way.
RuakhTALK 17:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a newspaper article with this as a title. [87] -- ALGRIF talk 11:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


Phrasal verbs are never hyphenated, but the verb senses might derive from the noun "write-off" (itself derived from the phrasal verb "to write off"). Can anyone confirm? If so, it might be worth adding a usage note pointing this out, to save possible future edit wars; if not, these would belong at write off.

I've already deleted "write off" as the supposed alternative spelling of the noun and "write-off" (which was given at write off as a supposed alternative spelling of the phrasal verb). — Paul G 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you as to preferred spellings and predominant practice, at least in print. Not 100% sure that hyphenated and solid-spelled forms are not sometimes used as verbs. "Write off" is sometimes used as a noun. Business jargon is at least as prone to questionable usage as ordinary English and there's no prescriptive authority nor any inclination to pay any attention to one. DCDuring TALK 15:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I would also agree with the entries as they are now. Although alternatives of this particular entry can be found, I would think of such items as "write off" = noun as misusages. -- ALGRIF talk 17:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


The defn that reads "A specification of a conceptualization. Proposed by Tom Gruber (1992)." Is this distinct from the sense that precedes it? And who is Tom Gruber (he's not in wikipedia)? -- WikiPedant 15:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Tom Gruber definition of ontology (see http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/kst/what-is-an-ontology.html) is one of the most frequently used in computer sciences. It is much more general than the sense that precedes it, since it makes no assumption how this conceptualisation will be done (via relationship in the previous definition). —This comment was unsigned.
I don't see how "a specification of a conceptualization" is any different from "a system model". --EncycloPetey 16:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not satisfied that the "proposal" of one professor (even a Stanford professor) on his web site is enough to merit inclusion in a dictionary. I think this defn fails to meet the criteria for attestation at WT:CFI. But, even if the defn were OK, at the minimum it would need to be merged with the preceding defn. -- WikiPedant 21:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

euphemism treadmill

I think this was coined by Pinker, not sure if it will work for an entry. Nadando 23:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

See w:Euphemism#The "Euphemism Treadmill". Synonym for pejoration. //usually appears in quotes, immediately followed by a definition. DCDuring TALK 12:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


Plural is Bigfoot, (invariant); I don't find uses of "Bigfoots" Robert Ullmann 06:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

384 raw b.g.c. hits for "bigfoots" (which yields both upper and lower case forms). On first page: 3 appearances of uppercase form not at beginning of sentence. DCDuring TALK 12:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


Uppercase version. English adjective, one of whose definitions is freedom. SemperBlotto 15:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't find any references yet, but I'm guessing that it can be capitalized when it's being used as a personification of freedom. I don't think that merits a separate entry, though.--TBC 00:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Failed.msh210 23:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


From RFD.—msh210 18:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Failed.msh210 23:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

dominant image

From RFD.—msh210 19:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Failed.msh210 23:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

close of business

Rfv-sense A situation when a business partner is not operating. For example, during a holiday or in the evenings.

I believe that the term refers to an event or a point in time, not an interval. An initial look at bgc suggests that is the most common usage there. I also don't see what a business partner has to do with it. DCDuring TALK 01:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

sistema operativu

This Asturian entry looks wrong to me, since the gender of the two halves doesn't match. The "-a" ending is usually feminine and the "-u" ending is masculine. Is there anyone around who can verify this entry? --EncycloPetey 01:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't verify the entry as a whole, but sistema is indeed masculine in Asturian, just like in Spanish (and just like French système; I believe it's a Greek thing). See <http://www.academiadelallingua.com/diccionariu/index.php?pallabra=sistema>. (By the way, can I just gush for a moment about how great the Internet is? Ten minutes ago I couldn't even have told you that Asturian was a language. :-)   —RuakhTALK 01:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks for that link. I did not know about that site and have already found a tremendous amount of useful information. --EncycloPetey 02:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I know, it's better than the sites for some national language academies! —RuakhTALK 02:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


With an E at the end? I can't find anything to support this. -- ALGRIF talk 12:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

  • See this. OED also has it listed. Obviously an obsolete spelling at least. Given it's the normal spelling in most Latin descendant, it wouldn't be all that uncommon as a misspelling either. Circeus 15:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


The quotes provided don't seem to meet our "durably archived" standard. I also don't think that they support the senses. I see virtually no usage of the psychology sense. This seems a protologism. Most uses seem like mentions (either in quotes or immediately followed by a definition on first mention). DCDuring TALK 02:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Also Wiktionary is only OneLook dictionary to include it. DCDuring TALK 02:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


Is the Japanese section necessary? I mean we don't need non-Hepburn romanisations do we?--50 Xylophone Players 13:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think inclusion criteria should be based not on what kind of Romanization it is, but on whether it's used. With anime as popular as it is, it wouldn't surprise me if this and/or oujo are used. One thing about Hepburn is that it wasn't created with keyboards in mind. I've always had a pet peeve with romanization systems that use difficult to type characters like ō. If we have to go out of our way to type the damn romanized word, we may as well just use the original Japanese! Language Lover 21:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, all over the web, people use a common variation of Hepburn where ō is ou and similarly with uu. It's not just a matter of difficulty to type, but also that many websites don't support the umlaut crap, certainly not in usernames, where Japanese influence is common. Hepburn is a perfect example where the prescriptivists tell us one thing but actual real life observation tells us something else entirely. Language Lover 21:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying but I don't think we need ojo because let's just presume for a sec that Hepburn was the standard romanisation system. If you put ojo as Hepburn it's the same but oujo becomes ōjo. Also ōjo(or oujo as I need to type in hiragana) will convert to 王女 which is the correct kanji for "princess" and ojo won't. Compare this with 人魚(ningyo)& 人形(ningyō) Two similar sounding words that are pretty much unrelated.--50 Xylophone Players 13:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll also see now that I Rfv'd yokai for the same reason; youkai and yōkai are not the same as yokai.--50 Xylophone Players talk 16:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed last year and at that time it was decided that it would be better not to have the macrons in the article name, since they are a problem to type, and since the romaji entries are purely for the convenience of those of us who cannot type Japanese. So we put the Japanese romaji article at sayonara, with sayōnara as a redirect. —Stephen 17:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
This is so completely ass-backwards I hardly know where to begin.
We do not have rōmaji entries "for the convenience of those who cannot type Japanese". Just like we don't have romanized entries for those who can't "type Russian".
We have rōmaji entries because rōmaji is a script used to write Japanese. The language is frequently written in rōmaji in chats, emails, and quite a number of other places. If this were not so, the rōmaji forms would entirely fail CFI, just as a Russian word written in Latin script would. (But not a Serbian word.)
"sayōnara" should be at sayōnara, the redirect is wrong (just as other redirects between spelling/form variants are always wrong) In this particular case, having an entry at sayonara is probably also valid, as it is familiar in English (i.e. like nyet, which we have, although quite oddly labelled English; while certainly not having romanizations of all the other words in Russian!)
The Japanese entry at ojo should be at ōjo, ojō, and ōjō, and not at "ojo", per nom. Robert Ullmann 18:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
There was never a discussion about having romaji entries because Japanese is written in romaji. The only discussions we had were as I described above, that is, for the convenience of those who can’t type Japanese. For my money it a good policy and I think it’s the best policy. Similar arguments might have been made for Russian, but they weren’t, for reasons that should be obvious. —Stephen 18:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Rfd since this discussion is dead.--50 Xylophone Players talk 11:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

ABC cities

There are a few book references that might cover the definition, but most mentions seem to be refering to somewhere else, or get away from the tri-city idea altogher.--Dmol 19:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

ABCD cities

As per ABC cities above.--Dmol 19:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Using subsolar as a noun. One instance here (The Neutron Picasso) - But need more? Goldenrowley 22:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

RFV-SENSE FAILED. Usage as a noun removedGoldenrowley 03:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


A person who believes that the built environment affects behavior, in particular, the belief that social issues such as crime can be influenced by the built environment. I doubt that this sense is citable. DCDuring TALK 00:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

argumentums ad hominem

The standard plural is argumenta ad hominem. A JSTOR search of academic journals yields 23 hits on "argumenta ad hominem" and zero hits for "argumentums ad hominem". JSTOR does yield 2 English-language hits for "argumentums", although one of these is an article in American Speech, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Apr., 1928), which simply includes "argumentums" in the author's list of recommended English plurals of Latin terms. The citations provided for "argumentums ad hominem" in the Wiktionary entry strike me as suspect (the work of writers who just plain didn't know any better). -- WikiPedant 01:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There are yet more hits on bgc for the macaronic "ad hominem arguments" than for "argumenta ad hominem". "argumentums ad hominem" seems to be the worst of both worlds. DCDuring TALK 03:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Obviously the standard plural is argumenta ad hominem, but I wouldn’t go quite as far as to call argumentums ad hominem {{non-standard}} (whereas argumentum ad hominems certainly would be) — perhaps, judging from the citations in the entry, {{context|informal|rare}} would be more appropriate.
The term for the genetic fallacy of dismissing an argument by attacking its arguer is written in many ways: correctly as argument[um/a] ad hominem, but also as argumentums ad hominem, argument(s) ad hominem, ad hominem argument(s), even just ad hominem(s), and probably in many other ways, including, I wager, ad homines for the plural that verges on the etymologically-consistent. How can we best show this diversity of usage?
Sorry WikiPedant — I don’t understand your objection to the citations given at the entry for argumenta ad hominem — what’s the issue?
It is interesting to note that the term argument[um/a] may see some usage outside being the first word of the many phrasal names of fallacies; that, at least, is what is implied by these books: [88], [89], and [90]
 (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Doremítzwr -- My objection to the citations is basically that the sources strike me as unauthoritative. The most authoritative users of this terminology are philosophers or scholars in rhetoric or critical thinking, and they just don't say "argumentums ad hominem". -- WikiPedant 05:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh right; I thought you meant that you took issue with argumenta ad hominem’s citations. Certainly, the citations for argumentums ad hominem are not by authoritative authors. Hence it would be inappropriate to call the latter form standard; however, it exists in a different class from the genuinely erroneous argumentum ad hominems &c., which is why I advocate its being labelled with {{context|informal|rare}}.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Ouch, I just fixed that typo which I made in the original post to this section. I did indeed mean the entry for "argumentums ad hominem," and I think you are too kind to characterize that term merely as informal. If a speaker used that term at an academic philosophy conference, there'd be snickering all over the room. -- WikiPedant 22:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps there would be, but “an academic philosophy conference” is a formal setting, is it not?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been to a few and am not so sure about that. ;) -- WikiPedant 03:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Having been to many myself, I think it's appropriate that the word symposium comes originally from a word that effectively meant "drinking party". --EncycloPetey 03:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


Really? - [The]DaveRoss 02:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned up viddy, added a verb PoS. More attestable plural is "viddies". 1 groups, 1 news hit for lower-case "viddys". An example of why we might need some explicit standards (other than CFI) for including and excluding misspellings and alternative spellings. DCDuring TALK 03:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


A possible nonce word. --Jackofclubs 10:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A protologism, and not a wide spread one (has only appeared in the book where it was coined). As such, delete.--TBC 05:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


Anyone heard of this computing sense (something like "incompatible")? There's nothing very prominent on Google, and for a techy term I'd expect it. 00:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


