Wiktionary:Requests for verification: difference between revisions

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
m (crack up: archived)
m (gunsel: archived)
Line 1,938: Line 1,938:
"more resolute" and "most resolute"{{unsigned}}
"more resolute" and "most resolute"{{unsigned}}
:I agree these forms [http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?word1=resoluter&word2=more-resolute are] [http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?word1=resolutest&word2=most-resolute rare], and the inflection lines on ''resolute'' should list the more common forms (only or more prominently). But ''resoluter'' ''does'' exist: see [[s:I'm the little "Heart's Ease"!|"I'm the little 'Heart's Ease'!"]]. And so does ''resolutest'': see [[s:Paradise Regained/Book_2|''Paradise Regained'']].—[[User:Msh210|msh210]]<span style="text-decoration: none;"><span class="Unicode">℠</span></span> 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:I agree these forms [http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?word1=resoluter&word2=more-resolute are] [http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?word1=resolutest&word2=most-resolute rare], and the inflection lines on ''resolute'' should list the more common forms (only or more prominently). But ''resoluter'' ''does'' exist: see [[s:I'm the little "Heart's Ease"!|"I'm the little 'Heart's Ease'!"]]. And so does ''resolutest'': see [[s:Paradise Regained/Book_2|''Paradise Regained'']].—[[User:Msh210|msh210]]<span style="text-decoration: none;"><span class="Unicode">℠</span></span> 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Rfv-sense railway enthusiast. The original editor only has anecdotal evidence. [[User:SemperBlotto|SemperBlotto]] 12:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:[http://groups.google.com/group/aus.rail/browse_thread/thread/28138d3d2af7b4d6 This thread] and [http://www.worldwidewords.org/topicalwords/tw-gun1.htm this page], for what they're worth, indicate the word is ''gunzel''.—[[User:Msh210|msh210]]<span style="text-decoration: none;"><span class="Unicode">℠</span></span> 18:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
'''RFV failed''', sense removed. —[[User: Ruakh |Ruakh]]<sub ><small ><i >[[User talk: Ruakh |TALK]]</i ></small ></sub > 13:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
==[[no end]]==
==[[no end]]==

Revision as of 21:55, 8 August 2009

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 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.


May 2008


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)
I added another cite (usenet) to the citations page, bringing the count up to two. I think it is apparent that there is usage but durable citations are tough both because of the relatively small number of dialect speakers and the high usage of the other senses. Personally I think this one is a pass but strictly it is a fail. - [The]DaveRoss 15:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I have split the term out according to its apparent etymology. It seems to have some Scandanavian cognates and ancestors. It also seems related to deedless. O'Toole was raised in the Danelaw. I'd say we should keep it, though more evidence would be nice. DCDuring TALK 21:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd hate to lose it, but I guess we could just move what we know to the citations namespace....msh210 21:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Give me another 24 hours. DCDuring TALK 23:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I've brought the etymology to WT:ES including the relationship to deedless. I'm not sure what a definition for "dateless" would be based solely on the O'Toole quote. DCDuring TALK 14:02, 6 July 2009 (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)


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)
Etymologically and technically, the two-‘p’ form is the misspelling, so that isn’t an acceptable solution…  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

June 2008


  • 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)
I can't find any uses of the term in those senses; in a year, neither has anyone else. Rfv-fail, despite Webster? — Beobach972 18:27, 1 July 2009 (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)
This could possibly be attested in English, but it looks like it would be rare. I have changed it to an Old Norse entry, which can be linked to an English (anglicised) entry — Beobach972 15:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Verified.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:30, 1 July 2009 (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)
I would rfv-fail this unless someone feels like the reference given is sufficient. However, I think this does have another sense beyond just 'honest', a general sense of 'a member of the same group' (not limited to freemasons). — Beobach972 18:17, 1 July 2009 (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)
We have names like Brown, Goethe, and eg AugustusAugustan. The name is found in enough books that I would think it would pass just like the above-mentioned Lenin. — Beobach972 18:24, 1 July 2009 (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)
Cited, although I'm not sure the first example isn't part of a set phrase 'boss and spoil' (with perhaps a different meaning than 'lord over'). Rfv-passed? — Beobach972 18:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I just checked COCA for "[boss] * and [spoil]" (any form of "boss" wildcard word "and" any form of "spoil"). No hits in 385MM word corpus. DCDuring TALK 19:30, 1 July 2009 (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)
Cited, not very well but probably adequately. Equinox 23:19, 21 June 2009 (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)
  1. The computer sense, as a verb:
    • 1993: Uyless D. Black, Computer networks: protocols, standards, and interfaces, caption of an image on page 99
      Data placed in async. format, transmitted, and echoplexed.
  2. The computer sense, possibly as a noun instead:
    • 1985: Martin D. Seyer, The IBM PC/XT: making the right connections, page 132
      The PC operator can then backspace and retype the character. The device that is to echo the characters should be optioned for echoplexing.
    • 1988: Martin D. Seyer, Complete guide to RS232 and parallel connections, page 212
      When a terminal is connected to a computer port supporting echoplexing, the terminal will not locally display the character until it is received from the line.
  3. The musical/echo sense, possibly as an adjective instead:
    • 2003: Peter Buckley, The rough guide to rock, page 1
      [...] like whales pirouetting to the tones of a string quartet in E, before Butcher's lush vocals swept in over Philip Glass motifs and an echoplexed bagpipe.
    • 2003: Rob Bowman, Soulsville, U.S.A.: The Story of Stax Records, page 257
      William "Wee Gee" Howard takes the lead vocal and Dennis Coffey plays the heavily echoplexed guitar, while Johnny Allen [...]

These aren't coherent enough (ie, they don't all apply to the same sense and they possibly don't all apply to the same POS) to rfv-pass yet. — Beobach972 18:50, 1 July 2009 (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)

July 2008


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)


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)


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)

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)
Assuming this argument is correct, does this mean that jackrabbit can be an adjective? Pingku 14:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily; most English nouns can be used attributively, meaning that they can precede another noun (or in some cases an adjective) without becoming a full adjective. —RuakhTALK 15:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Given this, and what references I've found for jackrabbit start, the SoP argument seems compelling. How about a redirect to jackrabbit, which appears to deal with it?Pingku 13:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
But the sense in question is a verb, not a noun; I would have expected "jackrabbiting start." -- Visviva 02:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time seeing this as SOP for most speakers; I don't know that I've ever encountered "jackrabbit" as a verb in use, while I have read and heard "jackrabbit start" any number of times. This suggests to me that in most vocabularies (including my own) this is a set phrase, not a combination of jackrabbit+start. -- Visviva 02:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
It's certainly not from the verb. Why can't it be attributive use of the noun, not that that would preclude its inclusion as an entry? Is "jackrabbit" a common term in the UK? If not, that alone would argue for inclusion. DCDuring TALK 03:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The noun is currently defined as the animal only; I don't see how that could possibly be sum-of-parts. -- Visviva 05:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is not SoP. There is no figurative sense for the bare noun alone. Whether the noun or the verb is the origin, I wouldn't know how to resolve. I just thought that the attributive-use-of-a-noun pattern is so common as to barely require any thought as to etymology. The metaphor just seems obvious. The noun "jackrabbit" is much more common, I think, and seems a more natural source of derivation. I don't have any evidence one way or the other for the relative ages of "jackrabbit" as verb and "jackrabbit start", which might not be conclusive as to the PoS anyway. DCDuring TALK 10:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
DCDuring, I'm not UK but from Australia (where rabbits are an introduced pest). I did a search through NewsBank (Australian newspapers only) and found a whopping 74 hits for "jackrabbit". Many of these were references to the animal, to a particular band, or to "Jackrabbit Slim's" from "Pulp Fiction". Also several refs to the novel (and prison slang term) "Jackrabbit Parole". There was one reference to "jackrabbit starts", which was covering a US story. The colloquial references were mostly centred around speed, acceleration and shyness (the latter particularly as a reason for the other two). A "political jackrabbit" appears to be a politician who goes to lengths not to be accosted by reporters. Jackrabbit also appears to be a role in the game of rugby, perhaps a "utility back". Finally, I found this, from my home town:
"Botswana runner Tiyapo Maso was caught by a lead pack of 20 at the 25km, having enjoyed more than a hour of global fame with jackrabbit tactics over the Sydney Harbour Bridge and out to Centennial Park which could only have one conclusion -- pain. He finished 78th in 2:38.53." ("Marathon magic for Ethiopians Abera tames tough course", The Adelaide Advertiser - Monday, October 2, 2000, author: Paul Malone.)
Pingku 11:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
For the marathon story I would have thought the "hare" (from Aesop) a more slightly more apt metaphor. I don't think that every attestable metaphorical use of a noun must be included as a definition, though I have nothing against such efforts. In this case, the metaphor emphasises rapid acceleration, especially to make good an escape. Perhaps we should have some similar sense at jackrabbit. "Jackrabbit", especially because of its etymology, struck me as a likely part of Australian English as well as US English. Are imported jackrabbits the object of the famous rabbit fence? DCDuring TALK 12:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, "hare" would have been more apt, but sports reporting is not always logical. :) But then a jackrabbit is a hare. Several of the articles I found saw fit to remind people (i.e. Australians) of that. The rabbits in Australia were imported by nostalgic Englishmen, and the difference between rabbits and hares remains a bit of a mystery to many. :)
I should emphasise the number of hits I had. 74. That means I was able to do the quick "study" I presented, but also indicates that "jackrabbit" is not a commonly used term in Australia (though it will probably be understood). The sort of "study" I just did might be useful elsewhere (especially if done rigorously), but might take a lot more effort. :) Pingku 12:55, 12 November 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)
Well, the book Nadando links to says it's English: "So it is that Khoisan languages, particularly Nama and Khoe, provide many loanwords in the English of South Africa, especially in the area of useful and medicinal plants. Here are some examples: [] guarriboom 'shrub whose fruit can be fermented for vinegar', [comes] from Khoe gwarri, also borrowed into Zulu umgwali; [] .[40]" The footnote 40 says "Examples [] from Silva 1997" which is "Penny Silva, 'The Lexis of South African English: Reflections of a Multilingual Society', in Edgar W. Schneider (ed.), Englishes around the World: Studies in Honour of Manfred Görlach (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1997), ii. 159–76". But Silva (who now is the "director" (?) of the OED, by the way) doesn't actually mention guarriboom at all (unless I'm missing it) in that article. She says, though, that "Khoikhoi [=Khoe] words in S[outh] A[frican] E[nglish] include [] the plant names [] guarri, [] ." I don't know whether she means that teh word was borrowed as is, or merely that that Khoikhoi word made it into SAE, possibly altered. She does mention that "[m]ost of the Khoikhoi borrowings now found in SAE were acquired via" Dutch and Xhosa — which might explain the boom.—msh210 19:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I e-mailed Ms. Silva for clarification, and she informs me that she "would say that in South African English guarri is more common than guarriboom (formed with Dutch/Afrikaans boom tree, as you suggest): I've attached the entry for GUARRI n., from the Dictionary of South African English on Historical Principles, OUP, Oxford (1996), as this gives you an idea of the range of compounds formed by the word: guarriboom is only one of them, as you'll see." So, to answer EP's original question, yes, it's English. That DSAEHP quotation she attached to the e-mail includes, as she says, other related words, but also includes variant spellings: "guarri, gwarrie /'gwari/ n. Also ghwarrie, guárri, guarrie, guarry, guerri(e), gwarri, gwary, kwarrie, quarri."—msh210 17:24, 23 February 2009 (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)
Perhaps these may be related to assways, a term I'm somewhat familiar with. Here's an example sentence:
You're doing it assways.
(equivalent to something like "You're doing it all wrong".)
Maybe the (slightly derogatory) sense of backward meaning "old-fashioned" is also relevant.50 Xylophone Players talk 21:33, 28 December 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)

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)

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 [1]. 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)


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)

Merged.​—msh210 19:01, 30 June 2009 (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, [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. --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).


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)

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)

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)
This is perfectly correct in Modern French. See Larousse's definition [13]. It's a bit familiar, not dated. I modified the entry, and realised the definition was totally wrong and fanciful. So I changed it to the usual acceptation. --Elkaar 06:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Already kept, I'd have voted strong keep anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2009 (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)
  • Although the OED has only the "official" meaning, the term is sometimes used in its wider sense in the UK (certainly in Northern England), but this is probably just "patent" in its wider sense of "In extended use: to which a person has a proprietary claim. Also: special for its purpose; ingenious, well-contrived" (OED). Dbfirs 09:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
In the US, there is no necessary connection between a drug being patented and being a prescription drug or being sold over the counter or being a "controlled substance". In the US patent medicine is dated (19th-early 20th century, I think), but referred to non-prescription medicines. DCDuring TALK 11:53, 28 November 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)

{{rfv-sense}} readded after it was removed without prior verification of the term.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Michaelis Moderno Dicionário Português-Inglês translates cruz gamada as swastika, fylfot. This can be considered one quotation. --Vahagn Petrosyan 08:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, not a quotation, but a reference. I’ve added it to the entry. One more like that will be enough to show that the swastika sense is standard. Of course, the sense still needs three quotations showing that usage in order to satisfy the CFI.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:53, 14 April 2009 (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)

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)

Keep - check the Wikipedia article, there are plenty of citations and court cases in which surrogatum principle is used [14]. WritersCramp 01:21, 7 January 2009 (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)
I wrote our etymology, thinking as follows: the soldiers' hobson-jobson was their pronunciation of an Arabic expression, and referred (according to enWP) to certain religious ceremonies. The lexicographers who wrote the book Hobson-Jobson borrowed that as their title (because it sounded like authors' names, or something), and from the book title came the meaning "an expression borrowed, etc.", which is the only sense we have.​—msh210 19:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The Online Etymology Dictionary, however, says that from the expression meaning "ceremony" came the term "law of Hobson-Jobson", and from there came the noun "Hobson-Jobson". Note that we have the entry law of Hobson-Jobson (and it lacks an etym. section).​—msh210 19:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The OneLook dictionaries all say about the same thing. I think the entry is ok as it stands, except for needing Arabic (?) script. I expanded the ety and added an "Examples" box. I don't know whether the capitalized form should be the main entry. DCDuring TALK 20:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for working on this. I know next to nothing about etymology, so wouldn't count on me, but it looks good to me now. As to capitalization, I'm not sure. google books:+hobson-jobsons yields examples of each case.​—msh210 21:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Resolved. DCDuring TALK 13:58, 13 July 2009 (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)


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)


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)

The Larry Wall paper is on google scholar, and reasonably widely mirrored - so should probably count as durable. There are four groups cites, which might make it technically includable, if they are independent. (I would claim they are not as three of them use whipupitude in the same breath and thus this should RFVfail).


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)


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)


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

I move we close this as passed (but don't wish to do so unsecondedly without citations' having been added).msh210 03:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2009 (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)


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)


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)

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)


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

I move we close this as passed. (I don't want to do it unseconded as is.)msh210 02:57, 22 June 2009 (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)
Check this out: [15]. It's an official US Navy site. --Hekaheka 13:05, 18 October 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)

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)
I always thought the purpose of the attributive use criteria was just to provide evidence that an otherwise unincludable Proper noun was in significant usage in a non-encyclopedic sense. I can't think of wording for a sense that encompasses these usages. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Great Wall of China, Eiffel Tower, Grand Canyon, World Trade Center, Louvre; world famous landmarks are used both attributively and metaphorically all the time, in several ways, we should list the literal meanings and allow the reader to interpret the extended meanings themselves. I say this regardless of whatever the CFI currently has to say about them, if they aren't already allowed they should be. - [The]DaveRoss 01:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
The big American dictionaries such as Random House have this and similar names. The fact that they keep getting deleted here convinces me that our criteria have not been thought through or are poorly worded. We should have the names and the criteria need be reworked. —Stephen 01:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I feel that those dictionaries are just trying to outdo the others by being more encyclopaedic. Perhaps what we really need is a combined Wikimedia search that will suggest Wikipedia results if the dictionary doesn't have them. (Actually, I think we have that already.) Equinox 01:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
When we say we don't want to be encyclopedic I always thought we meant in depth of content not in scope of content. There is certainly linguistic relevance to place names and landmarks and monuments, there are often translations, etymologies, irregularities in pluralization, regional namings -- the list goes on. We don't want to be encyclopedic in how we describe words (i.e. we want to define words not describe the object in question) but we shouldn't limit the scope of the words we will define simply for the fear that we might cover the same material that an encyclopedia might also cover. - [The]DaveRoss 01:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The big American dictionaries are at least as scholarly and professional as the OED. They don’t try to "outdo" anyone by being encyclopedic. As long as we are controlled by this irrational, amateurish loathing of multi-word and other complex entries, we will remain a children’s grammar-school glossary. —Stephen 01:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow, want to sneer a bit more? I can tell you're enjoying it. Equinox 01:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Among the OneLook references that have this: Columbia Encyclopedia, Columbia Gazetteer of North America, Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, and Wikipedia. Among source dictionaries: Encarta and Random House. Cambridge, Oxford, Collins, MW, and AHD do not. If we fail to include it directly, the WMF family remains represented. Evidently not every dictionary feels compelled to have even major gazetteer entries. That we have a sister project that has such items would seem to relieve us of the burden of duplicating content.
What WP does not have is a full range of translations. Their etymologies are uneven. I suspect that they do not cover linguistically (toponymically) interesting, but otherwise non-notable places. They do have nicknames. They don't have lists of all the placenames suffixed in "-field" etc.
I can see a role for a WikiGazetteer project that addressed the peculiar needs of topnymy. I don't know that Wiktionary will be a good home for the effort, just as it has not proven a suitable home for the taxonomic hierarchy, for a thesaurus, or even for grammatical formulas (X one's Y off), all of which have linguistic justification, two of which have no plausible alternative home in the WMF family.
Golden Gate Bridge delenda est. DCDuring TALK 03:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Stephen G., but many dictionaries, especially American college dictionaries do try to outdo each other in the number of entries listed in the jacket marketing text, and in the prominent entries and buzzwords you can find while browsing in the bookstore, at the expense of more valuable lexicographical definitions. They insert non-dictionary encyclopedic entries for self-promotion, with questionable actual value for the customer. Landau 2001, Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography says so, in pretty much so many words. If you doubt it, I can hunt down some quotations.
But we don't add any value, or save any bookshelf space, by adding an inadequate copy of a Wikipedia entry instead of a link. Aping the print dictionaries' marketing strategies is a disservice to our “customers.” We also don't have any mandate to translate the name of every person, place and thing into other languages.
The entries we have should depend on their lexicographical identity—looks like Empire State Building arguably noses in, Golden Gate Bridge arguably doesn't— or their onomastic qualities, which we haven't even begun to address. Michael Z. 2009-06-06 15:58 z

September 2008

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)
Is it possible to merge or link this with nom? Currently there are entries for nom and nom nom nom, and a mention of "om nom nom", but we have nothing for "nom nom" (which appears to be a short, somewhat unusual form of "nom nom nom"), or for further repetitions used to intensify the interjection ("om nom nom nom", "nom nom nom nom nom", etc.). I doubt we want a never-ending chain of entries for this. Which ones should we have, and how do we deal with the ones without separate entries? My instinct is to put them all under nom with redirects set up for "nom nom nom", "om nom nom", and "om nom nom nom", but I think that may not be the Wiktionary way. Dfeuer 02:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Redirect to nom: it's SoP, if you will: nom + nom + nom. The only phrase I can think of that's like this but that's not SoP is I say, I say, I say (and I'm not sure about that one).msh210 02:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps ha ha, ha ha ha, ho ho, ho ho ho? Equinox 03:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
What about the "om nom" version? Is that the same or separate? Dfeuer 05:04, 10 July 2009 (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)

Hmm. This entry is missing the usual sense of lowering car windows, which is idiomatic as most newer cars no longer have a handle to "roll" them down. --EncycloPetey 18:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
In terms of books, it seems to appear in three glossaries, but no actual usage [16] [17] [18]. Haven't delved into groups yet. Conrad.Irwin 18:43, 8 June 2009 (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 [19]). 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)


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)
YouTube is not a word, it is more or less slang. 09:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Slang words are still words. See WT:CFI for guidelines. Equinox 20:04, 16 March 2009 (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)
Same for Dutch: hamsteren Jcwf 13:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
And here I thought that to hamster was to accumulate stuff, much like a packrat def.2 ...
in German hamstern does mean to be like a packrat...--BigBadBen 20:15, 28 October 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)


Several definitions were added and removed in its history. H. (talk) 09:39, 10 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)


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)


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)

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)

First three hits are mention in various baseball dictionaries, I couldn't find a use. Then again this is most likely a term which would be used by a radio or television announcer and would therefore be written down less frequently. The flip side of that is that baseball has been around for a while and most terms which have true currency there make their way to published writing eventually. Some non-durable quotes which may be useful:
  • It was deuces wild for Damon Sublett, who had been out of action since October 14. He played 2B and was 2-for-4, with 2 RBI and 2 runs scored. Sublett hit a 2 run go-ahead homerun in the 5th inning. (this one seems to be referring to the general prevalence of twos, not the situation) - link
  • Players on the Lewis Cass baseball team shake their hats with the scoreboard showing two balls, two strikes and two outs indicating the next pitch is a ‘roll of the dice’ Thursday in the Class 2A Cass Sectional final against Northfield. (photo title is "deuces wild" - link
  • Fukudome is up, with Deuces Wild, and a chance to do some damage for Tabata’s Cougars. Remember, it’s never a blowout in fantasy. (Sorry!) Okay, full count, runners on the corners… and… foul ball… and Ball 4! Alright, bases loaded for the ninth Cub to bat this inning, Micah Hoffpauir. (in this one it seems to only mean 2 outs, as there is clearly a 3 ball count) - link
  • On the radio, Vin Scully is weaving together a story about the old days, talking about how a Pittsburgh team once won a game because of a pillow fight in the stands, which may be the one tactic the Dodgers haven't tried. // "Deuces wild," Scully says. "Two balls, two strikes, two out." (this one is from the LA Times website, not sure if it was ever published) - link
In general I am not seeing a distinction between usage for the specific count and situations (not even baseball specific ones) where there are a bunch of twos. I would say generalize and keep or toss altogether. - [The]DaveRoss 16:43, 24 May 2009 (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)


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)

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)

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)


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)
I can see some on Google Groups, more than the requisite three. Might come back to this. Equinox 22:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Now cited, but I had to fix the definition: it's transitive (to convert somebody to a cyborg), not intransitive (to become one). Equinox 14:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

RFV passed; thanks, Equinox! I consider an RFV-ing doubly successful if it results in a corrected definition. —RuakhTALK 02:22, 26 June 2009 (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)

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)


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)

Many days have been passed, so the RFV should be removed at anytime. Steel Blade 15:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The originally challenged adjective sense has but one cite, not from a well-known work. The adverb PoS was added and cited by Visviva and is apparently good. The adjective sense now has an RfV-sense tag, but it is unlikely we can do better than Visviva at attesting it. DCDuring TALK 16:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Latin pronoun, colloquial form of ego.