Nothing obvious on a quick Google. SemperBlotto 15:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Found one usage. There are many mentions in dialect dictionaries. Apparently a true verb. What is standard for such dialect items. DCDuring TALK 16:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that is reasonable. Dialect words won't get into print very often. SemperBlotto 21:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that I should insert dictionary notes to deter a needless subsequent RfV. DCDuring TALK 23:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


See oujo--50 Xylophone Players talk 16:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I don’t understand what you’re driving at. —Stephen 17:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom, correctly spelled entry exists. Robert Ullmann 18:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep in accordance with the discussions we’ve had and decisions we’ve made over the past few years that included some Japanese scholars and linguists. —Stephen 21:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
You don't understand what I'm driving at? What I'm driving at is that 2 words in Japanese (just presume for a second that yokai&yōkai are both (different) words) such as yokai and yōkai are often completely unrelated to one another, even though one who is unfamiliar with Hepburn might easily get them mixed up since the difference between them is just a macron and they are otherwise spelt exactly the same; see the two entries I pointed out in ojo. It would be hard enough for a person to associate the appropriate meaning with the appropriate word if they mixed up things like yokai and yōkai without them being under the delusion that those words were one and the same.--50 Xylophone Players talk 22:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I finally figured out that that’s what you meant. We discussed this problem last year and, I think, the preceding year, and decided that the best way to handle romaji entries is like we do with Latin...that is, without macrons. Since there are usually several different senses for a given romaji entry, they are differentiated in the article using macrons in the head word and, especially, by placing the kanji, if any, at the beginning of each sense. This make Japanese more more accessible to those who don’t know how to type Japanese. —Stephen 22:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion closed. The yōkai related definition is no longer in this entry.--50 Xylophone Players talk 11:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


Well known for "magic mushroom" (the recreational drug), but I'm not so sure about the claimed informal sense for a normal edible mushroom. Can anyone back it up? 21:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


Okay, liquorice allsorts, but allsorts as a spelling variant for all sorts? I hope not! 00:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

intrinsic motivation

Is this anything more than the sum of its parts? The second definition seems wrong - motivation comes before an action. (needs wikifying) SemperBlotto 07:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added a sense that is close to actual usage, though the concept may not pass close scientific or philosophical scrutiny no matter how defined. It is often used in education, referring to students who are grade-motivated rather that those who have a "love of learning". I don't think it is SoP because of the ambiguity of the referent of intrinsic. Intrinsic to the activity (and at which level of analysis) or to the performer of the activity? The potential confusion is illustrated in the two RfVd definitions given. DCDuring TALK 11:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

hostessship, headmistressship, goddessship

The usage note at hostessship says, "The term appears unhyphenated in the unabridged second edition of Webster's Dictionary, yet is spelled hostess-ship in subsequent editions. This trend is also prevalent in headmistressship and goddessship, which, respectively, may be hyphenated."

  • English does not allow the same letter three times consecutively, and usually hyphenates to avoid this (compare cross-stitch), but I acknowledge that these closed-up forms might have currency.
  • American English more readily closes up words that are hyphenated in British English. If these terms are to be included, they need to be marked as "US" because they would be considered incorrect in British English.
  • The fact that Webster's amended "hostessship" to "hostess-ship" in later editions suggests that they recognised they had made an error.

By the way, "respectively" is redundant here as "may be hyphenated" applies to both words. — Paul G 08:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am unaware of the rule. There is no authority to promulgate a binding rule. Wiktionary does not normally give much weight to rules, except with respect to context tags. I doubt if it is "error" correction as much as changes in prevailing usage or in information about such usage that the other dictionaries follow. DCDuring TALK 10:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Why are these items at RfV??? hostessship, because used in w:A Winter's Tale, would meet the well-known work rule. The others are cited. No argument challenging the citations has been made. DCDuring TALK 10:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, the First Folio spells it Hoſteſſeſhip; are you sure that the specific edition quoted in our entry constitutes a well-known work? (Also, I'm not sure the well-known work rule applies to misspellings, as this may be; but then, RFV isn't great at identifying misspellings.) —RuakhTALK 00:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I am aware of the question of editions in Shakespeare, which is why I got the First Folio reference into the notes. I have no idea what ought to constitute a well-known edition of a well-known work. That it was Samuel Johnson's I thought would help the claim. This is the first time that I've seen this issue come up. DCDuring TALK 01:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact remains that whatever edition it is, people will read it and can therefore decide to look up the word. At the very least, we should have some sort of "obsolete form of" entry. By the way, because this section isn't precisely titled "hostessship", the RFV link wasn't working, so I thought it was un-listed and removed the tag. Language Lover 01:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I've restored it, thanks for mentioning. —RuakhTALK 01:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't notice it was you that added that. I don't really know enough about the history of editions of Shakespeare. —RuakhTALK 01:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the First Folio is, more or less, the first "authorized" edition of the plays. Some of the older "Quarto" editions were "pirated". I think the quality of some is considered poor, but Shakespeare was dead by the time the First Folio was printed. In any event this was apparently the first publication of "The Winter's Tale". Presumably the later Folios (let alone the later editions) reflect both true corrections and adjustments to then-contemporary printing and spelling conventions. Because the issue here really is just spelling, we might have to wade into this in more detail than normal. Is the a true Shakespeare scholar in the house? DCDuring TALK 00:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with DCDuring, RFV is the wrong place for these. Let's compare freeest, which only passed as a misspelling, but that's perhaps because of the recency of the term. However, also compare various other attested terms that violate this so-called "rule" which no one has provided citations for: skulllike, bulllike, gillless, crosssection, etc (please don't RFD any of those until this discussion is over). Bear in mind the sheer number of words that break rules (slough can be pronounced three different ways, efficiencies breaks the "I before E except after C" rule twice, and barbaric pronounces the "bar" combination two different ways). To exclude clearly attested words because they break rules is completely absurd. Teh Rote 00:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The rule “‘i’ before ‘e’ except after ‘c’” is only for an [iː] sound; an exception is made for <ies>-terminal plurals of <y>-terminal nouns. Also, you must agree that skull-like, bull-like, gill-less, and cross-section are a lot more common that their unhyphenated forms. In language, I’d wager that any rule of broad application will have its exceptions, especially in one so widely spoken as English. Nevertheless, this does not bar such terms from being included (as long as they are attestable); however, it is only wise that it be noted when they “buck a trend” when some may term such bucking as “violating a rule”.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


Protologism? Do recessions only happen in the US? No formatting, somewhat encyclopedic. SemperBlotto 16:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Now cleaned up. It seems to be a protologism; all the hits at google books:recessionista are in Romance languages (mostly Portuguese and Italian), as is one of the two hits at google news archive:recessionista, the other being for a different sense (roughly “one who almost seems to want a recession”). There are eight hits at google news:recessionista, but most are mentions (though there are three that I'd consider uses), they're all within the past five weeks, and one explicitly describes it as a new word. I suggest moving the current quotations to Citations:recessionista and adding this to our list of entries to come back to next year (or in three years, if the current BP discussion goes the way it looks like it's going to). —RuakhTALK 00:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense - musical sense. Not in the OED. Not in Grove music online (not that I can find). SemperBlotto 15:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This'll be a pain to cite, but it's definitely real. All the normal solfege (sp?) syllables representing notes that are a full step below the next normal solfege syllable (viz do, re, fa, so, and la) have counterparts in -i that are just half a step above, i.e. sharps (viz di, ri, fi, si, and li). Similarly for flats: re, mi, so, la, and ti produce ra, me, se, le, and te. (di=ra, ri=me, fi=se, si=le, li=te.) The system isn't perfect, because in the letter-names, E♯ and F♭ and B♯ and C♭ do exist, they're just equivalent to F, E, C, and B, respectively, whereas the solfege system doesn't even have analogous names, at least for the sharps (I'm less sure about ?fe and ?de, but I've never heard them). Of course, with solfege these things are less necessary, because most people use a movable do, such that sharps and flats aren't as common as with the letter-names. —RuakhTALK 23:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Sp.: solfège (French) or solfeggio (Italian)  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
google books:do re mi fa so la ti di ri fi si li ra me se le te pulls up a lot of hits, many of them relevant; but I'm having trouble distinguishing mention from use. I'm not sure what the difference even is, for something like this. —RuakhTALK 23:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

basket of chips

Is this for real? If so, where is it used (I've never heard it used before here in the UK)? It must be at least informal, if not slang. — Paul G 16:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"basket+of+chips"+smile|grin has 'smile like a basket of chips' 19:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
If this is the case, then this needs to be moved to the full verb phrase. I've left a message for the contributor here asking if the term exists outside the verb phrase. — Paul G 09:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


I cannot find evidence that this (or its relatives) are considered English by other dictionaries. But it might be citable in works about the theater, especially historical works about the Italian theatre. OED? DCDuring TALK 01:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense verb: To mislead in an authoritative tone; to bullshit. Despite being a practitioner of the art, I'd never heard of the term. DCDuring TALK 02:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Found some citations: "The high-concept undertaking is megged by “Alien vs Predator” director Paul Anderson, his first project since the blockbuster thriller" (The Inquirer), "A Very Special Love is directed by Cathy Garcia-Molina who also megged the hit romance-drama One More Chance" (ABS-CNB News), "'That’s what I like about him,” Krista said of Dom, who has megged a number of TV shows, among them the youth-oriented “Click” and the fantasy series “Darna" (Asian Journal). While these cites do indicate that meg is used as a verb, based on the context, the verb sense seems to mean "to create" rather than "to bullshit".--TBC 05:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be derived from "mega" and could mean "to make bigger", or "to build up", or "to hype". Maybe. -- ALGRIF talk 15:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


monster or boss, a shorthand way of referring to any enemy which is computer controlled. Never heard of it. Seems a bit fishy. DCDuring TALK 11:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

MOB also means Man Over Board. Added a line for that. --Hekaheka 12:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Benedict Arnold company

From RFD.—msh210 20:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete as SoP: "Benedict Arnold" + "company".--TBC 23:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, right... in other words, a corporation that incites treason, or is that the same thing? Offshoring is not a violation, and our economic partners are not the enemy. This term is a sum of parts only in the weakest sense, that of betrayal, the how of which is not obvious. DAVilla 07:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
In any collocation, one meaning of each polysemic component has to be selected. It is only context that makes it obvious which ones were intended. Kerry's writers intended to say that the companies "betrayed" their workers and America. That the how is not obvious is part of why the expression has not been widely taken up. In any event, this would need to be cited so that the meaning was as clear as it could be before we can make any RfD-style decision. DCDuring TALK 11:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
This is RfV. SoP is not relevant here if the item has been sent here to collect citations and possibly get its definitions adjusted, as this one has. It needs citations that establish a non-SoP meaning, if there is one. If "Benedict Arnold" means "traitor" or "influential person switching sides in a war", then the way "Benedict Arnold company" seems to be used may not fit that. The way it seems to be used is to mean "company deemed traitorous because it manufactures goods outside US of a type it formerly made in US." Or the reason why it is deemed traitorous doesn't matter, just the application of the epithet, which would make it SoP. DCDuring TALK 03:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
This could have been resolved on RfD instead of splintering the discussion between RfV and RfD. I read the original discussion, believed it counted as a SoP, and commented as such here since the original discussion on RfD was closed.--TBC 01:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I note that no one has yet collected the citations to make a case for this. DCDuring TALK 11:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


Google pravopiždžija (BooksGroupsScholarNews Archive) pulls up basically nothing.

RuakhTALK 21:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's Croatian, created by an established user, so I have a strong feeling it's a misspelling.--TBC 22:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Right spelling but rare usage, especially in writing. It’s not new but you probably won’t find it Google books. Some Croatian dictionaries carry it. —Stephen 01:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Provided 3 cites that don't span 3 years (yet), but its listed in the dictionaries that were written >10 years ago so it surely isn't a proto/neo-logism. There are also some hits for this and the misspelling pravopižđija in inflected forms on various fora and blogs, but rarely in formal texts since this is chiefly a colloquialism (perhaps citing blogs would be better, but I don't trust that kind of manipulable media as a reference). --Ivan Štambuk 19:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

rear admiral (lower half)

We don't normally allow such article titles. But is this one pukka? SemperBlotto 07:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I had the same gut reaction as you, but this does seem to be a standard format phrase. It gets 658 b.g.c hits, although some of them are in the format "rear admiral, lower half,..." or rear admiral lower half instead. The parenthetical form seems the most common on a quick look. --EncycloPetey 16:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: this is the O-7 rank, formerly known as Commodore, being applied to non-line officers. - Amgine/talk 18:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

rear admiral (upper half)

As above. SemperBlotto 07:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the O-8 rank, formerly rear admiral being applied also for non-line officers. - Amgine/talk 18:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


3rd sense: third of any set period of time? It is tagged as nonstandard, but still, is it real? Do we need the second sense (one third of nine months), as it is exactly three months, just as stated in the first definition? --Hekaheka 14:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Golden Gate Bridge

Has passed RfD. It's sole current meaning is literal and does not seem to justify its inclusion, but there are no citations shown supporting any other meaning. DCDuring TALK 11:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Have we ever had a discussion about including proper names of world-famous landmarks? I don't recall one. --EncycloPetey 05:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Nor I, but I haven't been here long. The RfD discussion of this was quite brief and resulted in a it passing. This is the only one of a list of these brought to RfD which passsed RfD. I would assume that it would have to meet attributive use requirements under our current rules. DCDuring TALK 12:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Found in books.google.com: "Hoga, the Golden Gate Bridge of Sweden", "Pont du Gard — the Golden Gate Bridge of 19 BC", "jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge of political reality", others where the context is not clear. I don't think an attributive use requirement is healthy because in many cases we'd be trying to force a connotation that may not carry weight. Even if it's credible by our standards, three out of millions of citations doesn't make it noteworthy enough to mention. DAVilla 06:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


A fairly plausible anon.’s contribution; cites anyone?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I distinctly recall that there was a Wikipedia article on this topic which was redirected to misotheism on the basis that there was scant evidence for this term; there's a Wikipedia AfD debate here, where the nominator asserts that the term was coined in a philosophy professor's lecture in 1998 (reduced to writing here). One Google scholar hit:
    • 2007, James J. Hughes, The Compatibility of Religious and Transhumanist Views of Metaphysics, Suffering, Virtue and Transcendence in an Enhanced Future, p. 16.
      This thesis would be consistent with the theodical position that evil results from humans having been given free will in a created universe by a hands-off God (Polkinghorne, 2000), or that no human explanation of evil and suffering could be successful in understanding the mind and purposes of God (Kant, 1791), or even with "dystheism" or "maltheism," the view that God is not benevolent, and may even be malicious.
  • Almost no Google groups hits; one 1997 thread titled "Distheism", and this:
  • Cheers! bd2412 T 16:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The Scholar cite has it quotes, too. I've put the cites on the citations page in preparation for its possible deletion. It is only a semantic shade or two away from maltheism, so it might not get much uptake. I expected it to mean "disfunctional theistic beliefs". DCDuring TALK 17:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
If it follows the pattern of, e.g., maltheism and pandeism, it should refer to a characteristic of God, i.e. a disfunctional God. bd2412 T 03:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008


Latin alternative spelling of femina, allegedly. My Latin is abysmal, but if this were the case, then wouldn’t its existence give rise to defœminate*, effœminate*, fœminine*, fœmininity*, fœminism*, fœminist*, fœminize*, &c. in English?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.... I don't find the spelling foemina in Lewis & Short or in Souter, but it does appear in Calepinus and Facciolati. It also turns up in at least six medieval and Renaissance Latin texts. All the examples of "foe-" words in Classical Latin begin with "foed-" or "foet-". What this means (I think) is that it's an affected medieval spelling that was not present in the Classical language. --EncycloPetey 04:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

  • 1590: Edmund Spenser, The Faerie Queene (1758 ed.)
    The one imperfect, mortall, fœminine,
    Th’ other immortall, perfect, maſculine;
  • 1614: Samuel Purchas, Purchas his Pilgrimage
    And here, beſides other ſtreames, ſlideth Thermodon, ſometime made famous by the bordering Amazones. Of which Manly fœminine people, ancient Authours diſagree

And even:

  • 1773-74: William Bartram, "A Report to Dr. John Fothergill" (1943, Trans. Am. Phil. Soc.)
    A very fiew days after the fly appears the fœmale deposits her Eggs in clusters on the branches or leaf of the Tree ... Either the male or fœmale, are almost constantly, at the mouth of the nest

--Ptcamn 19:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

But those don't bear on the existence of this Latin word. I've been doing some "-oe-" investigations recently and there are some English spellings with "oe" that seem to have no basis in Latin, like oesophagus, which I was completely unable to find even in Medieval Latin from Britain. There seem to be some English words that have adopted "oe" as a Latinoid affectation without that spelling ever occurring in Latin itself. --EncycloPetey 21:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


RuakhTALK 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

nom nom nom

Really? SemperBlotto 07:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Should be num-num-num. —Stephen 07:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
There's pleny of usage with this spelling. Almost half a million sites on Google web, almost 50,000 on images. --Dmol 08:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
It's an onomatopoeia that's surprisingly widespread (though alternatives "om nom nom" and "om nom" are equally as common). Some cites: "This should feed me for days. [Nom, nom, nom]" (San Francisco Chronicle), "Nom nom nom: Alligator Season Starts Today!" (Miami Times ), "Retro-gamer cupcakes OM NOM NOM NOM" (Boing Boing), "Nom nom nom: Indiana welcomes two new restaurants for students" (The Penn), "This Chain Chomp Cap Is Like "Arf! Arf! Om Nom Nom" (Kotaku)--TBC 21:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


No obvious Google hits (on the first page). Is it a trade name? SemperBlotto 10:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

[91] is interesting.—msh210 20:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I assume that that one's an obsolete spelling or misspelling of linen. —RuakhTALK 01:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

deflavorizing machine

Hm.... --EncycloPetey 19:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations:deflavorizing machine. It may meet CFI by a whisker, though most books are quoting Woody Allen, while the groups (as usual) seem more imaginative. Conrad.Irwin 20:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if cited, isn't it SoP?—msh210 20:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can only find one group hit for deflavorizing without the machine bit, so while technically yes, I'm not sure how we would treat it. Conrad.Irwin 20:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it SoP, because you can't tell it's an imaginary (or jocular) item from the mere sum of the parts. --EncycloPetey 20:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


msh210 21:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

rolling down the windows

Is this legit? Does it have wide currency? Is it a noun phrase, or does it belong at "to roll down the windows"? (That is, would you say, "Rolling down the windows is his favourite move" or "He is always rolling down the windows"?) — Paul G 16:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

knitters window

Submitted anonymously last year.

  • Does this exist and have wide currency, or is it restricted to Derbyshire or to the book the word is said to come from?
  • It seems likely to me that the first word be the possessive "knitter's" rather than the attributive noun "knitters". Can anyone confirm? — Paul G 16:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

out the window

Is this really a noun, as the definition suggests? If so, is it actually "out of the window" ("out" being a slangy way of saying "out of")? A cursory glance at the first 10 Google hits out of 13,500 for "an out the window" gives this as an attributive noun phrase only, mostly (correctly) written as "out-the-window".

If it is not a noun, then I think this is really "go out of the window" and should be defined as "(of an opportunity) to be squandered" or something like that. — Paul G 16:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's (what we call) an adverb (as in "go out the window") and perhaps also an adjective ("another opportunity out the window!" —or is that just an elision of "(has) gone"? See [92]). Same for down the drain, which we currently list as a preposition and which is tagged with {{rfc}}.—msh210 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I often heard it when I was much younger. I heard it as both adjective (predicate) and adverb. In meaning it was mostly as MSH describes. "That [opportunity] is out the window" or "They had a chance to win the pennant, but now that's out the window" are examples. I can't quite get an attributive use scenario though. I'm not sure how many verbs besides "go" that it can modify as an adverb with the "idiomatic" meaning, which is just a figurative extension of the literal meaning. DCDuring TALK 18:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Still in relatively recent use. Lyrics from a 2001 Sugar Ray song: "All the things that we used to know have gone out the window." --EncycloPetey 21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


Has this really entered the language as a noun? SemperBlotto 18:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Added abbreviation, which seems citable. No use of plural noun. All usage seems best construed as abbreviation. DCDuring TALK 12:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


2 portmanteaus. Print citations or widespread UK use? DCDuring TALK 12:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Scrummy for scrumptious is fairly common, though informal (and is in the OED). The school run term seems to be an invention. SemperBlotto 21:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


standby claims to be a verb ("please standby while I check that for you"). I think that the verb is always two words, stand by, even if the person waiting is "on standby". Otherwise wouldn't there have to be inflections like standbyed, standbying? 18:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good example of the reasoning behind attesting to the existence of a word. I hope that you could register as a user and help. DCDuring TALK 03:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Cited. Citations can be found for "to standby" (4 shown) as a verb and for "standbying" (only 2 found shown). This should be enough to warrant inclusion as verb, but I'm not so sure about the inflection line. DCDuring TALK 03:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Even if cited, certainly this is a misspelling or misconstruction or something? At the very least a neologism. DAVilla 07:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


Looks potentially legitimate, but was added by an anon who otherwise added only a person's name as an entry. --EncycloPetey 20:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Original entry was absolute tosh. Replaced by a definition based on -pedia and the OED. SemperBlotto 21:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


Real word or another Urbandictionarism? --EncycloPetey 04:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's as real as WTF http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wtf and more real than many others with many technical usage examples. —This comment was unsigned.

  • Just one Google books hit. And our entry is a mess. SemperBlotto 07:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
There are now a number of cites......but I don't know how many (if any) count. Some are from sources which may not qualify as durably archived, and some are clearly mentioned. I removed two which obviously wouldn't count, but would someone with a bit more rfv experience than I (not a terribly daunting qualification) take a look at this? Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
They are mostly blogs, which we don't accept as durably archived. Clearly there need to be fewer senses (1-3). There seems to be a lot of usage on scientology related usenet groups, which may mean that one or more definitions will need a scientology context tag. I've left a note on the contributor's talk page. DCDuring TALK 03:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Added cites with assistance from Atelaes. What else is needed now? More durable cites are available from Microsoft Code NZ challenge and World of Warcraft for the word use if needed? 01:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Verified links contain content and usage meets inclusion criteron. Asil 01:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
All three citations for the first sense, the only one that has three citations, are uses followed by definitions. As such they don't count. DCDuring TALK 11:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Uses with definitions do count; however, the 1970 cite only mentions the term. The other two are valid.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
So, I've been citing with one hand tied behind my back. Thanks. This word would be much more citable with a scientology context tag, using Groups cites. DCDuring TALK 15:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Added Additional Items Derived Terms - References. This is not solely a Scientology word. It has a history of attempts at "ownership by the Church of Scientology" but many references exist for long term use of the word. Asil 00:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
rfv Resolved - Page Verified Asil Tag removed - replaced. Page meets rfv as determined by Doremitzwr and Atelaes

Time for Resolution has passed - more than 4 verifiable sources have been repeatedly presented.