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)

I just added 3 citations from google books. Goldenrowley 05:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

RFV Passed. Goldenrowley 05:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a bit premature to count this as passed. One of those cites is for zenzizenzizenzic. The other two don't have the same part of speech, and I can't decipher the adjective cite. —RuakhTALK 20:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong but right now we're just trying to find 3 usages to pass: not three for each part of speech. With 392 hits on Google and 3 uses in Google books, generally the word is passing. The compound was my oversight: I did not notice it was part of a line-breaked longer word, when I added it. To replace that, there's a third cite at Google books but I can't get the snippet to work: Robert Burton, Philosophaster: Philosophaster - Page 41 by Robert Burton, Connie McQuillen, 1993. Goldenrowley 05:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it's three per sense, else how would {{rfv-sense}} work? —RuakhTALK 17:14, 20 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)

Also old rfv for English verb sense. See mote#Etymology 3. DCDuring TALK 19:50, 21 November 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)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Open question: Are alternative forms shown one word (needing three citations or either form) or two (needing three citations of each form)? If this isn't decided here, it will have to go to WT:BP. DCDuring TALK 15:02, 6 July 2009 (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)

Several in Google Books. Equinox 22:51, 12 May 2009 (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)

Needs a picture or two, once we're sure of what the sources mean. DCDuring TALK 11:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

account manager

Rfv-sense: Template:business Someone who is in charge of financial accounts, especially in businesses. I always that that definition given was of what was called an "accounts manager" in the UK, Oz, and NZ and an "accounting manager" in the US (and Canada?). I also thought that an "account manager" was a salesman. DCDuring TALK 23:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I claim no linguistic accuracy, but isn't an account manager somebody who manages one account (=single customer's interaction with your company) and so accounts manager would be somebody who manages several (and could probably equally be called account manager, because it's a bit unusual to pluralise the attributive adj)? I think I've heard both, but it's not the area I work in, so I can't be certain. OTOH you have customer liaison but not customers liaison, so I don't know how likely the accounts is; it just seems like something I've heard. Equinox 23:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Raw Google hits: account mgr 25M, accounts mgr 1M, accounting mgr 3M. Account manager is a person who is in charge of one or more named customers or of a specified segment of the market. Accounting refers to financial bookkeeping and accounting mgr is thus a different thing. The Rfv'ed definition seems to be of an accounting manager and should indeed be deleted here. A separate entry for "accounting manager" would in my opinion be pretty close to a SoP, and no more worth inclusion than e.g. sales manager or purchasing manager. --Hekaheka 04:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Based on bgc scanning "accounts manager" seems to also be used more-or-less synonymously with "account manager". I can refer to "my account manager" and refer to someone who has a title of either "account manager" or "accounts manager". Also an "account manager" could be in charge of directed the provision of goods and services to one or more customers and only have incidental selling responsibilities. There may be other possibilities. It does seem possible that the term is occasionally used as the RfV'd sense says, but I didn't collect the cites as I saw them. DCDuring TALK 11:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
From the US west coast I hear it all the time in business as account manager (not accounting). My understanding working for them is that they manage accounts (business clients). Goldenrowley 06:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Are we ready to reach the conclusion? Nobody has defended "account manager" as manager of financial accounts and thus the sense should be deleted, --Hekaheka 20:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


If this is real, then it needs a definition rather than an example. SemperBlotto 21:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Lots of bgc citations for marketize/marketise (now added), mostly for process of converting toward a market economy, applied to Western public sector and to former socialist economies. I'll look more for the sense given. DCDuring TALK 22:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment on usage: I think in the USA we'd either use (commonly) marketing or (rarely) marketizing instead of this spelling. A version with "z" as an alternate spelling has two times as many hits at Google Books. Wouldn't it be more British to use the "s" version? If yes, I find it odd to see an example of two American products Sony and iPod used as an example for a British spelling? Goldenrowley 06:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
If we don't get cites for the noun (like plural form}, this will just be a participle anyway. At marketize we have the 2 senses I found in use. This should be a "soft redirect" to there or marketise. DCDuring TALK 11:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


Anyone ever hear of this word? --EncycloPetey 02:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

From Persian Template:fa-Arab (darbân), door keeper. —Stephen 03:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone detagged this, or it never was tagged. Since EP merely asked whether anyone'd heard of it, and SGB responded in the affirmative, I'm striking.​—msh210 16:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


Nothing obvious in Google book search. SemperBlotto 15:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple of entries have now been turned up, using the word in the right context. I don't know if they will be sufficient, but the article's talk page contains fuller discussion. Llykstw 16:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an OED consult would be in order. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 02:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not in the OED Online. (I don't think SemperBlotto would have RFV'd it if it were.) —RuakhTALK 23:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
SB'd mentioned that he'd looked it up there, but I forgot to strike my request. Thanks. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 23:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Three Google Books references are now listed on the discussion page, albeit some with a variant spelling 'brivit', plus the usual in-context uses 'in the wild'. Are we getting close to resolving this rfv? 15:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


Protologism? There are some Google hits but very many of them seem to be errors for futuristic. Italian translation did not exist (removed). One hit for the French translation given. SemperBlotto 16:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


I've never heard this word. Probably a mistake of お相撲さん? --友枝真樹 (Tomoeda Maki) 16:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have seen it before. A quick search of Google produces these 1,300 hits. —Stephen 17:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
That google search includes many Internet handles with honorific "さん". -- 03:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with 友枝真樹. "unofficial term for professional sumō wrestlers" is お相撲さん(おすもうさん). This entry should be moved to お相撲さん. Electric goat 04:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


See wikipedia- is this valid? Nadando 04:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Chambers has trabecula (singular) and trabeculae (plural), but no trabeculum. Merriam-Webster is the same, with the additional alternate plural of trabeculas. Equinox 16:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's valid. The word trabecula comes from the Latin, and the Latin nominative plural is trabeculae. --EncycloPetey 22:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

And it's got lots of hits. Passed, striking.​—msh210 16:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


Really used as an adverb in English? Perhaps it should be an interjection. Equinox 19:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd bet on interjection and not adverb. DCDuring TALK 20:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

November 2008


There is currently no attestation of the Czech entry of stabil, and two native speakers--me and User:Karelklic--do not know the term. --Dan Polansky 12:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Czech-speaker User:Duncan MacCall is the one who wrote that stabil means landline phone. —Stephen 17:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The main discussion on the subject took place here. To sum it up: the word exists and it's used, though not quite as much as I had thought, but as I was only able to prove this by sourses which aren't durably archived, and thus failed to meet our CFI, I'm not opposed to its being deleted by anybody else (while strongly rejecting to do so myself). --Duncan 21:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


(intransitive) To deal with a situation in a diplomatic manner. Can this possibly be intransitive? What sort of sentence might it appear in? Equinox 16:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If we meet with Shakashvili, how will it play?
But the definition isn't quite right. More like How should it play? and that is impersonal or avalent. Robert Ullmann 19:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I think of the sense used in the cite as applicable in any context (diplomacy, business negotiation, politics, interpersonal relations, entertainment, advertising) where "audience" reaction (one person, many, or mass) matters. It is close to a sense of play out, but MW has go over as a synonym, which is better. (BTW, the entry seems to lack some senses.) DCDuring TALK 19:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


Formerly: Transwiki:Chamaole

A Transwikied Chamorro word. --EncycloPetey 01:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I know this has been on the list for a while, but I'd give this the benefit of the doubt and just leave it in as a transwiki for now, because it is not likely we have anyone who speaks Chamorro that can cite in that language. Goldenrowley 02:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


Adjective and verb are lowercase, right? --Connel MacKenzie 19:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I would remove the adjective altogether, since it's attributive use of the noun. --EncycloPetey 20:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Removed. Equinox 19:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The suable publishers tend to show it capitalised (Books, News, Scholar); Groups has more lower case. Other dictionaries also show it mostly capitalised as a noun, less consistently for verb. Both upper- and lower-case forms are attestable, I expect, even the upper case form of the noun by the tighter standards for trademarks. DCDuring TALK 21:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Dictionaries cannot be sued for putting a trademark as a word (look at the money Google wasted on this one!!) as long as they can show citations. Wikt has the CFI process for this. The ONLY thing a trademark holder can do is request the dictionary to place the word as trademarked, as part of the process of maintaining possession. But if the people are using the word as a common noun, verb etc. then hard luck. The only thing that trademark possession means is that, within the territory to which the trademark applies, no other trader can sell a similar product with the same name. Trademarks are, believe it or not, a consumer protection rather than a supplier protection. If it were not like that, then you would not be able to sell a second-hand Ford. ;-) So. To sum up. This entry should probably uppercase trademark, and lowercase noun, verb, etc. IMHO. -- ALGRIF talk 10:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


Verb? Was it really, or just a poetic nonce somewhere? --Connel MacKenzie 13:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

b.g.c. suggests that vigo(u)red (vigo(u)rous, invigorated, having vigo(u)r) did exist, but I'm not finding too many uses as a real verb; and the uses that I do find don't seem to have this sense. (I'm really not sure what's up with them.) Still, it's in a few dictionaries — we got it from vigor in Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam, 1913 — so it probably warrants fuller examination. —RuakhTALK 16:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: To make grotesque. I couldn't find this sense for "anticking" or "anticked". DCDuring TALK 00:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

For me the first hit at google books:anticked is some edition of Antony and Cleopatra, Act II, Scene 7, line 119, with Anticked us glossed as “(1) Made dancers of us, (2) Made us grotesque.” The first hit at google books:anticked grotesque is another edition, same scene, line 147 (presumably there's some prose in the scene, so that different editions will have different line numbers?), which glosses Anticked as “transformed into antics (grotesque performers)”. (We do have that sense at [[antic#Noun]].) Unless we have a reason to doubt these glosses, I think this would fall under the "well-known work" ConFI. —RuakhTALK 02:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind having a dated sense, but I do mind having a dated gloss. "To make grotesque" is not a gloss that communicates to me. Nor does it seem the only or the most direct reading of the Shakespeare passage. All the other uses (not very many independent ones) suggested something like "make fools of" or intransitively "play the fool". Websters 1913 showed that sense as obsolete and cited Shakespeare (no specific citation). MWOnline shows no verb sense. I thought there might be some other citations or contexts that could make sense of the definition as written. Perhaps the OED can shed more light on this. DCDuring TALK 03:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Nope, no more light. The OED Online does have this sense (†1. trans. To make antic or grotesque. Obs.), but its only quotation is the same one from Shakespeare. My understanding is that the OED includes at least one quotation for each sense from each century where it's attested, so apparently this sense isn't attested outside the 17th century (at least so far as the OED is aware). —RuakhTALK 03:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


Nominated for deletion many months ago on what were essentially verification grounds. Moving here to close up there. bd2412 T 11:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thomas More's Utopia ("well-known work") for sense of "deprived" (adj.), arguably Middle English. Also possibly another etymology with same meaning: eye-dialect for "deprived", "'prived". I doubt the "spoilt" sense and the verb. DCDuring TALK 16:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't even have the verb - I went through the history of prive and there never was an English verb (from which allegedly prived is formed). --Duncan MacCall 18:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
If we let this run here for a month, giving a chance for something we've missed, we should be able to clean the entry up. I don't recollect what we do about entries like [['prived]]/[[prived]] < [[deprived]]. DCDuring TALK 19:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


Definition is questioned.Goldenrowley 16:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Def seems close to right. Should be lower case. (I will move it.) Uppercase apparently only used in Australian place names. Not limited to Northern Territory in Oz, also WA. Lower case has other senses. DCDuring TALK 16:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Please inspect cites. 6 support use in Australia, 4 in place name. 2 support sense. One weakly contraindicates. DCDuring TALK 17:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Also see jumpup#References. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


Is this French or English or both? Either way the entry needs to be fixed because its categorisation for both Latin derivations and nouns are French.--50 Xylophone Players talk 17:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

snout as verb

snout has a verb form listed, meaning to provide with a snout. Can we confirm? (Saw some entries at google books that might mean it has a sense for an animal to dig or nose with its snout, I was looking for snouting). RJFJR 03:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Could they possibly mean constructions like large-snouted, hairy-snouted? You can, in a way, read those as "provided with a snout of such a kind", but it doesn't imply a full verb with all the inflections. Equinox 13:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Here are some random data points, which I am too tired at the moment to do anything constructive with:
  • As a legit verb, "snout" can apparently refer to something done to hogs before slaughtering.
  • We should definitely also have the sense "to push or probe (as) with a snout", which accounts for at least 1 in 100 hits on b.g.c. (the other 99 being scannos for "shout").
  • The sense given is more problematic. I'm inclined to think that it exists, but the only cites I can find are for the past participle, and they're right on the line between verb and adjective: watchtowers snouted with machine guns, shoes snouted with a metal pike. This seems more like [participle]-with-[noun] than [adjective]-with-[noun] (cf. "red with blood"), but I'd like to see at least one clear-cut use.
  • "Snouting" also apparently has a sense in early cyclotron lingo, but again attestation seems to be participle-only and therefore dubious as a verb. -- Visviva 15:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
"Snouting" seems to be one of w:H. L. Mencken's favorite words. He uses it in a way to suggest three pig behaviors,: sniffing out, rooting, eating greedily:
  • 2006, H. L. Mencken, Malcolm Moos, editor, On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe‎, page 323:
    And the indefatigable Jim Farley, snouting endlessly for more and more jobs for those who vote right and have their hearts in the right place.
It would be wrong to list this under the infinitive verb as lemma, because it is not used in the infinitive. (Listing this way would be a hypercorrective back-formation.)
OED has other verb forms, but this one is a separate entry labelled ppl. a., meaning provided or furnished with a snout, or snout-shaped. Wiktionary:Entry_layout_explained/POS_headers allows a Participle header, but comments it “Used in some Russian, Lithuanian, and many Latin entries.”  Michael Z. 2009-04-11 22:02 z



Agreed - this was the type of iceberg most feared by the Titanic, as it was barely visible.—This comment was unsigned.

Yeah, I've also heard growler for a kind of iceberg before; verification is at [20], but I haven't time now to sort through those.—msh210 22:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I can personally attest to the sense "A roughly half gallon jug typically used to carry beer", as I have friends who brew beer professionally and sell growlers. This sense and the "iceberg" sense appear in Merriam-Webster's 3rd ed. --EncycloPetey 22:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
And the final, UK sense seems attestable [21], but, again, I haven't time now to do it.—msh210 23:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


How do the two senses of audacity differ? RJFJR 01:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The first is expressed with a negative connotation; the second is neutral to positive in its connotation. At least, that's how I read the two senses currently on the page. I'm not sure that both senses would be distinct if we had citations. I've not heard the word used in a particularly positive light. --EncycloPetey 01:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

rheumatic as noun?

example sentence: "The rheumatic was confined to her bed." Can we find citations? Would be a parallel to arthritic as a noun: "the arthritic was confined to her bed." RJFJR 00:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


Jargon or real? DCDuring TALK 11:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The {{wjargon}} sense is not only inadmissible, but also redundant with the first sense, as far as I can tell. I've added two more senses. -- Visviva 07:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


All the Google hits I could find seem like scannos of "a search". --Jackofclubs 13:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

  • You could probably argue for a Middle English header (although I hate that) – I've added a Wyclif cite. It appears a lot in his Bible, which is obviously quite a well-known work. Ƿidsiþ 13:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Could you please render the citation in proper(contemporary) English, I cannot understand it. Bogorm 13:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I think Bogorm's problem (which I share) is why separate Middle English entries and translations of (some?) Middle English citations are needed. Given all the spelling variations and inflected forms, we would harvest a lot of entries too. We might find more than 20 forms of terms related to serch. DCDuring TALK 16:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand you. Do you mean we should have entries for all spelling variants? If so, I agree. But this is the lemma form. Ƿidsiþ 18:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't sticking to the point. I was arguing for Middle English entries, which you had said above that you hate, using Bogorm's and my difficulties with understanding the Wyclif passage as support. More specifically to the point at hand, the cite is not of the term asearch#English. It seems instead to be of aserch#Middle English or aserche#Middle English or aserchen#Middle English. DCDuring TALK 19:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Well I think I already lost that argument ages ago. There are quite a few ME entries here. But the point is this: when do you draw the line. There are many early-modern texts which are just as hard to understand, and I would find it very weird ‘translating’ those. Also, there are very few words which only exist in Middle English, ie which did not survive into early modern and therefore I think it's more useful to collect this historical development under one =English= heading. (Although annoyingly, asearch isn't a good example because I don't think it did outlast ME!). Ƿidsiþ 14:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

evil laugh#Noun

Rfv-sense: stereotypical villains laugh. Had been RfD'd (by me) and deleted (by MSH), but citations and redefinition seem to make it OK.

While the others look tolerable, I think the 2004 citation may be invalid for this sense ("adding the evil laugh he had learned from cartoon bad guys"): it's just the laugh he had learned that happened to be an evil one, not "the [specific] evil laugh, which he had learned". Equinox 22:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dodgy indeed. I've commented it out. We have had been following the practice of including the literal sense to contrast with figurative senses. It might be useful for that. I'll put it under a separate header on the citations page. DCDuring TALK 23:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Already detagged. Striking.​—msh210 17:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

standoff as verb?

Current definitions for verb don't look like verbs to me. RJFJR 20:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume it's an error. As you suggest, forms like standoffed and standoffing would be absurd. I've removed some mistaken verbs of this kind in the past. Having said that, standoffing appears once in Google Books, and user:DCDuring stood up in support of standby as a verb, so I suppose you never know! Equinox 21:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree. I don't see any way to use this as a verb except to take it apart into "stand off". -- Pinkfud 21:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Not this one -yet - afaict. DCDuring TALK 03:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I have created stand off with correct definitions. This supposed verbal form of what is generally accepted as a noun is a no-no for me. It would need some pretty convincing cites to support the definitions given. I'm not searching, as I believe the search will be a futile waste of time. -- ALGRIF talk 14:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
We seriously need the nautical usage(s) for stand/stood/stands, stand off, stand into. The cruiser stood into the harbour. The harbour was blockaded by two British frigates standing off the coast. (and that is a verb of course ;-) Robert Ullmann 15:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Be my guest and add them. I had not thought about these, to be honest. Cheers. -- ALGRIF talk 16:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
If we want to be strictly descriptivist, I think it's clear that many speakers write the bare forms of many intransitive verb-particle idioms without any space or hyphen; for example, "please login" gets >50 MGhits (raw), even though "he logined|loginned" gets <60 (real) and "he loggedin" gets <20 (real). In the case at hand, google books:"designed to standoff" (for example) pulls up three distinct non-scanno verb uses. However, we're not strictly descriptivist; we do have some concept of "misconstruction" or "misspelling". So, how do we want to handle this? Is it a misspelling? (If so, I don't think it's common enough to be included.) —RuakhTALK 17:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The inflected forms are, um, rare. Is [[standoff]] just an alternative spelling of [[stand off]], with a note that it doesn't inflect? or categorised as a defective verb? It wouldn't be unreasonable to indicate it as non-standard too. DCDuring TALK 18:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