First of all, I have never claimed that this entry has met rfv (nor has Doremítzwr, as far as I can tell). Secondly, it is generally in bad form for a page creator to remove an rfv. Please wait until disinterested parties can assess the entry and, if they see fit, remove the rfv. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed I didn’t; I was merely clarifying a point of policy. I also agree with all of Atalaes’s other point in his post immediately hereinbefore.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, while this may not be strictly related to the rfv, I think that the word should receive a Scientology tag, as DCDuring has already noted. All of the references seem to come back to Scientology or Hubbard at some point. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Can the word have both a Scientology Tag and Common Use tag? As that would be correct, please.

Pardon my misunderstanding and thank you both Doremitzwr and Atelaes for assistance with corrections. On Wikipedia there was a user picking away at the Obnosis, Xandu, Anonymous Group and Cult of the Dead Cow pages named AndroidCat [[93]] with COI [[94]] while ignoring these pages: WTF, and discussing it all here: [95] and [96]. Let's hope that no censorship agenda will prevail here. The words is in use; it meets the criteria - has extensive names including Team Obnosis in Microsoft NZ, Wow Layer 10 Undead Player, Music and Technophilia, as well as Scientology - just as the neoglism (then, now a used) word existed before LRH adopted it in 1965. Additionally obnose and obnostic include RollingStone Article, and many non-scientology references. LisaKachold 22:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The dispute on Wikipedia has nothing to do with the discussion here (and incidentally, seems to have been dismissed out of hand by an admin there). We have no censorship agenda against Scientology anything, but at the same time will not grant Scientology related entries special privileges. This word must meet the same criteria which we set forth for all words. At the moment it is teetering at the borderline of doing so. As for the Scientology tag, all of the cites I've looked at so far (I have not, admittedly, looked at all of them) go back to Scientology in some way. In my opinion, unless three cites are provided which have no relationship to Scientology, the tag would have to stay (and no, there is no common use tag). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
There are many cites now that don't relate to Scientology:

Microsoft's Imagine Cup Obnosis.com Urban Dictionary CRES Walter Alter Bob Black

Obnosis.com as a domain fits the qualification of a verifiable instance. Urban dictionary is also a verifiable instance? Other wiktionary pages use it? Good that Wikipedia is staying Neutral, I appreciate that! AndroidCat's agenda certainly seems to have intention to delete or remove pages based on his posts on those two links. But as you said, Wiktionary is not Wikipedia. As you said the subject of what is and what is not neutral in this age old Scientology subject is hard to determine. Extensive names, mucical bands, songs, World of Warcraft teams called "obnosis" appear outside of the realm of Wiktionary (which met Wikipedia) - more uses of the word can be found. For the derived terms (now displayed on the page discussion talk page) there are additional uses, which are all indications of a verifiable word, generally historically for Wiktionary? I would like to point out that extensive other unverifiable words exist on Wiktionary? Again the word is NOT JUST A SCIENTOLOGY OWNED word - it preexisted before Scientology in the 1950's. Asil 17:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Added a derivation tag for the scientology use, of which there are 4 verifiable cites. Added additional cites for the Noun as a name at Microsoft where the term is also used under the base use for the Greek literal translations of the word (rather than the derivation of "observation of the obvious" used in slang by Scientology), which is literally: "knowledge = gnosis" plus "ob" = to observe; (and) "nosis" = illness plus ob = "observe" Asil 17:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


I've redefined this word, removed the etymology (because it looked like guesswork), and moved the non-durably archived cites to the citations page. There are a lot of groups hits, mainly from "alt.clearing.technology" and "alt.religion.scientology", although a few unrelated ones to be found. Probably meets CFI, certainly enough use over enough time (with groups included) but not certain about the independent-ness. Conrad.Irwin 21:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Reversed "obnosis" redefinition of word as 4 Scientology only understood references without definitions (removing 10 common use cites) in attempt to change sense by Conrad.Irvin == Conrad "redefined" the term as a Scientology ONLY term, taking away well configured and correct (User:Atelaes verified) latin and Greek root Etymology, common use cites, leaving only the Scientology "vague" sense (with Scientology "inner sanctum" sentences that are nonsensical to common users). The word was already clearly re-defined well today, complete with latin and greek references, which was the number of hits from the edits working on it and verifying it (not Scientology). [What are the user track IP addresses? It's common for Scientology Agenda edits to play both sides]. Since you removed as many as 10 good cites, that show the common use well, as well as "common news" scientology references with the word obnosis used, including many definitions, changing the word to scientology only terms and cites, I reversed your "redefinition" (read vandalism). Scientology can define their sense of their term for the word obnosis in their dictionaries - this is Wiktionary - where common use and general media like NewsWeek, Microsoft, and various Science references are important. Your "redefinition" of the word was outside of the realm of acceptability for Wiki edits - see the Talk Page for Examples of replaced page and why. Asil 22:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

cloud cover

Rfv-sense: "Also known as "cloud insurance" or "data insurance". This fundamental digital risk protocol..." Seem really odd. The same user has added cloud insurance. Protologism? --EncycloPetey 20:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


I think it possible that YouTube (Citations:YouTube) will make the grade, what about the lowercase version? Conrad.Irwin 11:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I have enough citations for YouTube#Noun and YouTube#Verb, and am closing in on YouTubed#Adjective. I think everyone who can be sued spells it YouTube. Perhaps on groups, unless Google automatically "corrects" the spelling before displaying it ? DCDuring TALK 18:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that this probably deserves an entry, particularly for the thousands of times I've seen the phrase YouTube generation this year. Personally, as a middle-aged man, I only encountered YouTube this year but it is mentioned in various areas: politics, commerce, sociology...--Jackofclubs 10:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the lowercase version should probably be used as an alternative spelling or at the very least, redirect it back to the uppercase article as I'm sure it's still widely used even though I would probably use it with capitals (= "I'm just YouTubing", "I'm on YouTube", "Just YouTube it!" and so on). I think it's okay it's to be a bit loose with this, at least in the verbal sense, since it's not a very standard form of English grammar to use two capitals in a verb for instance. AndyPandy 20:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


"A giant monster" (capitalized). The linked Wikipedia article covers only comics charatcers by this name. --EncycloPetey 23:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


I can't find hamster used as a verb anywhere.--Brett 00:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Groups is the best for finding terms like this in use. I found various senses for the word, but none seemed to be in use on multiple groups in adequate count. I could not find the sense in question, but I didn't do an exhaustive search. One can also find hamstering in bgc, which refers to some kind of civilian foraging to rural markets for produce, etc., especially during wartime and postwar scarcity in the UK, though this usage seems to have been Dutch and German as well. See hamstern. DCDuring TALK 14:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Confirm hamstern is used in German. Not even that rare. Mutante 12:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


Alternative spelling of bags, a verb meaning "lay dibs". See dibs. Single citation is from Australia. DCDuring TALK 19:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't locate the 2006 Daily Telegraph citation on Google news or at either the UK or Australia newspaper sites. DCDuring TALK 20:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "A flamboyant or alluring statement about an object's quality." --EncycloPetey 04:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Are they thinking along the lines of puff piece. But I've never heard puff used on its own this way.--Dmol 12:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


I assume this is slang, all 4 senses need verifying. --Borganised 10:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"I smack wylin' hoes with packs of violent prose that Ironman knows.." 'alt.rap, 13 Apr. 2001 by Vadik [97]. & wylin.com. Mutante 12:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
isn't that wylin' (with an apostrophe) rather than wylin?—msh210 16:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


Several definitions were added and removed in its history. H. (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (bodybuilding, slang) Well-developed muscles of the upper arm. "plurale tantum". Just a plural of "gun" with same def but normal noun. No more plurale tantum than "arms", "shoes", or "gloves". DCDuring TALK 11:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if the singular is rarely or never used. What you should have asked for RfV is the singular form "gun". With some looking, I can pull many quotes for this plural form, but I doubt I could find the singular used this way. --EncycloPetey 15:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is the burden of proof not on showing that it is plurale tantum? DCDuring TALK 17:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, because gun and guns are different words with different entries, and each word, and each sense, has to meet the CFI. So if gun isn't attested in this sense, then the sense doesn't belong, which I guess makes guns plurale tantum ipso facto. (While we don't usually look for attestation of regular inflected forms like this, I seem to recall that we have done so where a form was seriously under question, though I can't think of any examples of words for which we've done so.)—msh210 18:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The evidence offered merely establishes that the plural form exists, which was not under challenge, not that it is plural only. I have no idea how the advocate of the implausible claim that it was plural only would prove such a thing, but I would think that would be the task of a clever advocate. DCDuring TALK 18:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
It works this way because of the nature of logic and hypothesis testing. For a claim that a plural is plurale tantum, the null hypothesis is that it is plurale tantum, because instances found of gun (singular) with this meaning will successfully reject the null hypothesis. If we were to run the counter claim that "it isn't plurale tantum" as the null, then to reject the null hypothesis would be logically impossible and unsound. We would have to find, document, and examine every instance of the word ever used in this way. Such an approach is, for all intents and purposes, impossible. That is why a null hypothesis must be chosen that is rejectable with the discovery of evidence. You cannot begin by assuming as null something that you have no supporting evidence for. It is not a matter of being a "clever advocate", it is about the way in which logical proof is structured.
The plural form "guns" in this sense has been successfully documented. The singular "gun" has not been dopcumented in this sense. Therefore, our evidence points to the conclusion that "guns" is plurale tantum, because we have no evidence to the contrary. --EncycloPetey 18:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I had been intending to admit the error of my ways, which would have denied you the pleasure of revisiting the above logic. Even as I was saving my plaint above, I had the nagging sense that I had staked out an untenable position.
As to guns, I can find insufficient evidence (1 debatable cite) that it is used in the singular in the sense I had questioned. I'd be surprised if anyone had a problem figuring out the meaning in the rare circumstance of its occurrence. RfV passed, as far as I am concerned. DCDuring TALK 19:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
If our discussion has been informative to others in the community, then it was still worthwhile to have. We have new people coming in all the time, so an explicit discussion about how things work here can help them understand Wiktionary better, even if it revisits old ideas. These RFV/RFD discussions were some of the key ways that I learned when I started here. --EncycloPetey 19:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