[From an earlier comment I made on the talk page.] Isn't this really covered by -dimensional? I think there is nothing special about the letter n here. Mathematicians can use any letter they want. I don't see (or like the idea of) corresponding entries for k-sided, n-sided, k-gon, n-gon (see -gon)... Equinox 20:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

n-dimensional is a valid term. The n refers to number and means any number. I’ve never heard of "k-dimensional", nor have I heard of n-sided or n-gon. Where did you see those terms? —Stephen 00:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
n does not "refer[] to 'number' and mean[] any number". If a mathematician wants to refer to some n-dimensional space for some n, then that's what he'll call it: "an n-dimensional space for some n". Not merely "an n-dimensional space", leaving the listener to understand that that means that n is any number. (Same, incidentally for n-gon, n-torus, n-sphere, n-hedron, n space, etc. An exception is p-adic number, and there may be more exceptions, but that's the general rule.) This entry is, per nom, covered by the entry -dimensional and should redirect thereto, or be deleted. But this really belongs at RFD rather than here, I think.—msh210 17:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
That's somewhat true, but check out google books:"n-dimensional". Still, I think this is SOP: n in general is used this way. —RuakhTALK 22:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree unanimously with Stephen and must even admit that n can mean solely number, there is no other possibility. n-gon sounds more than facetious. Please, keep the entry. Bogorm 18:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't call n-gon facetious. It turns up with regularity in geometry textbooks, even at the grade school level, at least in the US. It is used in the discussion of polygon general properties to mean "any polygon with n sides" (and therefore n angles as well). For example, the sum of the interior angles for any convex n-gon is 180 x (n - 2). The use of the term n-gon in this situation saves the author a step in explaining that n stands for the number of sides/angles. --EncycloPetey 23:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The point was that Stephen has never heard of n-gon and neither have I, because the habitual letter is k(I am a citizen of the EU). I am forsooth flabbergasted to be apprised of the deviation described by you and taken up with in the USA. Bogorm 17:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I am similarly shocked that n-gon is not standard in the UK (but am not completely surprised, given some other significant notational differences I've seen). The term n-gon makes more sense to me intuitively, since we use N for the set of natural numbers, and thus the value of n must be one of those numbers (excluding n < 3 for Euclidean geometry). Doesn't standard set theory notation use the capital letter for the set, and the corresponding lower case letter for the elements of that set? The variable k isn't used much in the US, at least in the pre-collegiate math texts. I think I've only even seen it used in proofs by mathematical induction. --EncycloPetey 20:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, n-gon is not uncommon in the UK. Whether or not it is "standard" depends on whom you ask! Dbfirs 17:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at Wiktionary:Tea room#-dimensional which includes the question as to whether [[-dimensional]] deserves to be an entry, as it does not appear to me to be a suffix, though the entry bears that PoS header. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
This should be in WT:RFD, not here. N-gon is a definite keep, likewise k-gon if that's what used in the EU, and n-dimensional is no more sum-of-parts than three-dimensional. N-sided looks more like a modifier construction though. DAVilla 19:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Allowing both k and n doesn't escape the issue that any letter can be used. (More real examples from Books: "which divides P into a q-gon"; "also belong to a p-gon".) three-dimensional may be notable because it is so common; I don't think the rationale for keeping it can be purely that none of these are sums of parts, because something like seven-hundred-and-six-dimensional would be shot down by anyone. Separately: I don't understand how -sided and -dimensional differ in their construction; could you explain what you mean about only one involving a modifier? Equinox 19:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Not entriely sure. Why do we have three-dimensional and four-dimensional after all, and not three-sided or four-sided? Maybe it's that the number of dimensions paints a really different picture in our minds, whereas the number of sides is simple counting.
I'm curious, are p and q prime? If so then a p-gon and an n-gon are not the same thing. In higher-level geometry, each regular polygon is a special creature. Primarily, they can't all be constructed. 16:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
This is yet another jargon term within my own field. In geophysics, we can and do find buried structures by magnetic, gravitational and seismic surveys. Now, if we find what looks like an ancient lava flow, it's important to know whether the shape is tabular, lenticular, or irregular. Short of digging it up, the best way to do that is with a series of so-called n-dimensional calculations done on the data. The "n" that yields results closest to the data is taken to represent the most probable shape. I'd say this should be kept. -- Pinkfud 19:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense of the sense "easily" - I can't think of any context where it would fit, but... \Mike 19:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This is from Lexin Swedish-English dictionary (http://lexin.nada.kth.se/cgi-bin/swe-eng): Elden slocknar gärna när veden är sur "a fire goes out easily if the wood is wet". Though, this sense doesn't seem so distant from "willingly". Kettler 14:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Mmkay, but "easily" is a vastly broader term where most of the subsenses do not correspond to this word. \Mike 16:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense. Needs cites of attributive use referring to the person. Least controversial is as an adjective. See Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Washington. (No RfD at entry) DCDuring TALK 19:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

cited in attributive use. DCDuring TALK 20:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Would "Washingtonian" used in reference to G. Washington be considered attributive? E.g.:
  • 2005, John W. Matviko, The American President in Popular Culture, p. 4:
    By appearing in uniform, Jackson was able to convey his strong character through these images. Jackson had seized on one element of the Washingtonian myth and clung to it.
bd2412 T 05:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
No. That's a different derivative word. Attributive use would include items like "Washington administration", "Washington Monument", "Washington Turnpike", etc. where Washington's surname is used itself as if it were an adjective, to describe something associated with him, his philosophy, or in his honor. --EncycloPetey 06:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I've added Washington's Birthday as an entry, which should settle this discussion, as it is clearly used attributively here. --Jackofclubs 08:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I do not see how a regularly created genitive is the same as an attributive use of a noun. --Duncan 15:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't. Possessive use is not the same as attributive use. --EncycloPetey 18:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "tough". Maybe I'm just tired, but I really get the connection between this pair of words. \Mike 23:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


RfV for the historical–nautical sense; it may also need sense-spliting.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I can verify these uses, but the only sources I have for the net/lines/hooks is Smyth's The Sailor's Word Book (1867). Will split and clean up senses. - Amgine/talk 04:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


Moved from rfd for cites of attributive use per WT:CFI#Names of specific entities. DCDuring TALK 12:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a surname.451 bearers in England and Wales.--Makaokalani 14:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Not in the entry. Evidence? What about other 3 senses? DCDuring TALK 15:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for removing the rfv - I mistook it for the rfd mentioned in the talk page. I have no opinion about earls,they are no use for me anyway, but when a word is an attested surname, it's sensible to add a place name definition, to avoid confusion, and to show which one derives from which. I'm just putting surnames into categories. Place names are creeping in, there should be some limit to them. --Makaokalani 15:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
What you say seems sensible to me for such entries, although one could argue for placing the place name in an Etymology section, as we sometimes do for unattestable brand names.
Though I think that many proper noun entries are too duplicative of WP articles, I am really interested in achieving alignment between WT:CFI and our practice. At present I see the supplanting of CFI by votes on individual entries. If we have a policy of including surnames, is our evidence standard the same as for other entries (thereby favoring the names of authors!!!)? I could see the merit in distinct evidence standards for various classes of Proper nouns, but I would like it discussed and voted on. DCDuring TALK 17:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense Adj: Of a person or thing: unmanageable; also noun: unmanageable person or thing. Not in MWOnline. DCDuring TALK 13:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Dated? DCDuring TALK 15:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems to be. Since it hasn't seen much use in more than a century, I'd even call it obsolete. -- Visviva 15:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks cited to me. Detagging, marking obsolete, striking.​—msh210 17:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


I think it is probably right, but the Wikipedia article only mentions one sense. Some cites would help anyway. H. (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. As someone formally trained in bryology, I have never heard "gemmule" used, nor can I find it in the standard bryology reference works I've checked thus far. Bryologists use the term gemma, and these are already very tiny. There is no use for a diminutive when the object is only one cell or a few cells to begin with. How much smaller could it be? --EncycloPetey 20:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


RuakhTALK 23:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Try searching Groups for the exact phrase "FMI contact". Equinox 23:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


A 19th Century source says that depotates (ambulance attendants) served with Hannibal's army (3rd Century), so presumably the term originates in Latin? I would like more sourcing for this sense. There is a second sense that sometimes is rendered despotate; is depotate an alternate spelling? --Una Smith 15:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion shows that the first sense of an "ambulance attendant" is probably a typo/error for Latin deportantes, which is substantive use of a plural participle form. --EncycloPetey 18:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


Another TBot pseudo-Neo-Latin entry--this one for Kazakhstan. In the 1662 Blaeu Atlas, the region is labelled "Kasakki Tartari" (Khazakh Tartars). This is the only information I have, since the term would have to be relatively recent in Latin. --EncycloPetey 19:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Latin Wikipedia says w:Casachia is good. —Stephen 03:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Based on what? There aren't any citations there. The fact that there is an article on the Latin Wikipedia titled w:la:Casachia is not sufficient support to meet CFI. --EncycloPetey 22:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


annodate in English? RJFJR 03:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


misspelling of flamberg, flamberge, I think. DCDuring TALK 15:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sense two: not only have I never seen that symbol used for the Deutsche Mark, but Unicode specifically mentions that this symbol is *not* the symbol for the Deutsche Mark. -- Prince Kassad 18:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

So to clarify, you'd like sense #2 rewritten from this:
  1. The symbol for the german mark or deutschmark, the national currency used prior to adoption of the euro.
to something like this:
  1. The symbol for the German Mark before World War II.
 ? I have to admit, I'm a bit confused; Wikipedia uses the symbol "M" for the gold and paper marks until 1923, then "RM" for the Renten and Reich marks until 1948, then "DM" for the Deutsche mark until the adoption of the Euro. For which of these was "ℳ" used? Only until 1923 (where Wikipedia uses "M"), or all the way till World War II as Unicode suggests, or what?
Regardless, if you're certain about this, then I think you should just be bold and fix it.
RuakhTALK 19:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the ℳ refers to the old German gold mark. The current note in Unicode "German Mark currency symbol, before WWII" was only just added in Unicode 5.1. Previous versions had a more ambiguous notice stating "German mark (not the current Deutsche Mark)". Apparently someone at Unicode tried to be bold and fixed the recentism, but got the timeframe wrong. -- Prince Kassad 21:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I've been bold and fixed it per this discussion. I've removed the rfv tag, and am striking this section.​—msh210 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense - across the Alps (flagged but not listed)

This looks good to me. We need to say that it is from a Northern viewpoint - so has an opposite sense to that of cisalpine and transalpine. SemperBlotto 22:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "lacking confidence, conviction or determination"

This appears to be a case of thesaurus creep. The sense most simply is "lacking confidence", with the additional nouns adding no nuanced meaning or expansion. (The lack of conviction, in fact, is not necessarily an element of unsureness - ask any soldier if xe is unsure xe should be a soldier, as opposed to having a conviction xe should be a soldier.) - Amgine/talk 02:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, should be trimmed. (This seems more like an rfd-sense, but no matter.) -- Visviva 02:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


Requesting verification for "manikin" sense. Does that sense ever occur with this spelling? -- Visviva 09:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Jewish tax

According to w:Kosher tax this is an urban legend. SemperBlotto 12:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

According to w:Kosher tax I am a white supremacist, which is news to me. That article is extremely unbalanced and has complaints to that effect. If you even mention kosher certification, someone runs and reads that article and then calls you a racist or a Nazi, etc. I am neither. I think as a consumer, a strict definition is necessary so that the topic can be discussed objectively, without name-calling. --DrHerbertSewell 13:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Food is certified with a  symbol and fees are paid. The question is how much. Its a fair question, but the fact that fees are paid is not in dispute, by the Orthodox Union, the ADL or anyone else, so the definition is correct.--DrHerbertSewell 13:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added a sense for which I have provided citations (many more available) and move the rfv to the initial definition. I have only found one cite so far for the original sense, but have not tapped all the sources, esp. Groups. DCDuring TALK 14:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Usage of both senses is ubiquitous on the internet. The first sense is used to argue the motives of those who protest or defend the fees collected for kosher certification. Many articles cite a May 18, 1975 New York Times article, a Washington Post (Sept. 27, 1990) article, and a 1959 Wall Street Journal article. The usage of the first sense is undeniable, and should be accepted, as should the second.--DrHerbertSewell 17:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, but I could not find any articles containing "Jewish tax" on Google News from any publication in 1959, 1975, or 1990. DCDuring TALK 17:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I could not find any use of "Jewish tax" in the first sense at Google news in WSJ, NYT, or WP. DCDuring TALK 17:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Please see WT:CFI for information on how to attest definitions. Blogs and ordinary websites don't count for that purpose because they are not considered durably archived. Published books, magasines, newspapers, peer-reviewed journal articles, and usenet count. We especially like citations with authenticity that is verifiable because they are available electronically from multiple trustworthy institutional sources. I look forward to seeing the quotations and citations. DCDuring TALK 17:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • cited. Please inspect. Though the cites may be considered mentions, there are many, many cites available from Usenet that are mostly from extremely vituperative exchanges. A usage notes may be in order. DCDuring TALK 18:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
    Agree that some sort of context tag or usage note is in order. Every cite for the first sense seems to be in a very specific context (that of anti-Semitism, unless I'm very much mistaken). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. (A lot of people really have no understanding of economics, so it's plausible that someone could buy into this, and use the term, without already being anti-Semitic; but I'm not seeing any evidence of that.) —RuakhTALK 08:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I would not support any additional usage tags, since Kosher is a specifical term, with which the majority of readers (including me until recently) are unfamiliar. Jewish tax is not so encumbering in terms of unfamiliar (foreign language) notions and is easy to remember. I do not see any reason for involivng Anti-Semitism in this discussion, since in the Wikipedia article the two are used as synonyms and nowhere is it stated that Jewish tax is Anti-Semitic and Kosher tax is not. French Wikipedia seems to prefer the more comprehensible term, as do I. Bogorm 14:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but most of your comment is completely irrelevant. I'm not saying that "Jewish tax" should be tagged in order to encourage people to use "kosher tax"; rather, I'm saying that "Jewish tax" should be tagged so that our readers know the context it's used in (i.e. anti-Semitism). It's quite likely that "kosher tax" needs the same tag. (Similarly, we'll often tag a word as "medical", "legal", "historical", etc., even if there's no tagless synonym. We don't pit words against each other in some sort of weird deathmatch where they vie for taglessness.) —RuakhTALK 19:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we are not at liberty to not include information because we want to see words propagated. We are bound to call them as we see them. Although, the thought of death matches is enticing. Perhaps we should consider starting a practice. I would absolutely love to see a participle choke the life out of an adjective.  :-) -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The only kind of context tag I can think of that is accurate and not PoV would be the proposed {{misnomer}}, which has itself been recently suggested and challenged. Perhaps this is an example that might define how it could be used. One problem with the rfv'd sense is that "Jewish tax" is a double misnomer for something that might very validly be called "Kosher fee". It's not a tax in any normal sense. "Jewish" is at best imprecise. Perhaps, when the component words of a headword are misleading with regards to the referent of the entry it would be appropriate to apply {{misnomer}}. I would much rather use this situation to develop a tool of general use than have an ad hoc solution, let alone one that violated any of the fundamental principles of Wikiworld. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 17:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I would associate myself with the editors challenging the introduction of the tag. I am not against the misnomer template in general and would approve its use in, say, black box (actually orange in colour) or any similar case. Bogorm 17:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Not all "black boxes" are orange or black or even necessarily literal boxes. But they are, at least figuratively, boxes. Perhaps they are figuratively "black". I'm not sure that one can say that a "fee" is a figurative "tax". If one can, than the misnomer tag and the rules for its application that I suggest is no help in this case - and likely not anywhere else. I'll try a usage note. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 18:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the term isn't really inaccurate; it just refers to a non-existent concept. If non-Jewish consumers really did have to pay extra on the products they bought, and that extra went to the kosher-supervising authorities, I don't think "Jewish tax" would really be a "misnomer". It wouldn't literally be a tax, and "Jewish" would of course be vague, but if people can describe the lottery as a tax (see google:lottery "is a tax"), I think this would fall into the same general category. Since the people using this term do believe in that concept (or wish for their audience to believe in it), they're using the term correctly to refer to that concept, just as believers in the Northwest Passage used that term correctly to refer to it. So if we want to take this route, the right label would not be "misnomer" but rather something like "due to misunderstanding". —RuakhTALK 19:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
To tag along with Ruakh, I'd like to comment that I see no problem with a simple {{context|Anti-Semitism}}. We have no problem tagging a word <nowki>Lua error in Module:labels/templates at line 29: The parameter "lang" is required. when all its cites seem to connect to Scientology. Additionally, this is a fairly objective note. It would be different is we had a usage note saying, "Only used by Jew hating bastards. It's a bunch of bullshit" This seems fairly clear to me. If someone can find some cites used outside of an obviously anti-Semitic context, then that would alleviate my argument. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
At least the "lottery tax" could refer to an excise tax on legal gambling. I don't think I have any problem with an anti-Semiticism tag, except wishing it was unnecessary. In this case I was hoping to highlight an additional aspect of the term: that it is a misleading characterisation of its referent. Should it be called pejorative for kosher certification fee? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 20:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I've now detagged as cited, and added a usage note "The term Jewish tax is used refer to such a fee primarily by anti-Semites." as an equivalent to the context tag discussed above. Striking.​—msh210 18:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


Encarta: Dictionary


The quotation cited is from 1431, which is before the circa-1470 Middle-English–Early-Modern-English boundary, making it invalid as a citation of an English word.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not just change the L2 header to Middle English, even if there is usage in something printed post-1500? There are probably many English "obsolete spelling" entries that would probably benefit from such a change, even if they are all in Roman characters. DCDuring TALK 17:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
If we have citations both præ- and post-1470, then we need two sections: English and Middle English. Of course, the Middle English section would list the definition simply as “the” and not as “Obsolete spelling of the”.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Go nuts! DCDuring TALK 20:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Done. I'm assuming that this assuages your complain Doremítzwr. If not, please feel free to reinstate rfv, as I have removed it. If so, could you strike this thread? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
It does about the misplaced citation; however, I’m curious as to whether þe saw any use in (post-Middle) English. (I imagine it probably did, considering the fact that our citation is from Middle English’s twilight decades…)  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The English section now has three citations; are they sufficient to verify this word’s (extremely restricted) use in English?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 04:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I dunno. I see why you're asking. The groups cite seems mention-y. The 1901 cover title use seems like graphics. I'd sooner stipulate that it was still in use after 1500 than have those as precedents. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 23:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

cut up

Rfv-senses (X2):

  1. To aggressively move in front of another vehicle.
  2. To be upset.
I've only heard 1 as cut off and 2 as broken up. DCDuring TALK 19:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The second sense about being upset, I have heard many times. Is it a UK expression.--Dmol 00:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Both of these senses seem OK to me (in the UK). SemperBlotto 08:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The vehicle sense is good, but the "upset" one is subtly wrong. To cut up is not to be upset; to be cut up is. ("She was cut up about it", not "She cut up about it"). Equinox 09:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, I missed that. Not sure how to word the definition in that case.--Dmol 09:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The vehicle sense is common in UK, at least. Sense 2 is possibly an adjective? I can't think of any active voice use of the verb cut up with this meaning. -- ALGRIF talk 15:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Collins has it as an adjective, BTW. -- ALGRIF talk 13:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Are we saying that the vehicle sense is "in widespread use" in the UK only, then? DCDuring TALK 00:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Strong keep for #1, cut off isn't even a synonym of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an RfV. Votes don't matter. The two senses would need citations. It appears that sense 2 is just wrong. The word is an adjective, which now appears in the entry, properly tagged. We need for UK speakers to declare sense 1 "in widespread use" in the UK or to find citations. Isn't there a UK speaker who can find such a UK idiom? DCDuring TALK 10:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense - verb. Nothing obvious in Google books for "reparationing" or "reparationed" that isn't a spelling mistake or OCR error. SemperBlotto 15:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I see two real hits for reparationing and one for reparationed, but I'm not sure what they all mean. The -ed one clearly means "to force to pay reparations":
  • 2001, J.N. Stroyar, The Children’s War (novel), Simon and Schuster, ISBN 9780743419284, page 191,
    “Money,” Wolf-Dietrich stated categorically. “Look what happened to us in the First World War. Shit, if they had won, we’d have been reparationed back into serfdom. []
and the -ing ones both take regions as their objects, so might mean the same thing, but I don't have enough context to be sure.
RuakhTALK 19:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Islamic fascist

The sense defined as "(pejorative) Islamic fanaticism, fundamentalist or fundamentalism". What does that have to with fascism politically, and what reputable sources, if any, have used it this way? (I'd question the other senses too, as SOP, but that's another matter.) Equinox 16:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

We're descriptivist; our quotations don't have to be from "reputable sources". If we ignore our entry's failure to distinguish "fascist" from "fascism", it otherwise seems to be accurate; the American Right Wing really does use these terms this way. (At least, I think so. The Right Wing might only use "Islamofascist". google news:"Islamic fascist" gets two hits at the moment, and both are potentially ambiguous.) —RuakhTALK 19:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with facsist or fascism. It is used by the U.S. "Right" because it is a dirty word, which doesn't need to be understood, it is just intended as a slur. (Although is especially effective as a deflection of noting that the present administration of the "Right" does have fascist characteristics.) Many (perhaps most) pejoratives are not literal. But I haven't heard or seen this form, just "Islamofascist". Robert Ullmann 03:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
75 Books' hits [22], mostly contributive, AFAICT ambiguous about whether the speaker meant our sense 2, 3 or 4. I wonder if senses 3 and 4 might be merged, but the greatest fault I found about sense 4 is that it defines fascist (a person I believe) as fanaticism and fundamentalism - only fundamentalist doesn't seem out of place there IMO, the others should be at Islamic fascism, if anywhere (269 Books' hits [23]). And finally - it shouldn't have too much to do with real fascism, like our sense 1 does, for that would just be asking for deletion as a SoP, wouldn't it? --Duncan 09:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't have a problem, with the definition as it stands. WritersCramp 23:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Sources: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] —This unsigned comment was added by WritersCramp (talkcontribs).
However, if you do a google web search you get Results 1 - 100 of about 24,100 for "Islamic fascist". (0.48 seconds) WritersCramp 23:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Christianise and Christianize

Should this entry be capitalized? (I'm looking for confirmation before I move it to the uncapitalized). RJFJR 01:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Virtually every OneLook dictionary has these capitalised. What makes you think it should not be? I would claim the capitalised spellings have "widespread use". DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 02:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


Is is really heavy sleeping or just slumber and is there really snoring involved?

The following quote speaks more for slumbering:

The squire sloomed

and slept in his chair; and finally, after a cup of tea, went to bed.[1]

There also seem to be meanings in Scottish like wilting of flowers etc.