Yeah, I know I'm gonna get yelled at. I just don't think this satisfies CFI: no news, scholar, or books hits, and few of the groups hits seem to mean anything. Teh Rote 14:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Groups hits were posted by gibberishbots. Note, anyone seeking citations should make sure they meet our relatively newly enshrined policy on such words.—msh210 17:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Failed. Replaced by {{only in|{{in glossary}}}}. Conrad.Irwin 23:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Not done yet. If the English version clearly failed, what evidence do we have for the translations? Should we extend the translation discussion right here, or should I RFV those separately? Teh Rote 18:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
For the record, those are wikcionarista, Wiktionäristin, Wikiwoordenboekmedewerker, Vikivortaristo, Wiktionaristi, and Wiktionärist. (Those are the ones that were lately listed on our English page as translations. We may have other entries, too, that were not so listed; I don't know.)—msh210 18:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
As of this writing, [[wiktionarian]] is a redirect to [[Wiktionarian]], and the following entries link to one of the two: [[lexicographer]]; [[wiki]]; [[Wiktionary]]; [[wikcionarista]]; [[stat whore]]; [[Wiktionarians]]; [[Wiktionärist]]; [[Wiktionäristin]]; [[Wikiwoordenboekmedewerker]]; [[Vikivortaristo]]; [[Wiktionaristi]]. Needless to say, not all of those are translations, but they all warrant looking at. —RuakhTALK 20:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
What I wanted to know is whether the discussion about the translations should be held here, or should I RFV those separately? Teh Rote 23:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Pickett's charge

Headword does not match strange article title. SemperBlotto 21:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've found some cites that might warrant keeping this for its figurative meaning: something like "valiant futile frontal assault", synonymous with charge of the light brigade, but without as good a literary publicist. DCDuring TALK 00:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I entered this term because it is a catch phrase, a misconstrued rallying cry, a buzz word for optimists and pessimists alike, and a historic event still studied in military academies in many countries. Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas 14:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC) 03 Oct 2008. 9:10am CDT.
The historic event is encyclopedic and we have the WP link for that. The citations I found support the meanings that are on the citations page, IMO. It wouldn't surprise me if additional citations or reconstrual of the existing citations might support the senses you mention, but a dictionary entry cannot cover all the divergent interpretations of a historic event. DCDuring TALK 14:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


I see no evidence for this. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

paucal has some of the meaning. There were French (paunch) and Scottish English (prance) words with this spelling, but with the different meanings shown. Not found in dictionaries at onelook or on bgc. DCDuring TALK 01:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
paucify, pauciloquy, paucispiral, and paucity all shown in Universal Dictionary of the English Language, 1897, v 3 p3506, but not pauce. At pause none of the quotes -- including Shakespeare, Byron, Locke, and others -- show an alternate spelling such as pauce. It may give pause, yea even cause, to give pauce a toss. Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas 02:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC) (9-10-08 9:39pm CST)
Absolute tosh. I would have just deleted it. SemperBlotto 07:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: noun sense. (BTW, we're missing the non-literal senses, if someone would like to add them. If not, I probably will eventually.) —RuakhTALK 00:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: adverb. DCDuring TALK 01:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


RFV etymology. On a hunch, I'd imagine that the etymology is just cook + book, and not from German. I was going to change it, but maybe RFV is a better place. --Jackofclubs 08:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly cook + book, but that's not a very common compound style in English. It wouldn't shock me if it was a calque of German Kochbuch. —RuakhTALK 16:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
MWOnline dates it at 1809, which, to me, makes the calque seem more plausible. Some dictionaries call it an Americanism, with "cookery book" the UK term. German popular cultural influence in the US was strong at that time. DCDuring TALK 17:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

case and point

This is erroneous, surely? Even if it is an acceptable variant, surely "case in point" is the original form and this is the variant, rather than vice versa. — Paul G

I am relieved to be able to report that: 1., "case in point" occurs 10 times more often than "case and point" on bgc and, 2., of the first 10 occurrences of "case and point", all were actually "case, and point". case and point just seems to be a contributor's error not reflective of widespread error in published work. I would certainly make case in point the main entry. I can't see "case and point" as an "alternative spelling". Based on my preliminary research, I doubt that it would make even the grade as a common misspelling or misconstruction, but it might. DCDuring TALK 15:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the research. I've been bold and deleted "case and point" as an alternative form of case in point (which suggested that the former was a legitimate variant) and reduced case and point to a cross-reference that says that "case and point" is erroneous. I don't thinnk we can class it as a misspelling because it is more of a misunderstanding or a mishearing. — Paul G 07:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I have made this a misconstruction, which is in accord with the discussion above. I hope that I don't have to cite it, but it can be cited. It is mentioned in books on common errors in English. Even law reports contain the error. Newspapers, especially letters, have numerous instances. It is a little tedious to separate spurious collocations, but I would no it if required. Would refs to the books of errors be better? DCDuring TALK 02:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Cited, for the fun of it. DCDuring TALK 03:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

green pin shackle

It's obviously something, but whether it's just a specific product or used as a word I don't know. Nadando 20:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well... I dunno if it qualifies as a specific word, but the Van Beest (Nederlands) shackles are known for safety factors and features - and the green-painted pin. It is one of their best-known brands. - Amgine/talk 20:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


Lacking in fashion? --Jackofclubs 10:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking through Google toteless (BooksGroupsScholarNews Archive), I can't find any uses in this sense, durably archived or otherwise. (I do see a number of non-durably-archived uses that I can't immediately identify, but I see no reason to assume they're in this sense.) —RuakhTALK 21:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


Was rfd'd without being listed - does anyone know what kind of cites we are looking for to show that this exists? Conrad.Irwin 00:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


  1. A person engaged in the business of selling books.
  2. A person who works in a bookshop/bookstore.

I'm not sure how the second sense differs from the first. Surely if you work in a bookshop, you are engaged in the business of selling books. — Paul G 06:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not all 1s are 2s. Not all 2s are necessarily 1s, either.

  1. A 1 could be a manager or owner of a bookstore. For example, The Riggios, who own much of Barnes and Noble in the US, are not often in any of their 800 stores, nor are many of the employees, many of whom might call their administrative or managerial duties "bookselling". One could be a non-store-based bookseller as well.
  2. Are 2s such as textbook buyers, coffee-shop functionaries and cash register operators booksellers? (There is a joke involving a guy complaining about his job cleaning up after the elephants, the punchline of which is "What? And quit show business?") DCDuring TALK 12:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree, partly. I know booksellers who operate their business out of their home, so there is no shop or store. The first definition covers those people. However, I cannot imagine anyone who "works in a bookshop/bookstore" who is not "engaged in the business of selling books" being called a "bookseller". I think the definitions should be merged as "A person engaged in the business of selling books, especially one who works in a bookshop/bookstore". Functionaries who purchase books are bookbuyers, and people who sell coffee only are not booksellers. --EncycloPetey 19:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't sense 1 include companies as well as people? E.g. "Barnes & Noble is a major US bookseller." Methinks that would make the second sense more distinct. -- Visviva 12:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Perl programming: Perl keyword to allow a reference to be used as an object. Is this in common use? Do we permit published code examples as citations? DCDuring TALK 15:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought the community had decided that "all words in all languages" didn't extend to "keywords in programming languages". But I could add lots if we change our mind. SemperBlotto 15:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
A lot of them can inflect like "real" verbs though, e.g. a "blessed" object (but only "bless" is a keyword). I've wondered about this too. 19:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Could this be speedy deleted, then? It wouldn't be bad if we had appendices for things like this, but they could be very hard to maintain. DCDuring TALK 16:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
No, don't speedy. Just because it's a keyword in a programming language doesn't mean it isn't a word with that exact meaning in English. See GOTO, an English noun. DAVilla 06:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the keyword merits inclusion, especially since so far as I know Perl is the only language that uses it (and even in Perl it's not even a keyword so much as a built-in function), but Perlers use bless as a transitive verb meaning "to pass (a reference) as the first argument to bless, and thereby turn it into an object". I think this verb sense probably is worth including. —RuakhTALK 19:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree.—msh210 21:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


Divination by reading molten lead dropped in water. We have quotations that seem to be mere mentions, not usage. DCDuring TALK 15:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Cited. Unclear if this actually stems from the putative Latin/Greek forms; real usage doesn't seem to go back very far. -- Visviva 16:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

deuces wild

Template:baseball two on, two out, 2-2 count, 2-2 tie (or variant thereof). Never heard of it. Says its a noun. Can't tell without cites. DCDuring TALK 16:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


To cry like a cowherd (or cowboy). No apparent usage. Many mentions, eg, in books about the OED. A word that is famous for being famous. DCDuring TALK 22:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

three hands out

3 men out? old baseball expression? Adjective? Adverb? DCDuring TALK 03:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


Just checking: do we accept mnemonics? There's a big slippery slope out there. SemperBlotto 15:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

p.s. But an appendix would be a good idea.

See also pemdas (which should probably be moved to PEMDAS) and BODMAS. If we keep this, what about my very excellent mother just served us nine pickles?  :-)  Anyway, isn't this a question for RFD? — I mean, there's certainly attestation of this term; the nominator seems to be asking whether it's idiomatic.—msh210 16:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


I am seeking clarification; does the term "onomatopoeia" extend to artificial sounds, such as those one hears in cartoons or films. An example of this is "spang" refering to a frying pan to the face of an unsuspecting fictional character?

What do you mean by "artificial sounds"? All sounds are made through some sort of artifice. Which sense are you calling into question on the page? --EncycloPetey 19:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

めいのる (mei noru)

I've never heard this verb though I'm a native Japanese speaker, nor does dictionaries I have list it. The verb "名のる" (to give one's name) is usually read as na noru but not mei noru. Does this really exist? --Brevam 14:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously somebody used a machine-translation program to invent this term. In kanji, it would be 命乗る. It’s nonsense. Deleted. —Stephen 14:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


golden. Not in OneLook dictionaries (except Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 16:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

  • It's in the OED. Not marked as obsolete or anything. SemperBlotto 07:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)



Can anyone cite the meaning “smooth” for glaðr? – Krun 00:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This was done by User:Drago, whose work in the numerous languages he did not speak (he knew only Hungarian and a little English but entered words in every imaginable language except what he knew) was very frequently found to be in error. If you question one of his entries, just assume it’s wrong and correct it if you can. —Stephen 14:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I have some knowledge of the current Scandinavian languages. Out of sheer curiosity I checked the Old Norse texts that I found together with a translation in the internet, and found no support for the meaning "smooth". German glatt (smooth) was mentioned as cognate in several word lists, which may be the source of confusion. The word sléttr was translated as smooth a couple of times.--Hekaheka 17:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


Two senses that are red links. RJFJR 19:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, old vandalism from multiple IPs in June that tricked DCDuring into not rolling back to last good version. Robert Ullmann 19:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Lesson learned: check the result of a roll-back. DCDuring TALK 21:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
For the record, the "faster-than-light" sense is a standard initialism in science fiction, and it's listed in the Oxford Dictionary of science fiction, with citations. --EncycloPetey 19:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
And normally in lowercase, and sometimes used as a verb - "We ftled to the nearest star". SemperBlotto 07:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


Semikolon is the correct German translation of semicolon. See de.wp.