In Dutch the word is an adjective meaning sluggish, particularly in the sense of dumb-witted. Jcwf 21:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Barr, Amelia Edith Huddleston, 1831-1919 "The Squire of Sandal-Side A Pastoral Romance"

According to the online Dictionary of the Scots Language ([29]) the Scots meaning suggests light sleeping: A dreamy or sleepy state, a reverie, day-dream, a light sleep, slumber, “an unsettled sleep” for noun and To sleep lightly, doze, slumber fitfully for verb. --Duncan 12:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

inclusive or

Used as a conjunction in running English text. 06:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

By geeks? Most people would say "or both" because it is simpler and shorter. Dbfirs 22:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


Only published use seems to be written by google. Conrad.Irwin 12:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

people (French section)

There's a note on the talk page suggesting this was kept, but ?after failing to be a Vietnamese word - ? I hope I'm not subjecting the French section to double jeopardy, but I'm not finding any uses of the word in French books that convince me it has the meaning given. I also find just three hits for 'un' / 'le pipole', the suggested alternate spelling. — Beobach972 17:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: talk-page: The archive-bot can't actually tell if RFV passed or failed; it says "kept" because the entry wasn't deleted, and the entry wasn't deleted because an English section exists.
I've added the two relevant quotations from google books:"est un people". It's also not too hard to pull quotations from fr:google news archive:"un people". The problem with our entry isn't that it's wrong, but that it's incomplete: I believe this is a fairly new sense of people, having grown out of a (slightly) older, and still common, attributive sense as in "un magazine people", "la presse people", and so on (all about celebrities). fr:people doesn't have a French section, but fr:pipole matches my understanding. I've added {{attention|fr}} to the entry; hopefully some patient Francophone will address all our concerns. :-)
RuakhTALK 06:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
It's really very common. The Académie hates it, but many papers and mags have a "People" section with celebrity news in. It also gets used a lot as an adjective nowadays -- see eg this article in La Voix du Nord which refers to "la très people Lily Allen" (the very famous Lily Allen)!! Ƿidsiþ 10:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Ruakh is perfectly right, this word is not used for all celebrities, only for celebrities much pictured in specialized magazines (e.g. princesses, actresses, or other celebrities of interest to them) Lmaltier 17:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept per all, plus I've seen it in a magazine too. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

write a test

A previous RFV verified the usage of the phrase. This one is a separate issue: whether it's sum of parts. The talk page suggests that this is just one construct using write and test (because we also see there "The tests will be written"), so I think that the South African sense should merely appear under write. Equinox 12:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Where are the citations from the previous RfV? Three of the four links are dead. None seem to have been to attestable sources. Was the previous RfV properly closed?
There are at least two distinct sensess:
  1. To make a test; to design examination questions or test cases.
  2. To take a test;
I don't doubt that at least the "take a test" sense is in use, though not much in the US. We don't have the appropriate wording at write for these, IMO. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 13:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's SoP imo. It's a question for RFD afaIct. (Incidentally, I know the phrase as meaning "take a test" from older UK books, not from SAfr ones. Can anyone confirm that this, perhaps dated, UK usage?)—msh210 17:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


RfV-sense for “[a] secret essence or remedy; an elixir”. Etymologically plural, but the sense is a countable singular and the inflexion line calls this noun uncountable. Is this mistaken — in terms of the word’s grammatical, if not its semantic, function?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
This seems identical to the second sense of the singular form arcanum. Is this word properly a plurale tantum, whereas its singular uses are {{non-standard}}?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


Rfv-sense 3. Another name for the Southern Mountain Cranberry. I doubt it very much! -- ALGRIF talk 18:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It’s listed in the Dictionary of American Regional English, so it looks like it exists. I find the other two sense more quæstionable, personally. If they do exist, are all the senses related, or do they need to be split by etymology?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The "stupid person" sense is easily attested as slang [30], but I can't say what its etymology might be, or whether the senses might be etymologically related. --EncycloPetey 21:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
All the farmers where I used to live in Cumbria used to call a dingleberry a dingleberry, or a winnet, and a spade a spade, or a shovel. -- ALGRIF talk 11:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang, page 55, says that the slang senses derive from the cranberry sense; I would imagine that the "stupid person" sense derives from the fecal sense. The ODMS also says that "dingleberries" can refer to the female breasts, but their citation for this looks a bit sketchy. I'd be very surprised if that could meet CFI. -- Visviva 06:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately the references in the DARE are mentions, not uses, so I don't think that's sufficient (though it is definitely worthy of note). The Range Plant Manual of 1937 may contain a use, but snippet view is not cooperating.[31] This may need to be relegated to "Etymology" if we can't get some more satisfactory attestation. -- Visviva 06:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


Yes, good old "LOL". I bet you're all delighted to see this come up. I am questioning the "lots of love" expansion, which I've seen on several dubious Web sites that list acronyms (and probably copy each other, which might even be how we got it), but I have never seen it used. Can anyone find even one good citation of LOL in this way? Equinox 21:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There's the oft-repeated story (an urban myth?) of how it was mis-used in an e-mail to a widow, but this is an example of mis-use. Dbfirs 19:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
If you know people from the older generations then you'll see that it used to be used for "lots of love" a little. A couple of years ago, my mum was in her forties and a little technologically challenged; for months she thought that my sister was being very affectionate ending all her text messages with "lots of love." I know personal experience isn't citable but at least I can assure you that it is definitely a legitimate sense of the word. D4g0thur 17:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

urban Indian

Note: the heading of this section was previously [[Urban Indian]]. The named page has been moved. —RuakhTALK 03:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sum of parts? Caps? SemperBlotto 08:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not sum of parts if it's applied only to American Indians and not to persons from India. --EncycloPetey 21:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
EP: Does this mean then that:
for any multi-word headword meets cfi if
one of whose components is polysemic and
which has one component definition that is excluded from the compound-headword definition.
This might be the new explicit version of cfi that we need. DCDuring TALK 23:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
To be precise, I assume that you would exclude adjective-noun noun phrases like "creamy skin" but include noun-noun noun phrases like "peanut butter" and "head butter". DCDuring TALK 23:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
It might be tried as a guiding principle, but I don't know that it's universally applicable. Certainly, there are adjective-noun combinations that I would say neet CFI, like clean slate, which is idiomatic. However, the principle might work in those cases where idiomaticity does not obviously exist. --EncycloPetey 23:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I supplied adequate references for this term when I created the entry, and have added more since then. I thought it was clear enough. I don't see the problem. This entry started out as a dictionary definition on Wikipedia. I transwiki'd it here, that's all. Anachronist 01:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Links to websites do not meet our criteria for inclusion. We need specific citations from durably-archived sources (such as printed media) spanning a suitable period of time. This means adding dated quotations from such sources. See Citations:listen for examples. --EncycloPetey 00:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The criteria for inclusion do not require citations from durably archived sources; that is just one means of attestation. The relevant attestation criterion here is "clearly in widespread use". For that purpose, a U.S. Government website and three nonprofit organizations wholly devoted to "Urban Indians" should be sufficient to establish such use.
The term also meets the other requirements of conveying meaning, independence, and spanning at least a year.
Again, I don't see the problem with this entry, and I fail to understand why it was tagged with a verification request. Anachronist 22:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Websites are not considered durably archived, and therefore their content is not acceptable to meet CFI. The inclusion of the links has only demonstrated that some specific organizations use the term as part of their name. We don't view inclusion within the proper name of specific entities the same way as we do the rest of the language. They also do not demonstrate widespread use, but specialist use.
You can verify the word by providing specific citations from durably archived media. For example, quotations (with bibliographic information) from a US Goverment document would be considered acceptable, since such documents are archived. Independent use of the term in a history or ethnic studies book (quoted, with bibliographic information) would also support this item. --EncycloPetey 23:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Just to give you an idea, Anachronist, "clearly widespread use" would be like the feline sense of cat. Basically, if something sees clearly widespread use, and verifictaion for it requested on thispage, then everyone following this page will jump all over the requester yelling "clearly widespread use!".  :-)  This term doesn't seem to meet that criterion.—msh210 23:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I, for one, do not agree that this is in "widespread use". In fact, I don't remember ever hearing it. There are many terms that may be in use in some government circles that we would not consider in "widespread use". We use the "widespread use" criterion largely for colloquial terms that may not be found widely in print. We require broad consensus for "widespread use".
The cites need to convey the meaning provided, be from a print source that someone could find in a library or from a durably archived on-line source. We need the quotation (not merely a link) to actually be provided. Try Google Books, Google News, Google Scholar, and Usenet, all of which have often proved acceptable and always convenient. Take a look at any of our previously challenged entries for examples.
It also appears SoP to me, notwithstanding the comment of EP above. DCDuring TALK 23:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Move to RfD or delete non-idiomatic collocation. DCDuring TALK 23:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. You want archived sources? Checking Google Books hadn't occurred to me earlier. Google Books returns 1,630 results, some of which are academic works on the very subject of urban Indians. Which one should we choose to cite?
Proposing this for deletion seems highly premature given that the term is well established. Given the sources available, I still don't see an explanation of why this was tagged with a verification request when the act of verifying at Google Books would have been more efficient than the preceding discussion. Anachronist 02:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Not highly premature. We normally want RFV to close within a month (4 weeks), and nearly 3 weeks have passed with no citations yet provided in support of this term. I note this citation is among those in the 1,630 returns you found on b.g.c.:
  • 2006, Shashi Tharoor, India: From Midnight to the Millennium and Beyond, page 313
    But if Calcutta symbolizes urban Indian civilization, thank God New Delhi is not civilized.
This shows that the combination is not necessarily deserving of recognition. We need a demonstration that it does meet CFI. Another of your 1,630 returns, while not as visibly unsupportive, also does not lend support to the Urban Indian entry:
  • 1986, Ronald Spores, Patricia A. Andrews, Ethnohistory: Ethnohistory‎, page 185
    I have argued (Chance 1976) that a distinct urban Indian culture, heavily Nahua in orientation, had emerged by 1580
The quote uses "urban " and "Indian" as adjectives to describe a culture, rather than naming a particular thing. We need clear demonstration that a term meets the requirements of CFI, and not simply evidence that two words frequently occur next to each other. --EncycloPetey 02:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
What I'm seeing above are interpretations of WT:CFI that aren't specifically stated there.
EncycloPetey, you wrote above, "Independent use of the term in a history or ethnic studies book (quoted, with bibliographic information) would also support this item." Such works are at the top of the search results at Google Books. So I included one of them in the urban Indian entry, to satisfy your request.
A government document should be easy to find, as the government maintains a web site devoted to the topic. I have demonstrated above that the entry meets all the other requirements in WT:CFI. Every time I meet a demand, another one comes up. Where does it end?
Yes, there are sources that use this term in an "India" context rather than a "Native American" context, but that doesn't appear to be the dominant usage based on the search results.
I have also renamed the entry to urban Indian (lowercase U). The uppercase U was an artifact of transwiki-ing from Wikipedia, where the convention is for all articles to start with an uppercase character. That isn't the case on Wiktionary. Retaining the uppercase U was not intentional, and is now corrected. Anachronist 18:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Not interpretation, as this is the second basic requirement of that policy. Requirement (1) is attestation, (2) is idiomaticity. You can read more under WT:CFI#Idiomaticity. In short, it will tell you that if urban Indian merely means "urban and Indian", then it fails to meet CFI. --EncycloPetey 18:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly so. Applying the fried egg test, in which a fried egg generally means an egg fried in a particular way, "urban Indian" is idiomatic. It is specific to a particular context of "urban" in the sense of "urbanized yet intimitely tied to a traditional identity that considers urban property as an extension of Indian territory" — not the broader meaning of merely existing in a geographic area characterized as "urban". The Lobo book excerpt cited in the entry makes interesting reading on this point. I encourage you to read from the middle of page 76 through the next page.
I honestly didn't know any of this when I transwiki'd the entry here, but the more I study this subject, the more I am convinced that this entry meets the criteria for inclusion. Anachronist 00:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Cited. This entry has been open over a month. Above comments about the references cited explain the attestation and idiomaticity of this term. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh … see ablow, pimp slap, and Citations:mouton enragé for examples of pages that are cited. (Or, for a more formal presentation, see Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion and Wiktionary:Quotations.) —RuakhTALK 03:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Um, if you read the discussion above, WT:CFI is exactly what we're discussing.
The examples of citations you give only serve to illustrate how the term is used in a sentence. I fail to see the usefulness of such a citation format in this instance. References such as I provided are still necessary to establish idiomaticity. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
This allows the same citation to serve as:
  1. evidence of attestation as to existence of headword;
  2. evidence of idiomaticity;
  3. evidence that usage corresponds to definition; and
  4. a usage example. DCDuring TALK 20:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've collected some mainly Canadian citations at Citations:urban Indian. Some of these are sum-of-parts, and at least a few are clearly not, but I'm not sure if there's enough to pass CFI or not. In Canada, the term is likely being partly displaced by urban Aboriginal people or urban First Nations, because in the last couple of decades Indian has become somewhat stigmatized in formal writing.

By the way, Native American is a somewhat US-slanted term. Not sure if that can be avoided, but perhaps a person of Native American heritage can be changed to North American IndianMichael Z. 2009-03-10 21:35 z

Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
  • I have provided three citations of use as applied to Asian urban indians re: EP's early point about SoPness.
    I am having trouble seeing anything idiomatic about the citations. They seem to refer to Indians who are urban. If it were a legal/regulatory category, that might meet CFI, but I don't see that. DCDuring TALK 21:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but urban Indians (in Canada at least) are a significant and growing socioeconomic and demographic group. The term is used in contrast to Indians residing on reserves (there is no corresponding large “rural Indian” group). “Urban Indian” isn't a legal status, but urban Indians fall under particular residency and status categories which affect their benefits and rights related to taxation, land ownership, participation in self-government (and possibly health care—I'm not sure). I believe the term also includes non-status First Nations people, and those who lose their status under the Indian Act (and those who regained status under changing laws in the 1980s).

It's complicated. I don't think these facts justify inclusion in themselves, but the term carries related connotations which do not originate in the sum of the parts. Michael Z. 2009-07-27 04:33 z


English interjection. Not in any major dictionary I can get hold of. Usenet has a mass of baffling usages. Equinox 09:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I note the creation of the English section was an edit done on 26 May 2007, the first and only done by the editor involved. Pingku 12:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Guh?! Clearly widespread use. OK, maybe not, but I know I've heard this plenty of times. A b.g.c. search is unencouraging... maybe there's a competing spelling? -- Visviva 04:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Does google groups:"guh it's" help?—msh210 19:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I've only ever heard it from the character Amy Wong on the TV show Futurama. According to her Wikipedia article:
She uses Martian slang, which is simply American slang with altered consonants, such as "Guh" (duh) or "Shman" (man).
Her IMDB quotes page includes examples that aired in 1999 but were set in the year 3000, so it spans 1001 years, and obviously slang in the year 3000 has to be independent of a turn-of-the-third-millennium TV show, no matter how wonderful the show was, so I think it meets CFI. ;-)
RuakhTALK 00:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Ruakh, but it might be a tad premature to include etymology from the year 3000. - Pingku 15:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
My guess is that guh is the letter G (hard pronunciation) and by extension (a la rap) any of a small set of words beginning with a hard G. For the interjection, this might be 'God'. There is also the rap lyric "We a guh somewhere" (Ziggy Marley), where it appears to mean 'going'. - Pingku 15:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed.
This word does indeed exist in Welsh with the translation root. (However, it is correctly spelt without the acute accent. In Welsh, the stress is normally on the penult; if it is on any other syllable, an acute accent denotes the irregular stress — as, for example, in carafán (caravan) and casáu (to hate).)
I’ve not come across the adjectival sense of manly before; however, the word’s form makes perfect sense (as the combination of: gŵr (man”, “husband) + -aidd (-like”, “-ly”, “-ish)). Perhaps the acute accent is used to differentiate the adjective from its nominal homograph; however, I have only ever seen the circumflex and grave accent used for this purpose, and never the diæresis or acute accent.
 (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

One more thing to note: If this adjective does indeed exist (sans acute accent), then our entry for gwraidd will need to be split by pronunciation, with the monosyllable gwraidd (root) pronounced as /ɡwraið/ and the disyllable gwraidd (manly) pronounced as /ˈɡu.raið/.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've responded on Talk:gẃraidd with the results of an enlightening Google search. &mdashhippietrail 02:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
So it is used to avoid homography
As enlightening as that excerpt is, it is still but a mention, and we need use. The only usage I could find anywhere on the internet was a thirteenth-century pœem (spelling modernised). Is this adjective obsolete?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
It's in the Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru p. 1698, in this exact spelling with the acute accent on the w. The dictionary itself gives several quotes showing use of the term, but none from later than the 18th century, and none using this exact spelling. However, that doesn't necessarily mean it's obsolete, as the dictionary usually only provides quotes for words up to about the 18th or 19th century. Angr 21:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


I've not seen an і in Cyrillic before. Is this spelling correct for Ukrainian? If so, then our set of Cyrillic characters in the Edittools is incomplete. --EncycloPetey 20:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

І/і is indeed a letter used in Ukrainian (and some other languages too). So yes, the Edittools list is incomplete. -- Prince Kassad 22:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Mark however that it's got "и" as well (see eg w:Ukranian alphabet#Alphabet or this page (also containing sound files). --Duncan 12:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)и

Resolved, striking.​—msh210 18:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


Plural form of prefix.
Not so; praefixus is not a third-declension Latin noun.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The etymology doesn't matter; the form is used.
  • 1981: Reiner Luckenbach, Beilsteins Handbuch der organischen Chemie‎ (English edition), page 1571
    The names used in the index...are different from the systematic nomenclature used in the text only insofar as Substitution and Degree-of-Unsaturation Prefices are placed after the name (inverted), and all configurational prefices and symbols...are omitted.
I get over 600 b.g.c. hits doing an advanced search for "prefices" but excluding "prefixes": [32]. --EncycloPetey 07:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I grant you that it exists; however, it is hypercorrect.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's hypercorrect, just formed by analogy with indices. It does carry a bit of snootiness, but I wouldn't call it hypercorrect. To be hypercorrect, it would have to have some degree of correctness to begin with. :P --EncycloPetey 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
So it’s non-standard?
-ex-ices is a correct pluralising pattern for a fair number of words from the Latin third declension; however, it is misapplied in the case of prefixprefices, which renders the usage hypercorrect.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have missed my final punctuation (:P). --EncycloPetey 07:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn’t; my first sentence was intended as a joke, too. Urgh! Too tired methinks…  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Given that the (mis-)use is common, do we tag it "common misspelling of prefixes" or "proscribed", or just put a usage note to point out that it is not "correct Latin"? (And do we allow fices as the plural of fix? :P) Dbfirs 21:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    We can only call it "proscribed" if we find published style guides that disfavor that spelling. We don't have to worry about additional spead beyond the words prefix, suffix, affix, and the like, just as mouse -> mice has not spread to spouse -> spice (?) or grouse -> grice (?). --EncycloPetey 21:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, I cannot find any style guide that mentions this, but I am surprised at how frequently this spelling occurs, even on academic websites and documents. The only alternative plural in the OED is "praefixa" (different spelling, and from E. BREREWOOD Enq. Lang. & Relig. in 1613). Perhaps we should just put a usage note so that our readers do not think that the "alternative" plural has equal weight. Dbfirs 09:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Doremitzwr, I think the problem is due to the absence of both words (suffix and præfix) as nouns in Latin, they are simply nonexistent as nouns, but only as participia perfecti passivi of the respective verbs. Someone from the modern grammaticists has decided to botch up this noun from the Latin participle and thus caused the mess with us ascertaining unsuccessfully whether the noun belongs to the first or third declension... The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
According to the OED, Lua error in Module:links/templates at line 57: The script code "unicode" is not valid. (whence præfix and, more directly, præfixum) does exist in (post-Classical) Latin. Præfix belongs to neither the first nor the third declension; it is a second-declension neuter noun with its case ending removed. Wherefore, its legitimate plural is præfixes; conversely, if one retains the case ending, using præfixum, then the legitimate plural is præfixa. *Præfices is incorrect (specifically, hypercorrect) in any circumstance; it ought to be avoided except if one wishes to convey jocular pædantry (as with thusly &c.).  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 08:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


English: Ingrown toenail. Scores, if not hundreds, of mentions. Haven't found an English use. Might be room for Latin entry, used in taxons. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 18:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


Sense 2: an exclamation point (supposedly UK usage). Any citations apart from the single one given? Usage in an actual printing context would be particularly convincing. Equinox 18:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, it looks like this entry should be merged into Christer. —RuakhTALK 21:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

India Pale Ale

I doubt this can be attested in attributive use, but it deserves a shot. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 19:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The is a common noun, so it should not require attributive use; regular citations will do. It's a common style of ale, brewed by many breweries, at least on the West coast of the US. --EncycloPetey 04:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's just an ordinary noun phrase. Several varieties, brewed by several different companies, in the UK. Not as popular as it was though. SemperBlotto 08:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
But wouldn't it be India pale ale? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 23:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not principally a "common noun" or "ordinary noun phrase" in the UK, where IPA is a particular brand. You can easily go into a pub in the UK and Ha! I double-checked this and I'm wrong. Apparently, several brands offer an IPA. Around here, there's some particular green-and-gold brand, though, and I assumed that must be the trade mark that no other UK brand could use. You live and learn. Update: oh yeah, I think DCDuring is right that "pale ale" doesn't deserve capitalisation for a generic term. Equinox 01:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
You’re probably thinking of Greene King.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
It might be attestable in title case, but almost all occurrences that I've found with that spelling are references to specific products. I have made and cited an entry at India pale ale. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 02:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it at all noteworthy that the Wikipedia page for India pale ale redirects to the article at India Pale Ale? Irrespective of that, I agree with DCDuring that our main entry ought to be at India pale ale, with India Pale Ale existing as an alternative-spelling entry directed thereto.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Setting one or the other as an alternative spelling sounds like a good idea. --EncycloPetey 03:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: fringes on a blanket. This should be an alternative spelling of valance, right? Valance does not have this specific meaning, afaict. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 02:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Either that or a misspelling. --EncycloPetey 04:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Some dictionaries have it as alternative. I'm wondering whether there is some regional difference. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 15:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Or a confusion between the almost identical spellings and perhaps pronunciations. An etymology for valance might help. Pingku 17:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "To forget the words, to lose your way in a speech."—msh210 19:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this sense be at dry up, where it's missing? --Duncan 21:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Added the sense to dry up, left it, so far, rfv-ed, at dry. --Duncan 01:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Assume so. I don't see how it could be dry. Equinox 00:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it might be specific to the acting profession - any thespians out there? Dbfirs 09:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


There have been some doubts expressed about this word's validity, both on the talk page and on Wiktionary:Feedback, so I figured it should go through the standard verification process. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If it fails, we have to fix the translation table s.v. faggot.—msh210 22:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


Not as popular as Mountain Dew. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 16:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Etymon for moxie. The OED gives one uppercase cite sort of in this sense, dated 1890. (see it here) -- Visviva 10:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The etymology of Moxie itself would be nice. But we don't have any American Indian translations of wintergreen (if the WP speculation is good enough for us), let alone one appropriate for Maine. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 10:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, the OED reserves judgment and refers the reader to the DARE, and for once the DARE entry is conveniently available. I note with some amusement that the DARE's earliest cites for moxie/Moxie qua wintergreen considerably post-date the first production of Moxie ... perhaps the berry was actually named after the drink. ;-) -- Visviva 11:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


No attributive usage for this name given. --Bequw¢τ 08:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The existence of Plutarchian (and Xenophanic) is highly suggestive. -- Visviva 09:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm increasingly of the opinion that certain authors, whose works are widely known and who are frequently referred to by a portion of their full name without ever giving the full name, merit an entry for the short form of their name. I think particularly of writers like Aeschylus, Plato, Tacitus, Livy, Chaucer, Erasmus, Shakespeare, Dickens, and the like. The short form is often used as a shorthand for the corpus of their works, or for one particularly well-known work. Consider: "I was reading Tacitus last night," would be understood to mean that you were reading a book by Publius Cornelius Tacitus, most likely his Historiae, even without giving his full name. Simply having an entry for Tacitus that said "given name of classical Latin derivation" and "a lunar impact crater" would not be in the least enlightening. --EncycloPetey 02:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Just found this interesting quote (b.g.c.):
  • 2001: Jessica Martin, Walton's Live's, chapter 2, page 34
    Part of the intention in this chapter is to ask whether to call a biographer a 'Plutarch' is to pull a name of a popular classical biographer at random out of a hat of appropriate but imprecise possible compliments, or whether it confers a particular kind of commendation on Walton's practice.
So, apparently there is a tradition of calling a biographer a "Plutarch". Martin actually cites a 17th century discussion of this issue from Dryden. --EncycloPetey 02:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


No attributive use given for the person. --Bequw¢τ 08:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


  • Rfv-sense: "A distinct group of objects or things"

The sense is absent in Webster 1913, Century 1911, and Merriam-Webster online. I can't remember the word in this sense. --Dan Polansky 13:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It might make sense if restricted to biology/genetics. See [33] DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 15:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
It works as a specific instance of difference, distinct from the phenomenon of difference. I've added an example sentence. --EncycloPetey 01:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


Probably not capitalized, if it is citable. --EncycloPetey 02:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a dance competition? <confused> - Amgine/talk 02:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Moved to the lower-case spelling and found one book citation. Need two more. Equinox 14:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (English) "Used in forming analogous pluralia tantum, such as paraphernalia and Mammalia."

Two problems with this: (1) Mammalia is a Translingual word from Latin, not an English-original word, (2) the suffix added in paraphernalia seems to be -alia. Are there actually any English words formed from this putative English suffix, that do not fit one of the other two senses given? --EncycloPetey 07:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Difficult. Perhaps automobilia (car collectibles), imponderabilia (inexplicable things)? If the suffix here is -lia or -ilia then perhaps we need another entry for that. Equinox 19:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Administrativia is common on Usenet, I think. I've always understood it to be uncountable rather than plurale, but maybe I'm wrong.—msh210 20:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I would consider it plural, like news (which I think ought to have the entry changed to say as such). These examples, if they meet CFI, all sound like they justify the suffix, and would serve as good replacement examples in the entry. --EncycloPetey 05:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I notice that many of these entries would actually fall under -bilia. I can only explain this as a reference to memorabilia. 21:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


One user pointed sense 4 out as "unreferenced and unlikely". Instead of dismissing that entirely, especially as I'm unaware of that sense myself, I figure RFV would be a good idea. If it's verifiable, we should be able to get citations for it. Even if that happens, though, it should probably be an {{alternative spelling of}}. —Leftmostcat 11:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly a separate etymology, as now shown. It is very tedious to cite. Are there any dictionaries or glossaries that include the spelling? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 12:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I've given up on trying to verify the challenged sense. I found three other legal senses. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 15:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
this should do nicely. The apostilles referred to are defined by the 1961 Hague Convention, so google on apostle 1961 Hague convention will get you lots of hits. The first books hit is Black's, which should be plenty good enough for us. (;-) Robert Ullmann 16:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a related story: Cambridge_Apostles. --Hekaheka 03:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


Sleep? Never heard of it. —Stephen 02:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Robley Dunglison's Medical Lexicon] has the entry "CHASSIE (F.), Lema, Lippa, Glama, Glemē, Gra'mia, Lemos'itas, Sebum palpebra'lē; the gum of the eye, (Prov.) Gound or Gownde, from chasser, 'to drive out.' A sebaceous humour, secreted mainly by the follicles of Meibomius, which sometimes glues the eyelids together." and the entries "GOWNDE OF THE EYE, Chassie." and "GOUND OF THE EYE, Chassie.".—msh210 23:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: does "deflation" mean reduction of the money supply or does it mean only a reduction in the general level of prices, possibly/probably/always caused by a reduction of the money supply. (Same question applies to all kinds of flations in-, re-, disin-, hyperin-.) clear citations needed, even if tendentious. DCDuring TALK 01:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The disputed definition is "A contraction in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods." Use of the term 'relative to' seems to imply a ratio, leaving open the possibility that the money/credit supply is increasing, but the availability of goods is increasing faster. (It is not clear, to me anyway, that this would necessarily lead to a reduction in prices.) Perhaps the def should be reworded to clarify exactly what is being calculated. Pingku 11:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: insurance sense. (This might actually be an issue for RFD, I'm not sure.) —RuakhTALK 15:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


Sense 9 has the entirely vague quality of seeming wrong to me. I've searched for citations for it but have found nothing. It's entirely possible I'm not searching for the right things, though. It's indicated as being in the Merriam-Webster by one user but this doesn't necessarily mean it's attestable. I wonder if Merriam-Webster is simply being non-discerning with the sense "broken down", used in my experience as a past participle. E.g., The erring soldier was broken down to private for his insubordination.Leftmostcat 15:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


I haven't found any example or dictionary entry of this form for Scottish Gaelic - seems like an Irish form only. (Created by anon together with the Irish form.) --Duncan 19:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

First, keep in mind that I'm maybe only gd-0.5. Certainly not good enough to put it on my Babel. I did a quick bit of googling (for "tha saoirse") and came up with this reference and a couple hits from the GAIDHLIG-B mailing list. I don't know if they're correct. But it may be possible to come up with some better cites using similar searches. It's possible that it's simply happening by analogy with Irish, as the dictionaries are listing saorsa as the correct gd form. Hopefully that helps at least a bit. —Leftmostcat 20:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


I can find one iffy b.g.c. hit; the other returns from the search were typos/scannos for scalped. --EncycloPetey 21:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


The Bulgarian section must either be hoax or tagged as obsolete (if any sources are found). In the first case one must get rid of the section, in the second - tag it. In a voluminous dictionary it is shown that the Bulgarian word for marten is бялка and куна is not listed at all. Bogorm 11:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The fist has been removed by the contributor. Can we verify the second? There seems to be no dictionary of modern Bulgarian which lists this word (see above, the term is бялка). Bogorm 12:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It's listed in Vasmer's dictionary as a Bulgarian cognate, so it must exist, if not in standard language than in dialects, older texts or somewhere.. --Ivan Štambuk 16:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

clear blue water

gap between goals and achievements of political parties. Is this still in use? Where? Should it be RfDed? —This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talkcontribs) at 10:21, 19 January 2009.


Not seeing much of this spelling. Bomb site is of course much more common.—msh210 20:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but that's just because I Googled bombsite. Googling +bombsite yields lotsa hits, I see now; can I cancel my request for verification without bothering to cite?—msh210 19:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why not. Closing. Equinox 00:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Reopening: sense 2 - Is there a figuraitve use? The example given for the figuraitve sense says "like a bombsite", which does not suggest that the second defintion is valid. --EncycloPetey 20:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


The person who created the entry notes: "It was noted as a buzzword of 2008 by NYTimes." Has it been around long enough to meet CFI? --EncycloPetey 04:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't find durably archived hits from before last August; but, it was used in the British Journal of Midwifery, in an article title no less, back in September. Assuming that said is a refereed academic journal (and it does seem to be), then I believe this does meet CFI. —RuakhTALK 02:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


citations, regional? Multiple senses seem to overlap. The "adverb" and "adjective" would be indistinguishable from "-ish" in speech, so we need print citations. Is there a citable missing noun (="shit")? DCDuring TALK 12:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

New citation of this word usage:

Using -ish in a non-standard way as in "Good(ish) News from Procter & Gamble: No Ad Cutback Here"[34]

—This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 07:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC).

I can not find evidence in b.g.c. (fiction} [423 raw hits for "ish"] for the purported adjective and interjection. Most hits are eye dialect for "is" (ish#Etymology 1), the proper nickname "Ish", and the ubiquitous adverbial development of the suffix ish#Adverb, but for which I have found only 2 cites in standalone use. I'd be inclined to keep the adverb and mention the potential broader use in usage notes. DCDuring TALK 12:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


Any evidence for this used as a verb? --EncycloPetey 05:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is silly. "A Team" means the 1st squad of a special forces unit or ODA (see description of ODA]) or (e.g.) a sports club. The whole point of the television series (w:A-Team) was that the members were anything but the "A Team". (I always enjoyed the show, where they would always succeed mostly by accident, at which point the leader would intone "I love it when a plan comes together!"; and the expenditure of many thousands of rounds of automatic fire, with no one ever getting hit ;-)
Might be a noun entry, but I doubt the verb from the TV series' concept has any use. Robert Ullmann 08:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


Verb, sense 7 (just added by an anon.): To link (as one might do with a key or legend). -- WikiPedant 18:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Added 1 cite for now.—msh210 00:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


Most Google hits seem to be either for "now ever" or typos for "however". A few real hits, but all for the same work? SemperBlotto 12:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

non plus

RfV tag since June 2007. Not cited during 9 months in RfV. We have long had nonplus. I have added non-plus which is abundantly attestable. I have not found English for the inflected forms of non plus. I have not determined an easy effective way to separate English non plus from Latin and French. DCDuring TALK 20:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


An anon. recently restored this page to a full entry. I was about to revert him, but I’m not sure whether I should. Protologism kinda looks like it could satisfy the CFI, unless there are some independence issues in re Wiktionary that I’m not considering. What do others think?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Google protologism|protologisms (BooksGroupsScholarNews Archive): No b.g.c. or news-archive hits. Two Scholar hits, but it's not clear to me whether either was in a refereed academic journal, or even durably archived somewhere. Several Google Groups hits, but all are problematic — either mentions, or non-Usenet, or directly quoting from Wiktionary or Wikipedia, or using it in a list, or by our very own Language Lover (talkcontribs). (I guess the one by Language Lover isn't actually problematic, but there's something weird about quoting our own contributors' Usenet posts. I'd really rather not do it without good reason.) —RuakhTALK 00:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to keep it, with the existing warning. An occasional visitor in Wiktionary's discussion pages might want to check what is meant with it. --Hekaheka 01:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
If it doesn't pass the letter and spirit of CFI, then it doesn't belong in the dictionary. If we invent our own words, and then break our own rules to publish them, then we shouldn't be in this business. Move it to Wiktionary:protologism if you really want to keep it. Michael Z. 2009-04-03 02:10 z
Found what I believe is a durable quote from the April 2007 issue of Prospect. (At least it is in the online version of that British magazine.) I'd say that one likely isn't problematic. No mention whatsoever about Wiki-anything in the article. — Carolina wren discussió 04:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


Only one citation so far is any good. The Devil does not convey meaning, and Annabelle du Fouet is mention not use. DAVilla 06:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: conjunction. Not in OneLook dictionaries. OED? Use in law? DCDuring TALK 13:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I would gloss it as "as it were". It is in the OED as an adverb ("now rare"), which seems about right. On the other hand, many of the OED's cites are either in italics or quotes. The cites that I came across on my own were also mostly in italics (thus presumably intended as quasi#Latin): [35] [36]. On the other hand, this one isn't: [37] (on the third hand, I can quite tell what the guy is on about). For now I'd go with probably real, probably an adverb rather than a conjunction, but needs a bit more looking-into. -- Visviva 07:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


I'm actually not sure how we would expect to attest the meaning of an emoticon, but the second sense here, added, by an anon, seems off to me. Dmcdevit·t 23:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The "parsing" of the symbols is different in this case: for the cheering smiley, we are supposed to see two raised arms either side of a head, but for lol we are supposed to see the slashes as tilted lower-case letters, l+o+l. I think I might have seen this, but can't imagine being able to cite it. Equinox 23:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009


9 b.g.c. hits, all of which seem to define the term immediately (and often humorously). --EncycloPetey 01:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The term is indeed intended humorously, and sources do tend to define it when they use it; but neither humor nor defined-ness is a criterion for exclusion. —RuakhTALK 07:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
See WT:CFI#Conveying meaning. If all supporting quotations are mentions, rather than use of the word, then we don't have support for this as a word in English use. --EncycloPetey 06:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Right, but that's not what you said. You said that they "seem to define the term immediately", which WT:CFI explicitly says is not a problem. —RuakhTALK 13:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
More important than being immediately defined, the term rarely appears to be actually used. DAVilla 07:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed used in all VMS (VAX) and OpenVMS (VAX, Alpha, Itanium) Operating Systems as a timing parameter set in the SYSGEN parameter list. It is not only humerous —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 18:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC).

The citation is fine as an example, but is it not a mere mention? I would have thought that something only being used immediately next to its definition is virtually proof of it being a protologism. I recall being beaten about the head and shoulders concerning such. That the definition is put in the mouth of a character does not make it any the less true that it does not have meaning independent of its definition in the specific usage. DCDuring TALK 20:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


Protologism? Proper noun? Why liberal rather than left-of-centre? SemperBlotto 22:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Cited. I ended up using every single uncapitalized Usenet hit from Google Groups; there are a few uncapitalized hits on google news archive:"leftosphere", but I can't tell if they're durably archived, so I didn't use them.
I changed it to "proper noun" because that's what it seems to be — it's always definite ("the leftosphere"); if you're talking about a lot of it, you'd say "a lot of the leftosphere", not *"a lot of leftosphere" (uncountable common noun), nor *"a lot of leftospheres" (countable common noun). Do you disagree?
Feel free to change it to "left-of-center" (but not "left-of-centre"), or to "left-wing"; they're all synonymous in the U.S.
RuakhTALK 23:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The first 2008 citation provided doesn't really match up to the proffered definition. The "leftosphere" referred to in the link is said to have produced things like the Marshall Plan and OSHA, both of which preceded blogs by decades. It seems to be just a generic reference to the political left, rather than to bloggers specifically. bd2412 T 00:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
That's a good point. I've fixed the entry accordingly. —RuakhTALK 04:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Ruakh, I ask, not knowing: my original entry cited usage by several high-profile bloggers. The revisions cite trivial usages by unknown users of usenet. Is there some reason why we would prefer examples of non-notable usage in a context where the term's usage is barely known, to notable usage in the context in which the term is most commonly-used? I also note that the substituted definition is inaccurate, so far as I know: the term is used to refer to left-leaning blogs (hence the "-osphere" suffix), not to the left generally. I don't mind fixing that, but want to clarify the issue of blog citations first (measure twice, edit once, as they might say). Simon Dodd 16:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I mean, if the only usage of the term were per the examples given in your edit, the term should be deleted as a rare protologysm, and the article will be left vulnerable to being deleted again. Citations of its actual use should be given - with all due respect, the reason for removal given in your edit summary isn't serious, so I'm wondering what the real reason is? Simon Dodd 17:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Please read our criteria for inclusion, or at least the section headed "General rule". Usenet citations are preferred over blog citations because the former are durably archived while the latter are not, and we want future readers to be able to look up our sources. (It's O.K. to add properly formatted blog citations to the entry, as long as they're chosen for their lexical value rather than for POV reasons, but I'd prefer that you added them after the request for verification has been dealt with, since they make it harder to see whether we have enough durably archived citations to justify keeping the word.)
The word "non-notable" basically has no place here: we are a dictionary, not an encyclopedia.
With all due respect, what about "rm quotations, none of which seem to be durably archived" seems non-serious to you?
RuakhTALK 20:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
With respect, I find it backwards to suggest that we decide if there is enough usage before adding examples of usage to the article. To my mind, the more usage examples are adduced (861,000 hits on google at time of writing, although I don't propose to include all of them), the stronger the case for inclusion here. I find this concept of "durably archived" a peculiar animal. The materials are available now; if they cease to be, that problem can be dealt with if and when it becomes a problem. For example, web.archive.org may well retain some, all, or indeed none of the examples that I added - but does not do so yet (there's a lag). If the rules reject inclusion of such examples because they might, hypothetically, not remain accessible in the indefinite future, I submit that the rules are problematic and should be reexamined. Unless wiktionary decides to exclude terms whose principal usage is primarily on blogs (which would, to be sure, be a reasonable position to take), it seems obvious to me that it's going to have to bite the bullet and accept citations of usage on blogs. It disserves readers to distort the etymology and usage of the word by using leaves and branches as the examples rather than the trunk and major limbs. user:Simon Dodd 21:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that our CFI are right, only that they are the fundamental definition of what this project is. If we wish to change them — and there are many elements of them that need changing — then we should do so via a formal discussion process, not by flouting them on a case-by-case basis. —RuakhTALK 22:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, this is now cited from Usenet so I'd say it has passed RFV. Equinox 13:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (Of a problem etc) Difficult to solve. - never seen it personally, no evidence in my usual suspects references. - Amgine/talk 23:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Two "ruthless problems" in Google Books: "The antitax phenomenon is an increasingly ruthless problem for schools"; "it appeared to him that the still more ruthless problem of £ sd awaited". On second thoughts, it might not mean "difficult to solve" here, but "unforgiving" (as though the problem has been anthropomorphised and made "ruthless" in the normal sense). Equinox 00:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I think your second thought is right. The two problems described as ruthless seem not only difficult but impossible to solve and thus "without pity or compassion; cruel, pitiless". Delete sense. --Hekaheka 00:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


Sense 2, supposed computing slang. Equinox 01:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Tag as figurative, perhaps. --Connel MacKenzie 00:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
But only if we can find at least one reasonable citation on Books or Groups. Equinox 00:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


in resolute it is said: "resolute (comparative resoluter, superlative resolutest)" and those entries are there.

However I have not found anywhere that this case is an exception of the rule: "more resolute" and "most resolute"—This comment was unsigned.

I agree these forms are rare, and the inflection lines on resolute should list the more common forms (only or more prominently). But resoluter does exist: see "I'm the little 'Heart's Ease'!". And so does resolutest: see Paradise Regained.—msh210 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

no end

Is this a valid adverbial phrase? I'm listening to a web lecture where the lecturer (Tau Stephan Hoeller) utters: "Sexual, and sort of gender-related, symbolism in religious and spiritual matters exists, and this of course annoyed the Victorians no end."[38] __meco 17:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Valid? Certainly fairly common in speech. In MWOnline and some other OneLook dictionaries. I'll add it. DCDuring TALK 17:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the appropriate entry for "no end of X", meaning "plenty of X" or "an endless supply of X". I don't think we have a sense of "end" for this. I suppose "no limit of X" might be synonymous. DCDuring TALK 18:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure then. I would have expected "to no end". 19:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Many (but not all) speakers distinguish between to no end (pointlessly) and no end (boundlessly). (The former is from end (purpose, goal).) —RuakhTALK 03:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this illustrates a problem with the idea of contrasting the meaning of an idiom (which I think both the adverb and noun are) with the literal meaning of the collocation. Displaying one meaning for a polysemic word seems insufficient; displaying them all seems excessive. The idiom tag alone seems appropriate in such cases with perhaps a usage note such as what Ruakh suggests. DCDuring TALK 11:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: The essence or attributes of things pertaining to commerce or trade; the quality with which commerce is undertaken; and, the inherent association with trying to make a profit from commerce or trade.