German Wikipedia has an article on:
Wikipedia de

. I think Semicolon is not correct in German, but maybe it is valid as an older spelling variant. Not 100% sure. Mutante 20:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I can’t find any reference to that spelling in German, and the contributor was not German. Originally English and moved to semicolon, now redundant. Deleted. —Stephen 07:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems valid as a variant; "das Semicolon" has about 40% as many hits on b.g.c. as "das Semikolon," all of which appear to be legit. [98] -- Visviva 13:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Template:music Spoken-word poetry accompanied by one or two musical instruments and performed as a unit. I'd like to know more about this from citations and/or usage examples. DCDuring TALK 21:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Follicular Dendritic Cell

A persistent editor has been adding this page - whether from good faith or promotion, I do not know. He does not seem acquainted well with English. --EncycloPetey 02:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


The study of fossils is paleontology. --EncycloPetey 08:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize - I added that. I've since redefined it, using Webster's 1828 dictionary as a reference --Jackofclubs 09:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
No apology warranted; it's just a dated term. Cited. DCDuring TALK 10:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
RFV passed, I guess. --Jackofclubs 06:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

шаргарепа vs. шаргарепa

Those two words look identical to me, but i still get two different pages. How does this happen? Is one redundant? Mutante 09:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, when pasting them in the channel i see the difference is:




Kept the good one. —Stephen 09:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


rfv PoS Interjection with 8 meanings. All of which seem to actually be something like "yo" or "hey you" or "mate". At the very least it needs consolidation and rewording, I think. DCDuring TALK 10:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of these come under the noun sense "term of address for a man", and so can be deleted. Incidentally, the fact that a word is used as a pro-sentence does not make it an interjection; from the Wikipedia article on pro-sentences: "Pro-sentences are sometimes seen as grammatical interjections, since they are capable of very limited syntactical relations. But they can also be classified as a distinct part of speech, given that (other) interjections have meanings of their own and are often described as expressions of feelings or emotions." — Paul G 09:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Interjection is just the best available PoS heading within ELE, I think, not necessarily the best term. I haven't heard of a good alternative term that users would understand without a lot of explanation. DCDuring TALK 10:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


Noun: "The disappointment one feels when something is not nearly as bad as one hoped it would be." One cite is given (I haven't confirmed it). Looks like a three-dollar bill. DCDuring TALK 16:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Confirmed cite. Claims it as his coinage. I will label it as a nonce for the nonce. DCDuring TALK 16:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Check this and that out, it seems popular enough to make English speakers use it in their blogs, but also see the comment "Where did you get the word "Scheissenbedauern" from? This word doesn't even exist in german, but it demonstrates which beautiful swearwords one can make up in our not-so-beautiful language.". Mutante 06:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
This word has had nearly ten years to work its way into our hearts and onto our tongues, pages, and screens. Apparently there will always be word enthusiasts who will mention any unusual word, keeping it on lexicographic life support. The use-mention distinction is very useful for distinguishing living words from zombie words. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

These three links to “The Meaning of Tingo” by Adam Jacot De Boinod mention the allegedly more etymological scheißbedauern (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As you said in the edit summary, these are mentions. I doubt that a scharfes s is going to make the term more popular in English. DCDuring TALK 22:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

ila (OHG)

The confutation of this spelling of the predecessor of eilen is to be found in one venerable dictionary here, where 3 possible spellings are given(see the entry's talk page). Please, verify and clean up, if necessary. Unfortunately, in the ODS there is no mention of the OHG, only the MLG word, so more sources are needed. Bogorm 17:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please correct it. It was originally done by User:Drago, who was frequently in error. —Stephen 21:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I am moving it to illan with the mention of the two other alternative spellings according to "Deutsches Wörterbuch von..." . By "move" I mean hier copy-paste. Bogorm 18:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Mmm, in this case it seems that the user was right, I overlooked the section name "noun", so it turned out that Eile oriinates from ila, and eilen from illan. The coincident spelling of the noun and the verb in English was misleading too... So, I am removing the tag. Bogorm 18:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. —Stephen 16:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "# To flirt with someone you are attracted to." Thryduulf 18:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Adjective "Of a chocolate-like nature. Containing or flavoured like chocolate" Not in any OneLook dictionary. DCDuring TALK 22:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Misspelling of cocoa? —RuakhTALK 00:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Presumably. But that doesn't speed up the process, does it? I don't even now how to use books and scholar for this because so many landscape-oriented tables of data generate false hits, so I couldn't say how "common" a misspelling it was. I'm expecting that few (no?) good cites will materialize in 1-3 months, leading to deletion. If good cites show up, so much the better. DCDuring TALK 01:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the time to do this now, but perhaps this link will help.—msh210 17:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
That helps a good deal. "coco" occurs about 11% as often as "cocoa" with the same words in the search at Groups. That leaves us only with the question whether in our arbitrary opinion at this time the facts would make it a "common misspelling" or an "alternative spelling" (both deserving entry) or an "uncommon spelling" (deserving to be excluded). DCDuring TALK 18:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Coco combines as short for coconut (see many of the results at the Google URL I posted above), so the 11% statistic is not a good comparison to cocoa. (That's the main reason I said I don't have time now: that search result requires refining pre-search and/or careful sifting post-search.)—msh210 19:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't think very many of the entries were coconut related or spelled "CoCo". Let's say that would reduce the percentage from 11% to 9%. How does that change your thoughts about how it should be presented, if at all ? DCDuring TALK 20:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a misspelling; on Google Groups the ratio is around 1:10, but on Google Books it's less than 1:100. As to its commonness, I can't say. —RuakhTALK 20:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Would that be the beginnings of an explicit decision rule: very low (<5%) frequency on edited sources (News, books, scholar) => misspelling. Not so low (>10% and greater than 1000 total (on Web and Groups) => "common". Greater than 20% on edited sources => alternative spellings. "Between" areas to be decided on other criteria, like authorities, "judgment"??? DCDuring TALK 01:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Adjective meaning caffeinated. No evidence for this in the forms "is-caffeinate", "more caffeinate-than" and "most-caffeinate" at bgc, scholar, news, or groups; or in OneLook dictionaries (except this entry). Minimal use elsewhere on the web. DCDuring TALK 00:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


A nautical exclamation used by pirates... so far the only cites are from The Simpsons. --Jackofclubs 17:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There's also arr ("arr matey" seems to be a stock phrase when imitating pirates). I wonder what it came from, if anything: yeah? aye? 11:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: English verb: one who pontifies [sic]. pontify is not an English verb according to the OneLook dictionaries, not is pontifier an English noun. DCDuring TALK 18:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The OED has pontify, with quotations dating from 1883, but not pontifier. However, it makes perfect morphological sense as an agent noun.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I look forward to citations of valid uses of pontifier as an English noun. Certainly that would be the right way to derive it from pontify, if anyone did so and used it. pontify is a separate matter. Perhaps we need that entry. DCDuring TALK 19:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I have confirmed that "pontify" would be verifiable and entered it, though I haven't actually cited it. I am having trouble finding clearly valid usage citations for "pontifier" as an English noun. DCDuring TALK 20:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Does, "Don is just a pontifier. All he does is talk." count? http://corruptionfreeanguilla.blogspot.com/2008/09/pontificate.html
That's the usage. It would make a good usage example. But we need "durably archived media" for "attestation" (verification) purposes. Blogs and the web don't count. We treat print media and Usenet as durably archived, but we like to use the computer-accessible forms of books, news articles, and scholarly articles as Google has them. "Pontifier" will probably make it, but finding the durably archived supporting citations is a bit of a nuisance sometimes. I had challenged this one because I'd never heard of it and thought that "pontificator" would be used instead. It looks like I will be proven to have challenged it unnecessarily, but getting the citations helps prove that it's a good word and can lead to refining the definition. DCDuring TALK 18:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


I searched for it but don't see it. I think this could be only from Fiction. Goldenrowley 04:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


I noticed this has had an RFV flag for a few months but hasn't been hashed out here yet? Goldenrowley 05:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

change up

Is this a US protologism? To me, it just means to change gear (in a car) to a higher gear. SemperBlotto 15:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Real and fairly long-standing in US vernacular; perh orig AAVE. The stuff about Obama is complete BS AFAIK. -- Visviva 17:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
OK - needs formatting though, and probably an improved definition. SemperBlotto 17:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I have inserted two senses that I know: one baseball, one general. I know that I can get plenty of cites for the baseball sense, probably for the general one. I'm not sure of the relationship between the general one I added and the rfv'd one. DCDuring TALK 00:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


Puh-leaze, does anyone seriously use this? Google books doesn't give anything in context, I highly doubt anything else will. Teh Rote 14:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Google Group Search may be able to help us out with this one…  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the first four pages of results from that search, only the first hit is a use (and I'm not completely convinced of this); all the rest are mentions and there are only about 5 independent posts, the others being quotes and copies. Thryduulf 16:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I checked scholar and news- news turns up nothing and scholar gives one cite, but only as a long word. Unless groups holds out, this should be deleted. Teh Rote 22:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment. By looking through articles here on Wiktionary it seems that if this really is to be kept then perhaps it should be pseudantidisestablishmentarianism.--50 Xylophone Players talk 20:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


Nadando 22:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: To hit in the groin. The three usage examples are not from qualifying sources and are not unambiguously clear as to meaning. Sense not in OneLook dictionaries. Nor is "scrotum" or "sac" sense of noun. DCDuring TALK 05:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've always said I was more than willing to take in "lesser" quality quote for slangish meanings because by definition they are used in much more informal contexts than the other. Also, dude, did you check the contexts? That third one is a vid of the thing, how less ambiguous could it be? Circeus 10:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't check the links once I had established that it was not from one of our usual sources of durably archived media. If this is community acceptable, then it would provide a useful precedent for a means of documenting such terms. DCDuring TALK 11:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The way I see it, no website whatsoever can be considered an absolutely "durably archived" media. Some sites are just more volatile. Given the difficulty of separating this meaning from others, I was willing to consider it verified until better citations could be found in better sources. Circeus 12:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not sure if this is very relevant but here in Ireland I have heard sacktap/sack-tap/sack tap(I'm not sure which spelling(s) is/are right.) used for that sense. Funny how it always seems that slang here in Ireland can be shrouded with such uncertainty as regards spelling, e.g. according to a book of Irish slang I have beoir(pronounced bee-ore or something like that) is "Travellers' cant" for a woman but I have have heard a word of similar if not identical pronunciation used to mean a "hot" or attractive woman/girl.--50 Xylophone Players talk 23:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

naked peacock

This looks like it is probably okay, but may be too new and/or rare. Definitely needs citations. (And the movie of the same name makes that more difficult.) Robert Ullmann 17:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


Beware the dreaded bacronym ("A Person of Little Or No Knowledge"). Acronymic etymologies, especially for slang terms, are almost invariably wrong. Whether it is now considered an acronym or not is irrelevant — the etymology can only be one thing (shortened from "plonker") or the other (a bacronym) or maybe something else, but not more than one thing, unless the etymology is unknown or obscure, in which case it is legitimate to give more than one theory.

Furthermore, there is no good reason to embolden the initials — we know what an acronym is — and they should not be capitalised. — Paul G 09:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Area 51

Rfv-sense: (proper noun) A Salt Lake City, UT alien-themed punk/gothic nightclub. Highly doubtful will meet CFI.—msh210 23:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


Added by an anonymous user. Not in onelook. If verified, move to rfc. — Paul G 13:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Modified definition to make it more general. No additional cites needed, as the Tolle cite is a very popular book. But if they were needed, there are over 700 on bgc. Language Lover 00:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


Only onelook links other than to this article are to a Wikipedia article on an anime OVA of this name. — Paul G 13:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Contributions from User:CyberSkull

User:CyberSkull has added a load of terms from science-fiction. This is to be welcomed, but whether they pass CFI is debatable. I have asked him/her to provide citations and to check CFI. — Paul G 13:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


RuakhTALK 17:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

[99] is interesting. I'd guess that that's a loan from English, not "real" Italian.—msh210 17:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

baby mama

This is the title of the new Tina Fey movie. It may be a real slang term, or it may just be the movie title. --EncycloPetey 04:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It’s a real slang term originating from black English. Also, baby daddy (baby’s father). —Stephen 16:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
ez 2b cited. DCDuring TALK 17:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


Seems legitimate, although there are not very many google hits. Nadando 05:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No true usage in durably archived sources. Few (5) mentions. It's a term-in-waiting, waiting for there to be astronauts from India. I'm afraid this probably has to go the protologism appendix for now. DCDuring TALK 16:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


Resembling, or pertaining to, a duodenum. - no evidence this is in use --Jackofclubs 12:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete The adjective is duodenal (as in duodenal ulcer) -- ALGRIF talk 13:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
duodenic is attested as well (though is much much rarer than duodenal, and perhaps is simply an error). —RuakhTALK 01:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete Of the 7 hits on the entire web: 1 bgc and 2 scholar hits: 2 are definitely scannos and the other seems likely to be. The patent hit seems to be a scanno. The other hits seem to be wiktionary and derived from wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 16:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


The 3rd adjectival sense, added by new editor Questionmenot, with goofy example sentence:

Under control, in good order, sorted.
They always ensured the ding was pocket in time for the party.