Huh? DCDuring TALK 00:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The first version of the entry had:
This is defined in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (published by the Oxford University Press) as "commercial quality or nature". It also defines "commercial" as "of or relating to commerce or trade" and alternatively as "viewed as a matter of profit and loss"
So "commerciality" refers to: the essence or attributes of things pertaining to commerce or trade; the quality with which commerce is undertaken; and, the inherent association with trying to make a profit from commerce or trade.
What we have in the first paragraph is "commercial quality or nature" and a couple of definitions of commercial, all from SOED. The second paragraph is interpretation, apparently based on the supposition that dictionary entries are consistent. Pingku 17:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation.
I defined and cited a fairly obvious basic sense that definitely represents more than half of the Books usage. There may be a US legal sense related to the "commerciality" doctrine(s). There seems to be at least one sense that has to do with intellectual'/artists' revulsion at the consequences of someone's trying to make money commercially. DCDuring TALK 18:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Great Satan

Rfv-sense 1 -- isn't this just great + Satan? Even our one citation doesn't capitalise the "great" so I don't think it's the same thing. I suppose this should have been an rfd really. Ƿidsiþ 15:58, 8 February 2009 (UTc)

Maybe we should put the quote on the citations page for this so it doesn't get lost (or at great Satan) and delete the sense on wrong capitalisation grounds. DCDuring TALK 17:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

military exercise

Rfv-sense: "War game." -- Visviva 02:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

War game is a common type of military exercise. In smaller versions, different companies of a battalion are assigned to one of two imaginary sides and they battle each other using fake ammo. In larger versions, entire nations are involved. NATO war games include participants of all the NATO nations. The USSR was involved in war games as a cover for the invasion of Czechoslovakia after the Prague Spring. Very normal practice. —Stephen 05:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, military exercise -- in a sense which appears to have a consensus for deletion as sum of parts -- is a hypernym of war game. The question is whether there is a sense in which it is a synonym of "war game", i.e. where a person referring to a "military exercise" would be understood not as referring not merely to any old "military" "exercise" (e.g. noncombat training maneuvers) but specifically to a war game. Tricky to cite, but if it's real we should have it. -- Visviva 05:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's sum-of-parts. In a military context, a soldier might say to another “we're participating in an exercise next week". But outside of that, the qualifier military is necessary, otherwise the listener may think of jogging, jumping jacks, and burpees (I can't believe that's a red link—creating entry!).
Regarding synonymy, I think many or most civilians wouldn't see a distinction between war games and military exercisesMichael Z. 2009-03-05 21:53 z

managerial inbreeding

I doubt that actual usage of this purported idiom conforms to sense offered. Not in OnLook references, except WP. DCDuring TALK 04:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

catch up

Rfv-sense: 3 senses. 2 seem UK and probably included in broader definitions just added (which could bear more improvement). One broader sense is included in one of the new senses, but but awkwardly. DCDuring TALK 12:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Senses 3, 4 & 5 would all be generally understood in the UK, but are they not all just particular uses of sense 2? Do we need to include every nuance of meaning? Dbfirs 15:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

weasel words

Rfv-sense X 3. I don't think all of these are legitimate as definitions. We had lacked an entry for [[weasel word]]. DCDuring TALK 17:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

When have you ever heard the term used in the singular? Ever? This is almost exclusively used in the plural form. This does not seem like a genuine nomination. --Connel MacKenzie 00:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


Sense 2: "Of a country or religion likely to wear a turban (usually derogatory)." Equinox 21:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 13:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


The two Southern US senses. Sounds a bit like baby talk to me. -- WikiPedant 05:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ma, pa, mama, papa, mommy, daddy, yeah (Welsh), nah (Welsh), pee-pee, poo-poo, do-do, no-no, so-so, go-go, oh-oh, uh-uh, la-de-da, do-re-me-fa-so-la-ti-do, bong, bam, oops, Danny, Fanny, Lanny, Granny. These sound like baby talk, yet they are widely used and (most of them) understood throughout the English-speaking world. My maternal grandmother and family used foo-foo in both senses (although mainly in the context of food), and I heard the expression/word "foo-foo" in school classrooms (Roanoke VA) and in other situations. The use of foo-foo is expressive, understandable, and logical, particularly in context. I'll try to track down written examples. Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas 14:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
This entry needs work. The unchallenged sense, though a real alternative spellings, seems to belong at fufu. The second usage example is perhaps a metaphorical use of the first, with the purported extra meaning coming from the adjective. Under another etymology there may be an adjective that means something like "poufy" that might be what the third sense is getting at. DCDuring TALK 15:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for citing fufu. Fufu (accented second vowel per Wiktionary) is the key, it seems. I believe we're dealing with several African languages that have a word with a sence that touches on fufu (accented 2nd vowel) and/or foo-foo. Use of the word in US South probably comes from African-American English. I've seen (earliest ca. 1987) in various ethnic-food stores (Austin, Houston, San Antonio, Rio Grande Valley) at least three different labels of boxed "Foo Foo" containing banana flour, yam [name], corn [maize] flour, and mixtures with these and wheat flour, tapioca [manioc/yuca], sugar, etc. Once I heard my maternal grandmother refer to a hastily made sweetened egg-white cake icing as "foo-foo", and later my mother warned me about using the word because some people might be insulted. I didn't use the word much thereafter, but it struck me wherever I heard it -- used disparagingly likely as not. Next time I see the stuff on a grocery shelf I'll copy the label as a citation. Would you tell me the best way to submit the word to be researched/commented on by Wiktionary folks? Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas 17:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
What we're doing now is likely to lead to something as soon as someone familiar with, interested in, or conscientious about it notices. I can find numerous travelogues and cookbooks that refer to italicised fufu, evidently treating it as an African word. The entry doesn't seem too far off the usage, but the last one seems the toughest to cite. It also seems to be part of Jamiacan English/creole. The poufy sense was unambiguous in only one cite. DCDuring TALK 17:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

account for

  • Sense 2. to be responsible for destroying or putting (people, aircraft, etc.) out of action. - Was someone getting confused with "be accountable" I wonder? -- ALGRIF talk 15:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this is like "Wills accounted for 3 of the Dodgers' 5 runs in the game." or "Toxic fumes accounted for more of the deaths than either the impact or burns." Perhaps the senses are: "deemed to be the cause of" and "causing", rather than what is in the entry. DCDuring TALK 17:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it just needs tidying up, then? -- ALGRIF talk 17:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Missing senses, too. DCDuring TALK 17:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


Is this colloquial? Spelled correctly? Language? DCDuring TALK 17:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


This can easily be verified as having attributive use by searching for "Rostov-on-Don University". Also:
  • 1906, Great Britain Board of Trade, "Shipping and Transport: Russia", Board of Trade journal, page 236
    Mr. Hunt remarks also " And last, but not least, comes the question of disputes being settled by the Rostov-on-Don Bourse Court of Arbitration, whose decision is to be final."
--EncycloPetey 04:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I wonder why the reason is set to be for attributive use? How hard is it to make an attribute out of an English place name? Arkhangelsk has also been tagged. --Anatoli 04:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the relevance of that. A "Rostov-on-Don Bourse Court of Arbitration" is not a particular type of court; it is simply a specific court that happens to be in Rostov-on-Don. Thus it fails the ill-named "New York delicatessen" test. Suggest these should be on RFD, as the question is not so much whether they can be attested, but what type of citation is good enough. -- Visviva 12:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Fwiw, I agree it's not attributive in "Rostov-on-Don Bourse Court of Arbitration".—msh210 16:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Then the "New York delicatessen" test excludes all cases where the resulting combination is a proper noun? I disagree. The CFI examples only treat cases where [proper noun] + [common noun] yields a common noun, but there are situations where a [proper noun] + [common noun] yields a proper noun. We can't restrict the criteria to kinds becausse that is inherently a property of a common noun. Proper nouns name specific entities, not classes or kinds. I argue that "Rostov-on-Don University" and "Rostov-on-Don Bourse Court of Arbitration" do meet the criterion by virtue of naming a specific entity that is not the sum of the parts. If there are two universities in Rostov-on-Don, only one of them will be Rostov-on-Don University. The other will be known by a different name. If the original Rostov-on-Don University goes under and a new university is started, it does not immmediately became "Rostov-on-Don University" because it is not the same entity. In other words, "Rostov-on-Don University" is not merely a university in Rostov-on-Don, but a particular university there. Thus, we have specific properties inherent in the name that are not the result of merely the collocation, just as a "New York delicatessen" is not merely a delicatessen in New York. The fact that our collocation in this instance is a proper noun necessarily means that we cannot require it to have common noun properties. --EncycloPetey 17:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
That's not how I read it. From WT:CFI#Names of specific entities:

For example: New York is included because “New York” is used attributively in phrases like “New York delicatessen”, to describe a particular sort of delicatessen.

"Sort" seems equivalent to "kind" here. Also note that if we allow proper nouns as evidence of attributive use, we would have to admit "John Foster Dulles", "Ronald Reagan", and anyone else who has ever had an airport, expressway, etc. named after them. Likewise for places: I grew up near a tiny hamlet in central Illinois named Summum; it had a "Summum Baptist Church", a "Summum General Store" (long gone) and a defunct "Summum Post Office". A little digging could certainly turn up durable citations for each of these. If even a US town so small it still doesn't have a pedia article merits inclusion here, then we might as well just allow all proper nouns. -- Visviva 17:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
That is the justification given for New York, yes, and part of my point is that CFI does not consider the situation where the modified combination results in a proper noun. It currently does not address that issue by permitting it as a consideration, but neither does it restrict it from consideration. I am hoping this conversation will lead to a clarification of what the community thinks on the issue, and perhaps a modification to CFI (if enough people comment). Also, you've missed part of my argument in your reply. The point I'm making is that "Rostov-on-Don University" is not simply "the university in Rostov-on-Don", but is a specific entity. It is not a university named in honor of "Rostov-on-Don", nor a simple location name. --EncycloPetey 18:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
DCDuring reversed my removal again. What else is required? Why are denying this entry to exist? And why Stratford-upon-Avon is better than Rostov-on-Don or Rostov-na-Donu? If not happy, at least condescend to reply to multiple quotes (below). Anatoli 01:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that none of these quotes meet WT:CFI, except under the most absurd reading that would allow virtually any proper noun. Meanwhile, even though you know this, you are continuing to create huge numbers entries for place names that do not meet CFI (or that, at least, have not been shown to meet CFI), in mainspace, even though we have a perfectly good appendix for them. Please stop; we do not need an entry for every city and town in Russia. And yes, I agree that Stratford-upon-Avon should be deleted. -- Visviva 01:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The appendix you are referring to, contains Wiktionary entries, I can't see anything I am doing wrong here. If you don't need Russian city entries, it doesn't mean they don't have the right to exist or other people don't need them. The samll section you are referring to says: not include words like Lower Hampton, Empire State Building, and George Walker Bush are a different thing, they can't be used attributively. The city names have etymology that can be discussed and they all can be used attributively (yes, like most proper names), I have provided enough examples.
"...you are continuing to create huge numbers entries for place names that do not meet CFI... Please stop; we do not need an entry for every city and town in Russia." Says who? This remarks are quite unfriendly and unhelpful. It's a free community. Instead of encouraging people to make more entries, you assume the role of a boss and dictating who should do what. Anatoli 02:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Let me put it more directly: You are creating entries which clearly are not permitted under current policy. You are continuing to do this even though you know, because of this discussion, that these entries violate current policy. If you want to change that policy, then please work to change it. But please don't go around creating large numbers of entries that will simply have to be deleted. Doing so is a huge waste of time, not only yours but everyone else's. -- Visviva 14:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
See for example Appendix:Place names/Botevgrad for a way of creating these entries outside of mainspace, in a way that is consistent with current policy. -- Visviva 14:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
@EP: My opinion is that the CFI are very unclear on this point, but that a cooperative reading (as opposed to a lawyerly reading) would definitely exclude Rostov-on-Don. "New York" has no "widely understood meaning" in "New York University" or "New York Police Department" or any other such; the CFI specifically highlight "New York delicatessen" as a case where it has an actual meaning beyond just being the name of a city (after which things in the city are liable to be named). —RuakhTALK 12:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete. I don't think the cites provided are acceptable. —RuakhTALK 12:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep - this is the natural Anglicisation of the name exactly as is the case with Frankfurt on the Main/Frankfurt on Main. Furthermore, Rostov-on-Don's population outnumbers this of Frankfurt am Main by a factor of two, which means that this is a significant, prominent Europæan city. One other quæstion which could arise is whether Rostov on the Don is possible, since in German the definite article always precedes the river. Not sure about English, though, would you say London on the Thames or London on Thames (because there is one other in Canada). I know that the name is simply London, but am asking in order to establish the correct grammatical form (with or without the before the river). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep. I replied in the section below. The CFI rules are not clear, they are not followed and they should be changed. Who created these rules in the first place? Is it a dogma? There should be no discrimination against specific countries too. Instead of deleting entries, there should be more. In my opinion, a correctly spelled geographical name can have an entry in the English dictionary with translations/transliterations into other languages and a link to the original language. That's what a dictionary is for. The geographical entries are useful, the etymology, grammatical usage, basic pronunciation can be provided or discussed. You all know this. Why so unfriendly? I haven't suggested to delete Stratford-upon-Avon but it's already marked for deletion because I used it as an example. Can we do something more productive rather than deleting geographical entries? We could help each other rather causing grief. We all come from different backgrounds, with different experiences and knowledge. If an entry is spelled incorrectly, this should be corrected, discussed, whatever. I appeal to your senses. Stop the destruction. The Wictionary won't run out of space soon. Anatoli 22:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Etymology. That's a good point. The study of place names, toponymy, is important in linguistics, and etymological dictionaries include toponyms. Perhaps CFI should account for this. I suspect that such a policy would include native place names (e.g., Ростов-на-Дону, Москва), probably exonyms (Rostov-on-Don, Moscow).
But keep in mind that transliterations of proper names (Rostov-na-Donu, Moskva) usually remain foreign terms unless become naturalized in a language. Many modern atlases present toponyms in native transliteration – these wouldn't be usable as English attestations.
But I presume there would still be some kind of limitations criteria. Michael Z. 2009-03-10 22:49 z
To Visviva. That's not true that I created the entries, "knowing" they violate some rules. There were quite a number of existing entries, which I edited, added translations and created new ones, using existing as templates, categorising them in a similar way. At first, I thought Rostov-on-Don and Rostov-na-Donu were tagged because the have translated or transliterated suffixes, much more awkward than simply "Rostov". Thanks for providing the link to appendixes, it's the first time I see this. If appendixes are used, why the majority of geographical entries are in the main section, not in the appendixes? You are dictating me to create entries there instead, what will happen to the majority of entries in the main section? Anatoli 23:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
To Mzajac. Thanks, Michael. Let me explain, what I meant by transliterations/translations. Not all proper names HAVE to be translated. For example, if we talk about Anthony Perkins, his name is NORMALLY transliterated in Russian media as "Энтони Перкинс" not Антон Перкинс. By this I mean if we take a city name in English - the Greek, Russian, other non-Roman based languages will try to imitate the original pronunciation, often with some phonetic changes, without trying to translate literally, unless there is a historical settled name. So, Anthony is the English name, Антон (Antón) is the Russian cognate but "Энтони" (Éntoni) is not only the transliteration (or an attempt, taking into account the lack of some sounds) but also the current translation of the specific name into Russian, as it is normal in the Russian media, literature and common usage. Anthony going to Russia doesn't necessarily becomes Anton. I hope it makes sense. The translations should reflect this, IMO, separating cognates from translations: e.g. Anthony - Антон (cognate), Энтони (transliteration). In case with Rostov-on-Don and Rostov-na-Donu, the latter is not only the transliteration but also the current (be it an alternative) English translation of Ростов-на-Дону, it's not the case with Москва (Moskvá), though but "Moskva" is the name of Moskva river in English. Anatoli 23:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we agree on all of this.
Remember that proper names have a special status. When things don't have a conventional native proper name, they are transliterated from the foreign language. In English writing, transliterated proper names are not italicized – that's because they are not conventional foreign terms.
So the entry for the name/term Антон is glossed as an equivalent of Anthony, and Anthony should have the translation Антон added. But the proper name Anthony Hopkins is not a term for inclusion in the dictionary. The fact that his particular name is conventionally spelled a certain way is information about the person, and not about a word – it belongs in Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. Likewise, most information about locales belongs in an encyclopedia or gazetteer, not in a dictionary.
The exception is the kind of etymological information which may be found in a dictionary of place names. This is something we simply haven't addressed in CFI yet. WT:BP awaits a well-thought-out proposal. Michael Z. 2009-03-11 05:51 z

RFV failed, entry deleted. —RuakhTALK 21:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


Need attributive use citations unless there is a change to inclusion criteria. DCDuring TALK 04:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, please explain the meaning of the RVF tags you placed. The city names you tagged can be found in the Wikipedia. Please give an example of what you mean and why the entries need to be tagged. Please reply here. Anatoli 04:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • As to why: Wiktionary has not chosen to be an "encyclopedic dictionary" or a gazetteer, which do include place names.
As to what the RfV tag means for place names: See WT:CFI#Attestation and Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Names_of_specific_entities. Attestation requires three quotes, from "durably archived" sources, that use the terms, as spelled in each entry, attributively (for example, as an adjective) for names of specific entities, such as places. The example Anatoli provided below is not considered a durably archived source. I also could not find attributive use of either form of the name. DCDuring TALK 11:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Let's zap Chicago as well! No attributive use attested. No, I'm not serious on that proposition. I only wish to demonstrate that the CFI is arbitrary as the cities are concerned, and that we probably would need a specific set of criteria for inclusion of cities. If we take the current set of about 700 cities as a guide, almost any city of more than 50.000 inhabitants would fit in easily. --Hekaheka 13:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
As an erstwhile Chicagoan, I would be fine with deleting Chicago if it did not meet the attributive use requirement. But in fact, it does; consider "Chicago-style pizza", "Chicago hot dogs", "the Chicago way" etc. (To say nothing of those two intimately-related species, "Chicago politics" and "Chicago comedy".) If Rostov-na-Danu is used similarly, then by all means let's keep it. I would even go slightly beyond the letter of CFI; if the name of Rostov-na-Danu is verifiably used in Russian (or any other language) in an attributive way, IMO it should be kept. But if not, it shouldn't. -- Visviva 13:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but Chicago + way does not give a clue what Chicago way means -a road to Chicago?. In its current form the entry for Chicago just states that it is a city, and is no more informative about the possible attributive senses than the Rostov entry. The same is true with most of the 700 cities that have an entry of their own in Wiktionary. --Hekaheka 09:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I've taken a stab at improvements; see Chicago#Usage notes. Again, I think if such usage could be shown in Russian or any other language, that would be a very strong argument for keeping the English entry as well. If we want to include place names that don't meet this requirement, we need to define a firm cutoff point -- 1 million population? 500 thousand? -- Visviva 11:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
But it would be in Cyrillic, wouldn't it? And, if there is a language that uses the Roman alphabet for which the name is attestable, then it would be under that language's L2 heading, not English. Or else we could change WT:CFI.
I'd bet on Moscow, Odessa, Kiev, Warsaw, Stalingrad, and Minsk being includable in English, possibly even "Rostov", "Arkangelsk" and "Murmansk" (and Pinsk). DCDuring TALK 16:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The attributive use would be in Russian, yes. Our de facto policy has been that if the English version of a name meets CFI, the translations/transcriptions are admitted as well; that is, we don't spot-check whether a particular name is really used attributively in Japanese or Hindi. In fact, in at least one case (the infamous Chicago#Crimean Tatar), the community opted to keep a translation that is highly unlikely to be used attributively. The principle would seem to be that if a name is lexically significant enough to merit inclusion in English, it is worthwhile to have the translations as well. Presumably the same principle should apply when the attributive use is in a LOTE. -- Visviva 16:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

An example from : http://www.nceee r.org/Programs/Carnegie/rostov/rostov.php "Rostov-na-Donu State University" --Anatoli 04:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand why DCDuring picked these entries. They are just city names and are used the same way any other city name could be used. These are Russian cities, and in Russian attributes are formed differently from English. I gave a quick example above just to demonstrate how the name can be used in English. I suggest to remove the tags and to review the criteria for place names. Anatoli 21:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I picked them because I didn't think they were used in ways that would meet our criteria for inclusion, which are not completely, findably documented in this regard AFAIK. Happy results for me would be either deleting this and all other place names that did not meet WT:CFI OR amending WT:CFI to reflect the "common law" about place names reflected somewhere in our archives and sometimes surviving in the memories of some of our judges, er, senior admins. DCDuring TALK 12:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
A name should be included if it is used attributively, with a widely understood meaning. For example: New York is included because “New York” is used attributively in phrases like “New York delicatessen”, to describe a particular sort of delicatessen. A person or place name that is not used attributively (and that is not a word that otherwise should be included) should not be included. Lower Hampton, Empire State Building, and George Walker Bush thus should not be included. Similarly, whilst Jefferson (an attested family name word with an etymology that Wiktionary can discuss) and Jeffersonian (an adjective) should be included, Thomas Jefferson (which isn’t used attributively) should not.
I couldn't find anything here contradicting the inclusion of the entry in the Wiktionary. Rostov-na-Donu or Rostov-on-Don is like Stratford-upon-Avon - a complete city name, which may not have a number of attributive examples on the English pages, since it's a Russian place word!
I have provided you with a link before, here's more:

Rostov-na-Donu port:


Rostov-na-Donu University:


Rostov-on-Don port:


Rostov-on-Don University:

In my opinion, you are being picky. Before flagging someone else's entry, you might have a search yourself.


Please insert any eligible quotes from durably archived sources into the entry or its citations page. The citations for "Rostov-na-Donu University" are non-attributive citations for Rostov-na-Donu University, not attributive citations for "Rostov-na-Donu". The 2 links for "Rostov-na-Donu port" don't seem to be to "durably archived sources". The "Rostov-on-Don port" would only count if we would use any citation of, for example, "a Bensonhurst tailor" as a valid citation for "Bensonhurst". Please take a look at Citations:Stratford-upon-Avon. DCDuring TALK 14:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Anatoli, Rostov-na-Donu University is a proper noun, presumably translated or paraphrased from Russian, not an attributive phrase which makes use of some special English meaning of Rostov-na-Donu. Likewise, Rostov-na-Donu port is just a specific port, not the use of an English attributive with special meaning. Hollywood port wouldn't qualify that city's inclusion either, but we perceive special meaning in uses like Hollywood movie, Hollywood executive, Hollywood starlet, because this is not just a place name, but stands for the major segment of American movie-making.

(By the way, I doubt that the set phrases Chicago pizza and New York deli, which make no reference to any quality of these cities, qualify Chicago or New York as generally-applicable attributive nouns.)