This sense of "pocket" is not in the OED, and neither is any sense of "ding" that would work here. Sounds like malarkey to me. Is there some place on this planet where these usages exist? -- WikiPedant 05:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I would question the other two adjectival senses as well. Not because I don't think the definitions are correct, but because I don't think they're adjectives at all. --Ptcamn 05:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
They probably can be reasonably regarded as attributive uses of the noun, although the OED does classify these two senses as adjectival (probably on the grounds that they are now sufficiently well established in the language). Anyhow, the most problematic sense, by far, continues to be number 3. -- WikiPedant 06:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


This uncited entry says it is an adjective, but its definition is almost identical to the noun obiter dictum. It may be that "obiter" is used as an abbreviation for "obiter dictum" and that it is used attributively. We cannot tell without cites or experience with its use in context. DCDuring TALK 17:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

dead ball

Rfv-sense: (cricket) An arm signal given by the umpire in certain circumstances when the ball becomes dead (arms crossed and re-crossed below the waist).

Is it appropriate and accurate to assign this name to a signal from the umpire? Should this be done for all signals made by people in various identifiable circumstances? A policeman giving a stop sign, should that be a definition of stop? __meco 20:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that there would be much usage of "dead ball" to refer to the signal as opposed to what was signified. This contrasts with "wave", "salute", "thumbs up", "red light". We could have at least three senses: the state of the ball, the determination by the umpire that the ball was in that state, the indication that the ball was in that state. And perhaps in professional sports, the official record that the ball was in that state. But that way madness lies, for most entries. DCDuring TALK 20:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's a troublesome citation:
  • 2005, "Cricket for beginners", part IV, BBC News, Aug 26, 2005
    In one of Australia's recent innings, the umpire gave a dead ball as the ball hit ....
That would seem to refer to the signal rather than the signified. I think I will leave this to the philosophers. DCDuring TALK 21:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for “inability to pronounce the letter R”.
This seems to be contrary to the other two senses.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all are right. See w:rhotacism. —Stephen 21:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Our information might have been copied thence, or, conversely, Wikipedia’s information might have been copied hence. None of that article’s references confirm this sense. IMO, Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable authority when that which it asserts is not referenced.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Here’s one:

  • 2005: Bernard Fogel, PhD, CCC-SLP, Exercising the Rhotacism in Absence of Pathology (ADVANCE)
    It is universally accepted that the rhotacism, a defective utterance of the /r/ sounds, is usually the last and most difficult American English consonant to correct functionally.
    I use two methods to help correct the rhotacism.

 (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

They are correct, referenced or not. A famous case of rhotacism, meaning the inability to pronounce r’s, is the comic character w:Elmer Fudd. It is very easy to find references if you need them...for example: http://books.google.com/books?q=inability+rhotacism&btnG=Search+Books —Stephen 21:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Verified (provisionally). They may have been correct, but the lack of references to reliable authorities meant that that wasn’t evident. It’s verification that matters — truth that cannot be shown to be truth just isn’t good enough.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


Save the few common phobias, I was under the impression that a lot of deserved only a Template:onlyin link to the appendix. However, if valid cites can be produced, obviously that changes things. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Cited, think this one is OK (even though it's not so much a phobia as a term of literary abuse). -- Visviva 16:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


The word does get some b.g.c. hits, but none seem to be in this sense. —RuakhTALK 13:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Mundane sociological sense added: "To adapt to digital technology or culture". Arguably the cyborg sense would be included, but I can't find cites at bgc for cyborg sense. DCDuring TALK 17:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: confectionary confectionery.
It’s marked as Australian, but it might just be non-standard.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's in Macquarie, tagged as obsolete. However, it's also in the OED in this sense, with no tags but with the most recent citation from 1844. I would need some evidence that it is really Australian, and not just globally obsolete; an initial b.g.c. search gives no such indication, although this sense is difficult to filter from the others. Definitely real, in any event; note many occurrences of "confectionaries and sweetmeats" and vice versa. -- Visviva 11:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I would think the context tag is wrong, that it is more general, certainly US. The OneLook dictionaries mostly include the sense, but not Oxford or Cambridge, so it might not be used in the UK. DCDuring TALK 11:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


Isn't this just a bad pronunciation? SemperBlotto 13:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

With 68 raw bgc hits, perhaps we should have it as eye dialect. I don't think it should be shown as inflected, though. DCDuring TALK 16:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


Protologism? --EncycloPetey 19:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

October 2008


looks like a word, of course, but where's the evidence?

Plenty of evidence. For example, Roget's Thesaurus. It’s a word like asinine, leonine, canine, porcine, feline, chevaline, and so on. —Stephen 03:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Here is a quote from an academic journal, contrasting anserine (duck-like) with cygnine (swan-like). --EncycloPetey 04:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 1901 — Elliott Coues, On the Classification of Water Birds, "Publications of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia": v. 53: 193-218, p216, footnote
    The genus Choristopus, Eyton, apparently Anserine rather than Cygnine, is said to possess this character []
Is it just me, or in your cite, does it seem to mean "being a swan" or "being of the swan family" rather than "swanlike"? I think it's just an adjective version of "swan", with all the different meanings that you'd expect ("of, pertaining to, being, or resembling a swan or swans"). Also, we seem to be missing a noun sense referring to some sort of Australian natural poison. (BTW, my impression from b.g.c., which our entry agrees with, is that "anserine" actually pertains to geese rather than to ducks.) —RuakhTALK 01:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

broke and back

An idiom that I have never heard of. Google shows examples of these three words in a row, but none seem to be using them as an idiom. (Needs formatting) SemperBlotto 13:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure this is supposed to be the adjective broken-back. Robert Ullmann 13:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me for the misspelling, I shall move it, if the article has not been yet created. Bogorm 14:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I moved it and I shall request the speedy deletion of the misunderstood variant, ok? Bogorm 14:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Better, but I think it should be broken-backed - still needs formatting properly. SemperBlotto 14:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 1968, Alexander Magnus Drummond, Studies in Speech and Drama in Honor of Alexander M. Drummond, page 280
    This pun, broke and back interpreted as broken back, was heard on the Fibber McGee and Molly radio program 4 March 1941. 33. This dissimilation occurs with
broken-backed now formatted and expanded. SemperBlotto 07:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


I cannot really speak or read much Japanese yet so could someone verify if the alternative spellings here are valid? They seem to be according to Moji but some discrepancies seem to arise. Also that aside since these "alternative spellings" are kanji shouldn't they be at 変わる?--50 Xylophone Players talk 21:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

All those readings are correct, but they are for a different meaning (now added as sense No. 2). There is also an alternative spelling for sense one, now added as well. The correct alternative reading also added to 変わる. —Stephen 20:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


"in plural: a general feeling of discomfort, boredom, etc". If verified, needs to be moved to blahs. — Paul G 09:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's in dictionaries. In addition to adding content to blahs, wouldn't we leave a breadcrumb, somewhat as-written, at blah? -- Thisis0 15:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I like the breadcrumb, but I'm not sure that it is official policy to have it. It would be easy to verify both singular and plural though. I would claim widespread use for them in the US. DCDuring TALK 16:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree on both the widespread US usage and the likeability of the breadcrumb. --EncycloPetey 17:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


Shouldn't this be something like "London, England and environs"? (BTW, should we have an entry for -shire?) —RuakhTALK 23:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: the suffix, no. It's not a suffix, just the second part of a compound word. The -form entries are for suffices that do not exist as independent words. --EncycloPetey 00:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I have never heard of this word - Google books seems to suggest that it comes from a single play. I would have assumed that it means the Home Counties. SemperBlotto 07:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


RFV verb sense. Nothing found under books for googolplexed or googolplexing. Teh Rote 23:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


Listed as an adjective, defined as an adverb, but illogically constructed. There are Google books hits, but I'm not sure that "in an utmost manner" explains anything. --EncycloPetey 00:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

  • One of a number from the same user. All bad, most have been cleaned up, some deleted - I would have deleted this one. SemperBlotto 07:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    I did, but it was re-entered. With Google Books hits, it seemed better to take it somewhere it could be improved. --EncycloPetey 16:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


This seems to be pretty limited, may not meet CFI. Goldenrowley 04:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Latin pronoun, colloquial form of ego.


I came up empty handed trying to verify this on Google. can anyone else verify it? Goldenrowley 03:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


Pretty new word, so new I wonder if it meets citability guidelines. Goldenrowley 04:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


It's in the OED entry for zenzic, but with only one quotation, which capitalizes it, writes it with a capital letter, defines it, and spells it differently (Zenzizenzike). —RuakhTALK 15:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


Supposedly a noun meaning dog in "jargon". Whose jargon? Is this actually used in standard English? I think it may only occur in textspeak-style shorthand and in cutesy titles for vets and adoption centres. Equinox 17:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Cutesiness is not actually a grounds for deletion. We also have many IM jargon entries. "All words in all languages". DCDuring TALK 04:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Probable delete - but w:K9 may have something that can be used. SemperBlotto 21:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
    It's used in the US for police dog units. --EncycloPetey 23:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
    I'd claim widespread use in the US for the sense EP refers to, but it could be cited. It might have been US military in origin. A photo of the side of a police car so marked would make a nice illustration. DCDuring TALK 03:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    Cited. Easy to cite K-9 as well. DCDuring TALK 04:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a popular joke in the U.S. military: the new guy gets to a station, and they tell him, "go get us some K9P". He wanders around asking everyone if they have any K9P. Ie, "canine pee". Language Lover 17:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The citations supplied seem to indicate the meaning is "adjective: concerning that section of a police force that uses dogs" rather than "noun: a police dog". Any cites where it's used other than attributively, so we know it's a noun?—msh210 17:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I had looked for plurals, which I found. I'll insert one. DCDuring TALK


Supposed to be an alternate form of yeah. Any decent citations? Equinox 18:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


Video game sense of a teleport or warp. I know of this from Asteroids (1979) in which one can "enter hyperspace" to reappear at a random location, but I don't believe it has been used in many other notable games and I also think it's just a specific case of the science-fiction sense given directly above ("A notional space orthogonal to the usual dimensions of space-time often used for faster-than-light travel"). Equinox 22:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I don't believe this is a separate sense. --EncycloPetey 23:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


Marvel comic book character sense Language Lover 00:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed that sense, but I've now tagged the "resident of Michigan" sense. I lived in Michigan for more than fifteen years, and don't remember ever hearing that. (University of Michigan students, especially athletes, are Wolverines, as are fans of U of M sports teams; but that doesn't extend to all the state's residents, many of whom prefer the Michigan State University Spartans, or another school's teams, or none at all. And I would definitely capitalize it, myself, though I'm not sure if everyone would.) —RuakhTALK 02:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, but I should note that U of M teams are so called because Michigan is the "Wolverine State", so it's not flat-out implausible; and DCDuring has already added one cite. —RuakhTALK 10:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It can be cited much more easily as Wolverine. DCDuring TALK 11:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


The verb sense:

to perform an action quickly in a sneaky, stealthy or underhanded manner

Is this is MMP gaming lingo? --Williamsayers79 07:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

MMP?—This unsigned comment was added by PalkiaX50 (talkcontribs).
massively multiplayer online game Equinox 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
...That's a weird abbreviation. On a side note if any Sysops are reading this then please archive some of this page; Firefox crashed about 4 or 5 times when I tried to edit this page in full because of an accidental edit conflict--50 Xylophone Players talk 20:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


Surely this article's Japanese section is incorrect I mean we already have áidoru, the proper "Englishy Japanese" for idol.--50 Xylophone Players talk 20:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


Added by an anon contributor, the -e looks wrong for a feminine noun in Lithuanian. --EncycloPetey 21:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "I, me, myself, we, us, ourselves;" I don't think so. Sole citation can be readily understood without this sense. DCDuring TALK 16:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "the set of attributes that distinguish an intelligent, solemn, sober, healthy, independent, adult homo sapiens from a young child or a lunatic." Part of what I view as a well-meaning PoV push.