The use of Ростов-на-Дону in Russian certainly does not make it an English word.

There is also good precedent for this in dictionary-making. Many desktop dictionaries include encyclopedic info about prominent places and famous people because to be useful as general quick references. But these are added gazetteer and biographical functions, not part of the core dictionary (we provide Wikipedia links rather than duplicating encyclopedic information here). The OED is a pure dictionary, and includes no proper nouns at all, I think. Michael Z. 2009-03-10 15:51 z

DCDuring, your questions suggest that Wiktionary has almost no place for proper nouns, unless they are used in some set expressions. If that's the case, most of the geographical entries should be deleted. I am not in favour of this. If that's the rules you are imposing, this should change. keep. Anatoli 22:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
We have specific classes of proper nouns that we encourage: Translingual taxononomic names (one-part only), given names, surnames, and others I don't recall at present. But apart from these classes we do not seek to have entries for items better housed at Wikipedia or some future WikiAtlas or WikiGazeteer. As you can tell, there is some thought to include more classes of proper nouns, but it is not policy and there hasn't been much Beer Parlor discussion, which is usually necessary before a vote to change policy. Wikipedia is a better home for articles about places and many other proper nouns, IMHO, as I would argue in any discussion.
I usually put in an RfV tag on any place name I stumble upon that I think would fail RfV. If I am wrong about whether it would fail, then I've learned something. I was happy to do the work to attest to some place names and other proper nouns under our current rules in cases I knew or found interesting.
I look forward to seeing your thoughts on changing WT:CFI at WT:BP. You might find some relevant prior discussion in the archives there. DCDuring TALK 22:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —RuakhTALK 21:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


Sent hither from RFD, where it was kept on condition it's attested.—msh210 23:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Only one Googlebooks entry that I could find, and it is already cited in the article. Could not find any definitions in any other online dictionary. This looks to me like it could be a neologism, or protologism. I cannot verfy this entry at this time. Razorflame 06:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I added that book one and forgot to mention it here. There's plenty more on Usenet, though, if anyone is inclined to wade through it. Equinox 17:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Now cited.—msh210 22:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't feel comfortable passing it with pseduonyms like "VoRtEx" and "Mentski", although in all honesty those are better quotations than the other Usenet cite, which is intentionally illiterate. DAVilla 19:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


In the sense that "anything" can be sexual, I suppose one might make this allusion. But it isn't the meaning of the word in any fundamental sense. --Connel MacKenzie 00:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Two of the defining English terms are non-idiomatic and contradict the third. Does this mean head to toe (completely)? Does it mean "upside-down"? Does it mean "alternatingly head up and head down"? I don't have suitable resources. DCDuring TALK 18:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  • To me it means er, what I would call in English ‘top to tail’, ie when two people are next to each other but each a different way up. Like if you sleep in a friend's bed, you might sleep tête-bêche so that your head is next to their feet and vice-versa. I think it's also used as a synonym for ‘sixty-nine’, the sexual position. Ƿidsiþ 19:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, apparently it also means sixty-nine position. —Stephen 20:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
So, the only sense of three I suggested would be "alternatingly head up and head down"? I saw some usage that seemed to refer to a way of packing suitably shaped items in a box. I don't think we can exclusively rely on idioms and slang English definitions! DCDuring TALK 21:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't speak French so can't comment on its literal meaning, but I have always heard that the English philatalic meaning came from the French meaning "head to toe".--Dmol 22:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
That's what our English entry shows. But we don't have any sense at head to toe other than "completely" because that is the only idiomatic sense. I don't think idioms don't make good glosses. DCDuring TALK 23:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I've found an image that illustrates one of the French senses. DCDuring TALK 23:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
French Wiktionary says of fr:tête-bêche: adverb, "said of two people (or by extension, two objects) that are laid out in the opposite direction from one another, the feet of one being even with the head of the other." —Stephen 21:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems a little long, but no one was taken with my "alternatingly" sense. DCDuring TALK 22:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "Any ethical principle or way of life which strictly avoids use of any kind of animal products and services that are based on exploitation of animals.". This sounds plausible, but I'd like to see verification. In my experience, "veganism" refers only to the dietary practice, or sometimes also to directly related practices ("he practices veganism, except for the occasional leather jacket"), but not to whatever principle (ethical or otherwise) underlies it. —RuakhTALK 16:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

WP's article has a bit of the definition. What we have now is similar to Merriam-Webster's or dictionary.com's. However, the two medical dictionaries I've checked don't mention anything other than strict vegetarianism. Voxii 16:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's the source WP uses: http://www.vegansociety.com/html/downloads/ArticlesofAssociation.pdf (html). Voxii 16:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
If that is available in a free durably archived source, it might be one of the three such citations that we would need to document the sense. Are there authors who write using this kind of definition whose works are available at Google Books? DCDuring TALK 18:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Cites available for inspection. DCDuring TALK 19:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    The Kheel citation is invalid. It is certainly not clearly of this sense, and other uses of the term throughout that book imply that veganism is used by that author to mean an abstinence from certain types of food. In fact, the book explicitly states (page 265, in a footnote, the text leading to which I cannot see, so I'm assuming it's from the author, and not quoting someone else), "I define veganism as an orientation that avoids the use of animal flesh and products derived from animals, such as eggs, milk, and leather. I use vegetarian to refer [] ." "Orientation" is unclear, but does not seem to imply a reason (ethical or otherwise) for a set of actions, but merely the set of actions.​—msh210 19:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    The Stepaniak citation is likely invalid. It implies that veganism is due to ethical principles — so, most likely, isn't one itself, but is merely a set of actions. But I'm not sure.​—msh210 19:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    Very few of our citations would stand up to close scrutiny in terms of matching senses very accurately. The narrower the sense the harder it is to show a correspondence. There are many quotes. I have no idea what a good definition for this life style-ethic-way of life-religion-philosophy-social movement is, but it is clear it is not just a diet. I'd be happy if someone could provide another definition that encompassed any three quotes. We could then let the clock run for another month on the RfVd sense. DCDuring TALK 19:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    Our current first sense, the one not up for verification, is "the practice of eating neither meat nor other animal products, such as fish, milk and milk products, eggs, and honey". I understand that there is a broader sense, but I think that it, too, refers to practice, independent of any reasons for that practice. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd love to see citations indicating as much. The broader sense might be something like "a way of life that strictly avoids use of all animal products". (I, for one, never knew that there are people who don't use wool or silk. You learn something new every day.)​—msh210 20:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    The Cousens citation is clearly invalid for "ethical principal" since it qualifies veganism with ethical.​—msh210 20:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    I couldn't agree with you more that many of these articles would not get a very good grade in a rigorous ethics course. John Austin would make mincemeat of the best of them. Nevertheless it is fairly clear that English speakers and writers, especially the practitioners of and advocates of veganism, seem to think of veganism as an ethical position. Foolishly many don't make a distinction between principles and actions. In their proselytyzing zeal they confuse health, ethical, and environmental reasons. DCDuring TALK 04:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

veganism is respect animal rights, nothing more. is not practical (at most one non-practice, because you fail to consume things that come from animal suffering), is animal rights. there is no religion that recommends respect the rights animals, is not a "lifestyle" (?). emerged as an ethical principle of respect for animals, simple as that. rays, because someone does not attend circuses with animals? that religion recommends this? why not use products tested on animals? because he is an idiot or because it respects the rights animals? think, please, this thread makes no sense ...
msh210 because you say that any reference that says it is vegan ethics is invalid? just because you do not agree? seems to be the only explanation.
Excuse me the bad English, I'm talking through a translator because I do not speak English (I translate what you say to my language and translate to the language of my of you).-- 02:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That may be the meaning of the word used in your language to translate "veganism", but that's not what the English word "veganism" means. Wiktionary describes how words are used. It is not a topical discussion, which is suited to an encyclopedia. We describe words in the way that they are actually used, so to support your viewpoint, you would need to provide durably-archived citations (see WT:CFI) supporting your view. Note that this would not disprove any other definitions that could be obtained from other citations that use the word in a different way. If we have positive evidence for a definition, then it is valid, regardless of any other viewpoints that may exist. --EncycloPetey 03:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
What you said is doubly wrong. First because the word was created in England, therefore in English. Yes, the word was created in English (his language) to mean exactly what it means today (regardless of the distortions of ignorant): respect for animal rights. Second because a word does not change in meaning from one language to another, changes of spelling and pronunciation yes, but not in meaning. Apple refers to the edible fruit of the apple tree here in my country, China, then in his country, and everywhere in the world. Veganism means respect for animals rights here in my country, China, then in his country, and everywhere in the world, regardless of distortion. But you do not believe me, of course. Maybe you believe in Gary Lawrence Francione. Ever heard of it (here to his site)? I suppose that yes, he is a man well known in the animal rights, you may have seen it on TV in your country (but I do not know if he appeared on TV).
VEGAN REVOLUTION : There is in France a big confusion between the word "veganism" and "vegetalian." Some people say that the word "vegetalian" is the mere translation of the english word "vegan," but it is often a pretext to put aside some principles (like the refusal of leather, the refusal of animals tested products, the refusal of animals breeding, etc.)
The french dictionary explains the word "vegetalism" as a diet, not as an ethic. Can you tell us how you define the word "veganism."?
GARY FRANCIONE : I define "veganism" as not consuming any animal products. That is, it means not eating any meat or dairy or animal-derived byproducts.
And it means not wearing fur, leather, silk, or wool, and not purchasing or using any products that contain animal-derived ingredients or that have been tested on animals.
Veganism is the principle of abolition applied to the life of the individual.
I find that many animal advocates are vegetarians, but few are vegans. Many animal advocates think that it is acceptable to eat dairy.
Animals used for dairy production and egg production are kept alive longer than animals used for meat, are treated as poorly if not worse than "meat animals," and they end up in the same slaughterhouse.
There is probably more suffering in a glass of milk than in a pound of steak. Veganism helps to reduce animal suffering in a significant way. Every person who becomes a vegan means that the demand for animal products decreases.
If you agree that animal rights means abolition, then veganism is the only morally consistent choice that you can make. Just as a person who owns slaves cannot claim consistently to be an abolitionist, a person who continues to consume animal products cannot consistently be an advocate for animal rights.
The most important thing that we can do as individuals is to become abolitionists in our personal lives - to become vegans who do not consume any animal products.
Another reference states that veganism is an ethical stance:
The Veganism is an ethical stance based on non-exploration of all those who are able to experience and appreciate for his life and freedom.
Another reference, but now differing the strict vegetarianism of the veganism (the source is a book called 'Food without Meat'):
"Despite [nutritionally] classify the "true vegetarians" only by food, there is a difference between the strict vegetarian and vegan. Usually the vegan do not use non food products from animals such as wool, leather, silk and skin. When we talk in [only] nutrition, it makes no difference that classification. "
By the way, someone can put these passages as a reference? Thanks.
PS: My IP is dynamic, but I am myself in all these messages.-- 09:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


The final sense = to cause something to descend to the ground; especially to cause a tree to descend to the ground by cutting it down.
It seems to me that an earlier editor had it right when he/she added this embedded comment after this defn:

<!-- this example of the tree appears to be a confusion with the verb to [[fell]], and taints the definition-->

-- WikiPedant 05:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

MW3 includes fell as the definition of transitive "fall". Etymologically there might be a confusion or something else, but it seems real. It might be nice to determine usage context, but tedious to do so. DCDuring TALK 12:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
It's in the OED also, but the "tree" sense is given separately, tagged as dialectal and specific to US, AU and NZ. Shakespeare used the general sense in Richard III: "To morrow in the Battaile, thinke on me, / And fall thy edgelesse Sword, dispaire and dye". [39] -- Visviva 17:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Same in Chambers: "archaic and US". Equinox 21:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I used to hear "I fell it" meaning "I dropped it" in Liverpool (UK), but I'm not sure whether this was Scouse dialect or just over-generalisation of "It fell". Dbfirs 15:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

assault rifle

There are currenly three definitions for assault rifle,

  1. A rifle or carbine that is capable of selective fire, has a detachable magazine, and fires an intermediate-power cartridge.
  2. Template:colloquial A semi-automatic firearm that resembles a military weapon.
  3. Template:colloquial An assault weapon as outlined in various legislations in the US.

An earlier definition covered this better with

  1. Any of a group of military rifles that fires a shortened rifle caliber round from a high capacity magazine.

To this was added a usage note with ...

  • There is no widespread official definition of assault rifle, and the meaning varies among different jurisdictions. However, according to the US Federal legislation, any semi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon if it has a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following: a pistol grip, a folding or telescoping stock, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or a grenade launcher.

We need to simplify these three defs. I can't see why all of them can't go back to one. I think the 2nd one is wrong, as no one would consider a .22 gun an assault rifle just because it looks like one. (there is such a model). Nor should we have the third one, as it is redundant, and matches the first two. It's also POV where none is called for.

What can we do here to settle this, as it has been going back and forward for a while. I definitly disagree with the claim that an assault rifle needs to be selective fire, as it does not. (Wikipedia claims this also, but that's not gospel) .--Dmol 03:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Point of order: this seems like an RFD discussion.
Having separate definitions based on individual countries' legal codes is not viable; some words could end up with a separate definition for every English-speaking country. The usage note is fine IMO, but that's as far as it should go. Re-merge per nom. -- Visviva 04:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how this is so much a matter of debate. The only way to definitively settle on a definition is to require attested usage (normal Wikt standards) for each specific attribute in the definition. We are a descriptive dictionary of usage with specific standards for inclusion. We do not have official technical definitions. An official technical definition, even from a durably archived source, has no value whatsoever for attestation, being a mere mention.
Other dictionaries make do with a single, fairly vague definition. My quick review of usage at COCA shows that the vagueness accurately reflects current American usage. Much of the usage is of the form "[model name] assault rifle". Perhaps one could infer a more specific definition from the features of the leading models mentioned.
If disputants insist on a specific definition, let them produce some valid citations.
IOW, RfV any sense that doesn't seem likely to be attestable. If there turns out be enough attestable usage, fine. If we have ten attested definitions, fine. If we end up with an appendix containing 3,000 attested (or unattested?) legal definitions of assault rifles, so be it. I doubt we will find anyone to do the work to support even three valid senses. DCDuring TALK 04:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I will respectfully accept the exclusion of my definitions until i can attest them (not that i'm that resourceful). My only dispute now is the usage note. I had thought assault weapon was the term used in various US locations for bans on certain combinations of features. If not, i can believe it. I suggest that in the first mention of assault weapon here, weapon be italicized. --Leif Runenritzer 05:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


Originally added by Wonderfool/Dangherous back in 2006; no citations, I can't seem to find any. There's a Wikipedia article (added by an IP address), but that's no proof of the reality of the term. (really, User:JesseW not logged in) 07:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems real (also hammocked, thus scheduled): [40] (apparently from a book), [41], [42], [43] Equinox 15:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


Any takers? Noun? Caps? (Needs formatting) SemperBlotto 08:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Only used in dictionaries? The JSTOR google hit is actually a review by one Peter Behnstedt published in Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 117, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1997), pp. 598-599. He reviews The Arabic Contributions to the English Language: An Historical Dictionary, compiled by Garland Cannon with the collaboration of Alan S. Kaye, 1994.
He gripes:
The inclusion of Arabic names of towns, people and tribes is only justified if they are used as nouns, like Mecca, mocha, and fez. But why Karbala/Kerbala (p. 225)? Hashemite (p. 207), Himyarite (p. 209), Karmatian (p. 225), Maronite (p. 246) can be included, but Azzazame/Azzazimah (p. 145), Baggara (p. 147), Beni Abbas (p. 152), Kababish (p. 222), Rualla, Ruashid (p. 285), Shammar (p. 300), Shukria (p. 304), Hasan and Husain (p. 207) are simply names. If they are included, why not Ali and the Aulad Ali?
Seems like an argument for caps and "Proper noun", if it (and Azzazimah) is to be included at all. Pingku 11:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

giggle juice

Rfv-sense - nitrous oxide. SemperBlotto 17:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Google Books with subject:fiction gives no hits for the sense.—msh210 18:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. Wikipedia article does not exist. SemperBlotto 09:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


As far as I can see, megaannum is preferred. I recommend moving this and entering the single A spelling as a redirect. Also, I'm not convinced by the plural form as given, but I'm not sure enough to say it is outright incorrect. -- ALGRIF talk 16:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Redirects are rare at Wiktionary. The usual procedure would be to mark it as an "alternative spelling" or "common misspelling" (as the case may be) of megaannum. Angr 20:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


I do not think that this is English. Japanese is rōmaji. Requesting verification. Bendono 08:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

  • It's in the OED - that's good enough for me. The Japanese entry is listed as a misspelling already. SemperBlotto 08:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
You'll need to cite it on the entry then. And listing it as a misspelling does not entitle it to having an entry. Bendono 08:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the citation. I think that it is just sloppy writing, but my opinion is unimportant and it will suffice. I have opened a formal RFD for the Japanese misspelling. Regards, Bendono 09:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

flippant spelled as "flippent"

On the page flippant there is a quote:

  • 2000, Anthony Howard and Jason Cowley, Decline and Fall, New Statesman, March 13, 2000
    In the mid-1950s we both wrote for the same weekly, where her contributions were a good deal more serious and less flippent than mine.

is "flippent" an accepted alternative spelling of "flippant", should there be a "[sic]" in the quote, or is it a typo?

Trebawa 23:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Both are "flippant" in the originals; fixed. Equinox 23:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

put into a flap

"fluster". Only one mention in this sense. We seem to not have the sense of flap meaning tizzy, uproar. DCDuring TALK 20:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I would support two senses, but don't they belong under the noun flap, or at least reduced to the more general phrase in a flap? You can also put into a tizzy or create an uproar, but none of these phrases is that special. Michael Z. 2009-03-02 20:43 z
A quiet decease for this in 30 days, not a fracas. DCDuring TALK 20:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I would support in a flap -- ALGRIF talk 10:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


Is this ever used outside of wiktionary? \Mike 17:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. -- Visviva 18:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hm, obviously my Google-Fu skills failed me... :/ \Mike 21:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Google search is not as straightforward as you might want. They don't always search for what you typed but what they think you really meant. You have to overcome stemming by subtracting forms that you don't want.
Are you withdrawing the RfV? DCDuring TALK 23:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to strike. \Mike 17:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


Prtotlogism? If OK needs to have etymology removed from the definition. SemperBlotto 19:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a nonce from that one work. Some usages on Google Groups are errors for resolution. Equinox 00:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


I think it highly unlikely that this can pass CFI. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to fall about 50 days short. I added the earliest and latest cites I could find, but couldn't find any CFI-valid usage since January 08. -- Visviva 09:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Cited a while back. —RuakhTALK 20:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

¡Ay, caramba!

As all the quotations have quote marks around this expression, and it is using the upside-down-exclamation-mark thing, Isn't it is just a quote from Spanish rather than an English term in it's own right? Conrad.Irwin 00:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I question the capitalisation of ay at the very least. I doubt the punctuation should be present as well. Equinox 00:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it’s just a quote from Spanish. —Stephen 01:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
As well as Bart Simpson's catch phrase (along with eat my shorts). —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 01:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC).