Rfv-sense "humanness" same as above. DCDuring TALK 16:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense nautical. A noun. Doesn't seem possible, but it's nautical. DCDuring TALK 17:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  • No, that was my mistake. Removed. SemperBlotto 09:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


Is it really a Vietnamese word? Maro 18:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Tbot error. As noted in the explanation, it can just be zapped, doesn't need to come here. Robert Ullmann 15:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

full power

Rfv-sense - verb. Four definitions, only one of which is for a verb. SemperBlotto 10:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this just be an {{rfd}} for the entire entry -- noun and verb? The term strikes me as SoP and not one of the defns changes my mind. -- WikiPedant 15:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes - I deleted it once and it came back. It's from a user whose entries annoy me (but I can't quite say why). SemperBlotto 15:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hm, I just looked over some of this character's handiwork (ultra-everything, etc.) and, while some have a little merit, I see what you mean. -- WikiPedant 16:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This user's definitions often have flaws. Two that I have observed more than once are: wrong part of speech and using slang and new senses in definitions when more widely understood words are available. OTOH this user has identified gaps: missing senses and entries. It would all work much better if the user took the trouble to register and only edit while signed in. I could take a run at working with him. DCDuring TALK 16:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to talk smack about me or are you trying to be a know-it-all? —This comment was unsigned.

I was communicating on an open channel that I thought you were monitoring, albeit anonymously. Are you trying to say that you don't want me to work with you? DCDuring TALK 17:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I humbly apoligize to you, DCDuring. I'll rather say yes than to say no, because that would be unfair, regretful, and making important admins like you who made a BIG impact on this very website itself. So I'll say yes. You can work with me. :) I am very sorry if my entries annoyed you greatly and some of the while some of my words I added in have "little merit". Well I'm trying to make this website, Wiktionary, a better place and I truly loved helping people out here and loved your definitions.

I'm not so sure that the anonymous user who wrote the posting above ( = somewhere in the New York City vicinity) is the same anonymous user that SemperB and I were commenting on -- i.e., the user who originally created full power ( = somewhere in Virginia USA). Are they the same person? And would the anonymous user please sign his/her postings with four tildes (~~~~). -- WikiPedant 17:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry if created the word full power. I am a person that wants to help creating words that WEREN'T in this website. So I did. I wanted to make this a much better website so I can make almost everyone happy and proud of me and the others.

Well, I can't tell for sure if and are the same or not. I see that both addresses have edited some of the same entries. Some URL finders show both of these in the NYC area (and one showed in Virginia). Some web hosts change the URL every time a user logs in. These two URLs might be one and the same person. Anyhow, DCDuring is correct. You seem to be seriously interested in making substantive contributions, so you should register and give yourself a nice pseudonym. -- WikiPedant 18:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


I am having trouble finding either a current dictionary with this or valid citations (not mentions, scannos (fragments), or non-English). Senses given don't fit with what little I have found. DCDuring TALK 15:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  • It appears in Blount's Glossographia of 1656 – but the OED notes that, apart from this mention, there has been no recorded usage at all. Apparently formed from the grc word ἀδοξία (ill-repute). Ƿidsiþ 20:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • (Although the 1903 cite you have added is a different coinage apparently designed to mean "no belief", as from a- + Greek δόξα (opinion) (this is the -doxy in words like orthodoxy etc.).) Ƿidsiþ 20:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not expecting this to be cited unless we keep the rfv open while we launch e-mail discussions using it. DCDuring TALK 22:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I found two non-mentions. One is a coinage with a different meaning. The other seems like some kind of usage by Mencken, but it is hard to determine meaning. DCDuring TALK 20:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    Did you find the 1929 American Mercury Magazine citation on Google Boooks? --EncycloPetey 22:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, snippet only, no clue as to article title, author. Page number made me think it could have been in something by an editor. If someone had some kind of institutional subscription, .... DCDuring TALK 22:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


(user:Equinox) Should be D₂O (compare how H2O redirects to H₂O). Is there any convincing reason to call D2O an alternative spelling, or was this just wiki convenience? 18:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

To me, the compelling thing is to make sure that someone putting "D2O" in the search box finds their way to the right entry. Very nearly as important would be that they then see both something that resembles what they are trying to decipher and the correct orthographies. "D2O" is not an ideal headword, but it that would be what it takes to get the user to the entry, so be it. DCDuring TALK 19:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Could the article be replaced with a redirect, then, like H2O? I don't object to D2O existing, but AFAICT it is only an "alternative spelling" in wiki notation, whereas "alternative spelling" is supposed to indicate one in English. Equinox 09:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that's the kind of thing that we've done in the past when it has come up for discussion. I am a simple soul and habitually (not correctly) view redirects as trickery, so they didn't come to mind above. The redirect captures the search and the subscripted form resembles what the user typed or saw, so that meets the criteria above. DCDuring TALK 11:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


At question: origin of the term orientering. It is widely cited as having been coined in Sweden in 1918 but it appears in the combination Orienteringsløb in a Norwegian newspaper in 1897 (reproduced here). Furthermore, orienteering is widely cited as derived from the 1918 coinage, but that too is in question. The International Orienteering Federation claims (here) that orienteering dates from 1886, so it may predate any use of orientering. I am hoping someone with great access to online archives or dictionaries can fill in the details. --Una Smith 22:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)



I see little evidence of use on this. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is little evidence but maybe in uses as well. —This comment was unsigned.

If it is not and has not been in use, it is not a word for Wiktionary. Why waste time on it? You are better off to find the usage first before you take the trouble to make a good entry. DCDuring TALK 23:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if this is a waste of time of doing so. You can decide whatever you feel about the word "superginormous". What do you mean by "If it is not and has not been in use, it is not a word for Wiktionary."? It was used.... please search for Google. :/ But ONLY you can decide, not me. —This comment was unsigned.

120 hits for a word on the entire web is basically nothing. In contrast there are 930,000 hits for "ginormous" and 106,000,000 for "big". Numerous misspellings and nonsense words get more than 120 hits. A longer word, "internationalism", gets 970,000.
You could find the citations at google books, google news, google scholar, or google groups. DCDuring TALK 11:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Cited, I think; there appear to be exactly three CFI-meeting uses (in our standard corpora, anyway), spanning just about exactly one year. -- Visviva 03:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Now its passing depends on whether we accept a cite of "super-ginormous" as relevant for "superginormous". I could go either way on that, I suppose, but haven't knowingly accepted alternative forms for attestation purposes in the past. DCDuring TALK 11:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. I think we all may and should leave its definitions the way it is and all it needs now is an alternative form of superginormous. —This comment was unsigned.

Each entry is to be cited separately. DCDuring TALK 12:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. —This comment was unsigned.

I don't think cites for an alternative form should count as cites for the main form. As it stands, I like the sound of the word, but it needs to be deleted- one cite is hyphenated, thus ruining everything IMHO. Teh Rote 13:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Whatever, I'm done here. Happy citing! BTW, there's a new cite for the hyphenated version. -- Visviva 13:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hyphenation of prefixes is a matter of personal taste, and as super-ginormous is the same word as superginormous quotes with or without the hyphen should be fine. If we are to keep this (which we probably should), it possibly wants marking as {{rare}}, {{informal}}, {{neologism}} or all of the above. Conrad.Irwin 21:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Based on the three citations: Should both entries appear? Should the one with one cite be a redirect to the one with two cites? Should there be a cite on the redirect page? DCDuring TALK 22:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Well it is only one word - just because someone decided it'd look neater hyphenated does not make it different - so if we keep one we should keep both. The standard "Wiktionary way" to do this is to use "{{alternative form of}}" or something similar. I reckon we should hard-redirect the Citations page though (if not the entries too</troll>). Conrad.Irwin 00:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


I'm only getting Dune references. Nadando 03:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


This exonym is not in w:Arie de Jong's dictionary and does not follow common revised Volapük conventions:

  • starting capital letter
  • exonym word formation - country name (Belgän) + '-an' = Belgänan.

Could it be old (original, by w:Johann Martin Schleyer) Volapük? Malafaya 16:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


English verb. to masturbate. At best rare. 1 specialized erotic dictionary mentions it. Hard to attest due to Italian homograph. DCDuring TALK 16:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Not in the OED. No real Google hits for maritating. (The adjective maritated seems to be real, if rather obsolete, meaning married. SemperBlotto 21:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


bruised black and blue as a result of a beating. Actually would be a past and past participle of suggilate, which appeared in Webster's 1828. Not much use for any of the four forms. 1 News. 2 groups. One group hit might be a mention. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

port#Etymology 3

Sense: To transfer from one state to another.

I can't seem to grasp what exactly this means, because I can't find anything like this sense in dictionaries. Like, is it from one state to another like "liquid to gas", or... is it like "across the border to Nevada". Does it need a tag like (chemistry), or is it more general. Examples, cites? -- Thisis0 03:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

at the high port

And while we're at it, can someone who really knows tell me in what position you'd be holding a rifle if you were holding it at the high port? I know it's a position of readiness, for example held while running at the double. Somewhere online it said 'at the high port' means to hold the rifle above one's head with both arms outstretched, but I'm thinking that might be a modern extension of the term applied to such a punishment or exercise. Oh, and our current entry for at the high port describes a rare slang sense stemming from the "readiness, quickness" of soldiers in this particular rifle position. We need to list the real rifle position, but I can't find it's description anywhere convincingly. -- Thisis0 03:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Ok, so I just found this Apparently, it does mean hold a rifle in the port position well over the head. Any other thoughts welcome. Any cites for the slang sense? -- Thisis0 03:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
    • ^ [100] Social Security Administration: Retrieved on May 15th, 2008: Madonna was among the 1000 top female names in USA during 1909-1968, with a maximum frequency of 0.13 per cent in 1933.