"Shower" sense. --Connel MacKenzie 23:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly yes, but if so not commonly since the early 1900s and I'm uncertain if it was common even then.
  • [44] (1892) might be using it the sense of "shower", and given the Parisian setting it seems likely. Even though the word is not italicised or otherwise marked as foreign, I'm not completely certain this isn't just using the French word in an otherwise English sentence.
  • The third snippet at [45] (1920) is unclear whether it means a shower or not.
  • [46] (1944) suggests that "douches" and "showers" are not the same thing.
  • [47] (1901). The first two snippets suggest that a "douche" is what we would call a "shower", however the third appears to distinguish "sitz bath", "shower bath" and "douche".
Thryduulf 00:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The word "douche" comes from the French language, in which its principal meaning is a shower (it is thus a notorious false friend encountered by non-native speakers of English; the French phrase for vaginal douching is douche vaginale, meaning vaginal shower).
--Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douche
—This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 17:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC).
Yes, I agree: French only. RFV failed, sense removed. Thanks for your research, Thryduulf. —RuakhTALK 18:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to show up late. Dictionary.com (4) is “a bath administered by such a jet,” and Webster's (1) includes “a douche bath.”[48] NOAD's main sense, with example, is simply “a shower of water : a daily douche,” with subsenses of cleansing or medicinal douche, and vaginal douche.
Maybe this usage should be labelled datedMichael Z. 2009-03-06 03:58 z
American soldiers and businessmen who are or were stationed in Germany also understand douche as a shower. —Stephen 19:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


Shouldn't this be Translingual instead of English and capitalized? --Hekaheka 18:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There should be a translingual entry for the genus Hepatica, yes. But hepatica/hepaticas is also the English common name for some/all members of this genus. (Maybe only in US English? Has subsense in MW3 but nothing in the OED.) -- Visviva 05:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
All right. The gloss was slightly misleading - edited and tag removed. --Hekaheka 14:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


"Goody-goody; lacking in spirit or personality." In what sort of sentence would good mean this? Equinox 19:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As in "she was such a good girl". A derogatory use of the word "good". Goldenrowley 00:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I don't find that very convincing on its own. Do you think you could find a real usage that makes the same point? Equinox 00:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe in “such a ‘good’ girl,” but not “such a good girl”. Anything can mean its opposite when spoken facetiously, but I don't think that's really a sense of the word in isolation. I'd like to see some real examples, too. Michael Z. 2009-03-06 03:44 z
We often contrast good girl with nice girl. A nice girl is girl with a strong moral center, while a good girl lacks self-respect and a moral code and thus is easy to bed. Boys want to date a good girl, but marry a nice girl. —Stephen 19:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't recognise that distinction at all, I'm afraid. Ƿidsiþ 16:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It ought to be as easy to attest as AAVE bad (very good) if in use, though I'm not familiar with it except as Michael suggests. DCDuring TALK 17:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so “good girl” means one thing among college boys at the bar, and another from a dad to his two-year-old. But still, I suspect this applies to almost any adjective with positive or negative connotation (“bad girl” – does bad#Etymology 2 warrant a separate etymology?). Do we have any guidelines on how to handle ironic usage of words? If the former sense is common enough that it can be attested, then it should be attested, and perhaps clarified with a context label or usage note for foreign-language learners. Michael Z. 2009-03-11 06:03 z
The good thing about RfV is that, after a decent interval, no less than 4 weeks, an entry or sense that nobody takes the trouble to cite is deleted without the need for further discussion. I personally rarely (but sometimes) find it desirable, let alone necessary, to include ironic use.
It is also very tedious to cite such usage, sometimes requiring looking at hundreds of snippets to find clear ironic use. The problem is severe with unusual senses of common polysemic words like this one. DCDuring TALK 15:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


Sense 5, supposedly parochial Aussie slang: "In Melbourne sometimes Wasted Overseas Garbage". I can't find any evidence for this. Can a Melbournian(?) confirm/deny? Equinox 19:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, that's Melburnian. And as an Adelaidean I don't believe a word they say. :) Pingku 18:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 13:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


I can't verify a English definition. It seems to come from Urban Dictionary. The word is used in a few obscure Middle English references. Goldenrowley 00:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

temperature coefficient

Any takers? SemperBlotto 19:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you like it now? --Hekaheka 17:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, OK (usage notes may just be encyclopedic) SemperBlotto 17:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I had some doubts about the usage notes too, but I thought it necessary to explain that there's not only one, but many different temperature coefficients. --Hekaheka 19:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: to defeat (presumably without killing). Seems dubious. -- Visviva 11:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Colloquial usage in UK. (Many Google hits in British newspapers etc. - especially sports) Dbfirs 09:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense. Defined as swea. DCDuring TALK 01:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong forum. DCDuring TALK 01:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


According to this entry, hullo is a "variant of hello.", on the other hand Wikipedia says that "Hullo was never a salutation. It was only used as an exclamation of surprise." While it is true that nowadays, hullo and hello might be used interchangeably, it is not correct that they are synonymous (at least not originally). V85 11:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

While the same Wikipedia says elsewhere [49]: "Hullo was in use before hello and was used as a greeting and also an expression of surprise", "It was in use in both senses by the time Tom Brown's Schooldays was published in 1857" and "Although much less common than it used to be, the word hullo is still in use, mainly in British English". --Duncan 12:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Striking, request based simply on a quotation from 'pedia which 'pedia itself contradicts. Tag removed. --Duncan 20:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense. To look surreptitiously. Not by my lights. Other senses needed. DCDuring TALK 17:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Not surreptitiously, but searching or with difficulty. Edited accordingly. --Hekaheka 18:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


The second computing verb sense: not extracting from a disc, but copying back onto it. Equinox 20:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

shut the fuck up

Sense 1: "indicating disbelief"? Equinox 02:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Merged. Seems like shut up + the fuck to me though. DAVilla 12:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


"Intending to trap or confuse"? The Nabokov quotation (in isolation) doesn't particularly suggest this. Equinox 02:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved the quote to sense 1, since it pretty clearly exemplifies that sense rather than this one. -- Visviva 16:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Now cited. -- Visviva 15:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Jolly good. Striking. Equinox 22:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


A nice Books result, but not enough context for me to see what it means. Someone with more brains or with access to more context may be needed. Any other hits? Likely tosh as defined, but who knows.—msh210 17:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition seems wrong. The Books use MSH found seems to be a translation from w:Tertullian elsewhere translated as contribulate. It must be a translation of the past participle of contribulo (afflict much), that is "much afflicted". Many of the cites are Latin or Italian, of a humorous complication of "contribute", or scannos. DCDuring TALK 19:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The definition actually looks like discombobulated. Author's confusion? Equinox 23:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Aleutian Islands

I don't see how WT:CFI#Names of specific entities could be met. DCDuring TALK 02:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, but same criteria should be applied to all archipelagoes (the archipelagoes having the word Islands in their name, and currently in Wiktionary, are listed below) and scores of individual islands that I found too cumbersome to seek at the moment. I left out Faroe Islands, because they are an autonomous area, Cayman Islands because the term has attributive use in money-laundring world as well as Solomon Islands and Marshall Islands because they are countries as well. I say, once again that our policy for place-names is not formulated in a useful way. --Hekaheka 13:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Many of the above are primary divisions of a country (especially if dependencies are considered primary divisions, which I think they should be), so would pass under Atitarev's proposed criteria. The Aleutians, however, are not. (Not that this is directly relevant to RFV, since the proposed criteria have not yet been voted on, let alone enacted.) -- Visviva 16:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
By Atitarev's proposed criteria we would not have this entry but would have at least Aleutians East Borough, Alaska, aka Aleutians East Borough, East Borough, and, possibly, Aleutians West Census Area, Alaska.
I guess I had a different reading. But in any case, the "primary divisions of a country" criterion has gotten a fair bit of support in the past --- in the sense that people are especially reluctant to delete anything that meets it -- but it would protect only Alaska and Juneau in this part of the world (and maybe Anchorage if we're being generous). -- Visviva 16:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I had read Atitarev's criteria as including all subdivisions but his words would "[A]llow regional centres - capitals of states, provinces, counties, shires, regions, prefectures, oblasts, etc.) regardless of their size", but apparently not allow the entities they were centres of. This criterion would allow The City of New York and may allow Bronx. Of course, "etc." leaves a lot of room for inclusion, many jurisdiction being the seat (if that is what "centre" means) of their own governments. Alternatively, we might exclude jurisdictions whose seat is not a "capital" and have other criteria to allow places like Anchorage.
(I don't know how this would treat districts such as those for schools, sewage, water supply, fire protection, etc)
  1. Does "primary" allow a given point to be in more than one place? If nations are "primary", then are we allowing secondary "states" and "provinces", and the "centres" of all other administrative units and regions?
  2. By what explicit criteria or policies is Anchorage to be included?
  3. Is it the official name of each allowed place that is the main entry, State of Alaska, the vernacular name Alaska, or both? City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska (apparently actual official name, though I'm not 100% sure about "Alaska")? Should we use US Census names? DCDuring TALK 18:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I expect we can say useful things about Aleutian (though that entry is not terribly inspiring at present). It seems unlikely that there would be anything useful for a dictionary to say about the phrase Aleutian Islands. But this being RFV, I guess we'll see. -- Visviva 16:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to keep this and all other geographical entities which are important enough to have established translations in major languages. I added a few examples. --Hekaheka 20:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary_talk:Criteria for inclusion#Names of specific entities contains discussion of the issue. Should matters not related to this RfV be there or at a BP discussion? DCDuring TALK 19:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense. debt rescheduling. Plausible, but never heard of it. DCDuring TALK 03:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

nested illustration

Rfv-sense: "An illustration that is used to amplify an illustration of a main point." There are surprisingly few uses of "nested" followed by "illustration" at all, and none seem to be in this sense. -- Visviva 06:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. (Note: though listed here as an "rfv-sense", our entry only had the one sense.) —RuakhTALK 00:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

corporate nationalism

Protologism? (Deletion of Wikipedia article is being voted on) SemperBlotto 13:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Collocation can be found over 100 years, but our entry has too many definitions (5) each of which would need to be cited. I'd bet on most uses in Books or Scholar defining the term, possibly idiosyncratically. Uses in News might reflect a broader, less precise meaning. A problem is that, a priori, the referent of corporate could be "corporations", "organised groups" (fascism), "government", even "the citizenry". It seems SoP to me anyway. I'm inclined to leave it to someone else to clean up (merging definitions) and cite. DCDuring TALK 16:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


Nominated for speedy deletion, but seems real, though possibly with the wrong definition (might mean "mouth" in fact: hard to tell). See google books:"into his|her gub" e.g.—msh210 00:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's "mouth": "in my gub" OR "open my gub" OR "my gub shut".—msh210 00:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Given that all the viewable cites appear to be from Scottish authors, perhaps {{Scottish English}} would be an appropriate marker? Carolina wren 00:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've flouted convention and modified the RFVed definition while the RFV was in progress, thereby effectively failing it, and I apologize. (I will not revert, since I think I'm right that it will fail. But:) For the purpose of this discussion, and in order to keep it open (unfailed), let me state that the sense for which verification was requested is "a slang expression for 'stomach'". I have not found any clear cites for that to date. (The sense of "mouth" has not been RFVed.)—msh210 22:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on the cites this looks like the Scots version of English gob, which is certainly common in England, where I've never heard gub. We should probably link between them, and it's probably safe to copy the etymology from gob to gub. --Qef 18:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


Formerly: Transwiki:Cheaster

The source is Urban dictionary. Protologism ? It would be nice to sort it out by Easter. Goldenrowley 02:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a protologism, been around for a few years at least. [51] All uses seem very mention-y, though. -- Visviva 16:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
You're right it seems legitimate so I moved it to mainspaces for Easter. Goldenrowley 21:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: motivation based on right or wrong. I don't think I've ever heard or read this. Not in MW3. OED? DCDuring TALK 03:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not in the OED in any form I can recognize. But to me, even if real this just seems like a minor variation of the preceding sense, one which could simply be merged thereinto. The distinction between the ability to tell the difference between right and wrong, and motivation based on that ability, wouldn't seem to boil down to much in practice. It seems philosophical -- Continental, even -- rather than linguistic. (waits for WikiPedant to come by and administer a philosophical cluestick). -- Visviva 15:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I just applied a massive, heavily researched rewrite to this entry (been working on it off-and-on offline for a couple months). Philosophers recognize moral terminology to be particularly problematic to define, but I am confident of all of the senses I have distinguished and have supported all of them with carefully chosen quotations. -- WikiPedant 05:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow, awesome. That is beautiful. Striking.RuakhTALK 13:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "Concerning the value of an asset." I wouldn't know how to tell whether a quote supported this sense. That is, I don't know what this means, unless it is just wrong. DCDuring TALK 14:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have just removed it; it seems like whoever added this sense must have been confused about "notional value" or some similar phrase. But I suppose it's possible that someone somewhere has used "notional" in this way. -- Visviva 15:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I have less confidence in my knowledge. Actual usage has outstripped even the business/finance glossaries which, at best, seem to have definitions solely for the notional value sense. It also seems to be abused to minimise bad news by referring to unrealised losses on "mark-to-model" accounting as "notional". DCDuring TALK 16:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

corner solution response

"A non-negative dependent variable that is roughly continuous over strictly positive values that takes on the value zero with some regularity." Books shows only quotes from various editions of one author. Scholar quotes not visible enough to me. DCDuring TALK 22:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC):

Quite probably SoP: corner solution + response. DCDuring TALK 23:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

ma tante

Originally RfVd in 2007 but never listed.

The current content appears mistaken, at least from fr:tante and the edit summaries. "My uncle" is UK slang for pawnbroker or fence. The sense now is aunt, as of today.

'matante' is an informal regional use (Quebec), e.g. 'auntie'. 'ma tante' would be a SOP 'my aunt'. - Amgine/talk 01:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don’t understand what you mean by "The sense now is aunt". This phrase (or chez ma tante), besides the SoP sense of "my aunt", also means w:Mont de Piété, a sort of Franciscan pawnbroker. —Stephen 20:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


I could only find one cite, and it does not appear to back up the sense given. If kept, will need a great deal of cleanup. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why did you change it from {{delete}} to {{rfv}}? There's nothing on Groups, fewer than ten matches on Google generally, and just this one nonce usage in a book that doesn't even mean the same thing! Equinox 23:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Anytime something contentious is done ostensibly in good faith, I allow user to at least take a shot at defending it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Tosh. Delete SemperBlotto 08:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete. None of the Google hits seems to be using it in this sense, though there's one I'm not sure about (that talks about the "ultragovernment world and domestic interference" that Kerry and Bush "both plan[ned] to perpetuate"). —RuakhTALK 21:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 22:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


"A wafer cone designed for ice cream manufactured by Askey’s." If it's a brand name, I assume it should be capitalised (and perhaps not in Wiktionary). If it's a generic term, it shouldn't mention the manufacturer. I've had plenty of "ninety-nine flake" ice-creams since I was a kid, but I'm not sure about this. Equinox 03:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense # 6: "The set of elements common to two or more sets." This is the set-theoretic definition of intersection. Wikipedia article on intersection does not mention the word product. The article on set theory mentions Cartesian product, but it is something different. Other dictionaries do not mention this sense. Also the example sentence is of an intersection:

The set of red hats is the product of the set of hats and the set of red things.

Is "product" really synonymous to "intersection" in set theory? --Hekaheka 21:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The intersection of sets corresponds to the conjunction of logical values and to the product of Boolean values. (Here's why: To say whether an element a is in the intersection of A and B is the same as saying whether it's in A and in B (conjunction); assigning a Boolean value of 0 to its absence from a set and 1 to its presence, this also corresponds to finding the product of whether it's in A and whether it's in B.) That said, I do not recall hearing/reading the term product for an intersection of sets, and, as you note, Hekaheka, it would be confusing, what with the existence of Cartesian products. None of this blabbering on my part can overcome cold, hard citations, though, of course.—msh210 18:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed. —RuakhTALK 18:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense fictional universe or well-known work? DCDuring TALK 11:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a single novel (and one sequel), so it doesn't fit the usual mold of what we treat as a sci-fi universe. But as a novel taught in public schools in America, it does qualify as a well-known work in my estimation. --EncycloPetey 14:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Seems to appear capitalized in Brave New World. DCDuring TALK 19:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Inserted without cites at Beta, readily citable from BNW. Uncited sense removed from beta. DCDuring TALK 19:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

quantitative analysis

Rfv-sense: Template:finance The process of analyzing hundreds of factors to reach a financial decision, such as when to buy or sell common stock. I'm not familiar with anything in finance called "quantitative analysis" that is not SoP. DCDuring TALK 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

maximum pain

Price of stock at option strike price. I'd like to see it in actual use, not mention, in this sense. DCDuring TALK 00:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Not bearing interest. Possibly a dated sense. DCDuring TALK 00:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

loose scrum

Seems plausible, but Web hits suggest that "scrum" and "loose scrum" might actually be synonymous?

RuakhTALK 15:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand them as being separate terms. A "scrum" is an organised, tight pack, usually put together by the referee. A "loose scrum" occurs during play when the ball becomes free, and is pretty much as per the definition given, being open and not tight. It is part of the sport's terminology. -- ALGRIF talk 16:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Wait, but your explanation doesn't seem to match our definition, either. Our definition says that a "loose scrum" is a kind of scrum, but your explanation suggests that "loose scrum" and "scrum" are mutually exclusive? —RuakhTALK 17:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of rugger, but I used to play it at school, and as I understand it, the terms are mutually exclusive. (Perhaps with a small, grey, overlap) We need the input of an amateur expert. -- ALGRIF talk 19:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
'Pedia give us the following: "Originally there was no distinction between an awarded or "set" scrum (today officially called simply "scrummage") and a "loose" scrum (today officially called a ruck). The side awarded a scrimmage simply had one player put the ball on the ground and let go of it; there was no requirement of a tunnel, although players were required to be onside, i.e. not ahead of the ball. The most common way for a scrimmage/scrummage to be so awarded (there being no referee to actually award one, but as the rules specified) would be the occurrence of a stalemate between the player with the ball (who would declare "held") and opponents holding him (who would call, "Have it down"). A scrummage could also occur as a ruck today, in which opposing players simply close around a ball already on the ground." See also ruck. -- ALGRIF talk 15:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

chinese snooker

Tagged 20 Feb by Maro, but not entered here. Query is "Chinese" or "chinese". As far as I can see it is with a small "c" especially as it does not actually refer to the country. I find most references in lower case also. It's a bit tricky to see, however, because of all the quotes about "Chinese" snooker players, tournaments, etc. -- ALGRIF talk 16:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

economic vehicle

def. is balderdash, IMHO. Please show me wrong. DCDuring TALK 17:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Seen quite a few uses of it as a SoP of economic (sense 1) vehicle (sense 5), which the current definition could be taken as a hyponym of, though I am doubtful of the restriction to just that subset of meaning. However most usage seems to be of economic(sense 2) vehicle (sense 1). Might be worth keeping as an entry to show how the various senses usually interact. Carolina wren 18:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense as an abbreviation for 4649. I can see how in the otaku subculture 46 might arise as an abbreviation for 4649, but using forty-six as an abbreviation for pleased to meet you seems a bit much. At most a interjection with an interesting etymology, but I can't find support for even that. Carolina wren 19:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned at 46 and forty-six being listed as English abbreviations for the Japanese 4649. Should the latter be English too? I find it hard to believe. Equinox 20:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Failed. Sense deleted.—msh210 23:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

ramp up

"To be in the process of learning a new ability". Equinox 20:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I could “ramp up my skills” in a particular field, but to me this looks like an application of sense 1, with the more specific meaning only provided by the appended object skills in this example. Michael Z. 2009-03-16 21:30 z
I partially agree with Michael. I've added a sense and examples, transitive and intransitive, that refer to start-up or a project, which might fit the RfVed sense better. Take a look, please. DCDuring TALK 22:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

geek out

Sense 3: "To spend time with a computer (whether productive or unproductive) in preference to spending time with people" Equinox 20:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 22:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


"To develop a conception in mind". I don't think the example sentence is plausible and I think the intended sense is sense 1 (as one would "form an image": shape it). See User_talk:EivindJ#form_new_sense Equinox 21:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I just couldn't possibly see how you give an opinion "visible structure", when you "form an opinion" or "form an idea". When it comes to the example sentence: you're probably right ... my bad. Someone who can do better? --Eivind (t) 21:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
MWOnline has 9/12 senses/subsenses for this verb, 3 for intransitive, 6/9 for transitive. Encarta has 8. We have 4 total. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense. Five senses that seem to me included in two real senses. DCDuring TALK 00:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

At least two of these senses are clearly widespread use, RFV passed. Did you mean to RFD? DAVilla 05:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I see this has been moved to RFD: WT:RFD#cooperation. Equinox 15:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
You should look more closely. Unstruck until remaining senses resolved. 10:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


Any takers? (Nothing on Google books) SemperBlotto 17:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it might be from this rap song [52] The entry was created based on Urban Dictionary, though, which is never a good idea. Equinox 17:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Failed. Deleted.—msh210 23:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


Is this real? It seems to be only on Wiktionary-related Web pages. Equinox 23:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a specific reason why you're RFVing the plural? Is the singular form not a problem? Nadando 03:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes. The plural didn't look attestable. Equinox 09:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Depends on what you mean by real. It certainly is real in the sense that if we were measuring temperature that precisely that would be the SI unit used. However, we aren't able to measure that precisely, Indeed, the smallest temperature ever measured is ~100 pK which is 1011 larger, so aside from esoteric lists of combinations of SI prefixes with SI base units it never gets used, and won't be any time soon. They are sort of like *sextilió, *septilió, ..., *vigintilió, the hypothetical Catalan cognates of sextilion, septilion, ..., vigintilion, that I chose to not create entries for as I couldn't find any evidence of actual use outside of lists of large numbers (really large since Catalan uses long scale only). Carolina wren 05:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
These are theoretical units. They can not be measured, but are useful in theoretical physics to describe potential states of matter which can not be observed (we have, after all, an entry for the Higgs boson). In any event, they are officially designated SI units - and French Wiktionary has all of the SI units, from zetta- to zepto- for every recognized form of measure, and I'll be damned if I let the French outmaneuver us in the inclusion of scientific nomenclature! bd2412 T 08:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
* A fairly complete list of these units, present and missing, can be found at User:Dcljr/Units. bd2412 T 08:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, yes, but they're SI units that -- apparently -- no one ever uses or mentions, even in the most ethereal theoretical discussions. That seems problematic, though I do agree it would be better not to let the French get the drop on us.  ;-) -- Visviva 08:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Copying possibly non-existent words doesn't seem like the best way to keep up with them! Equinox 21:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Damn those cheese-eating SI-unit monkeys anyway! Angr 12:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
They're not non-existent words, though. They have been created by a scientific body which has been granted the right to create words for units of measure. I compare it to a scientist who discovers a new species of microbe being granted the right to provide the scientific name for it, said name possibly never making it into any publications but being the correct name nonetheless. I'd also like to add that not only do the French have all of these, the Russians do as well. Probably copied from the French. bd2412 T 17:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
"said name possibly never making it into any publications": then doesn't it fail our attestability criteria? Equinox 13:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is real enough, but it is SoP, too: zepto + kelvin. I propose it be deleted together with most of zepto-, mega-, giga-, atto- etc. stuff. --Hekaheka 13:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Idiomaticity is a criterion required of multi-word phrases only; words whose meanings are semantically transparent from the analysis of their cositituent morphemes are nevertheless permissible.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed.—msh210 15:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 01:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


Looks illiterate to me, despite many scanning errors in Google Books. Anybody know better? Equinox 00:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Might be illiterate, but it does seem to be a reasonably common misspelling of each other in that particular sense, and has been listed as an alternate spelling since Sept 2008 in the main entry with a usage note to boot. Only problem is likely to be finding three "durable" cites. Carolina wren 02:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
We've been accepting citations Usenet (but not other fora) that are archived at groups.google.com. google groups:+"eachother" group:alt.* should do.—msh210 16:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Cited, with three citations, all from Google Books, each from a separate century, none being a scanno. But I do think the Template:nonstandard tag is appropriate. —RuakhTALK 02:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Passed.msh210 17:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


I never encountered this feminine form. AFAIK it's always the masculine perón. --Duncan 00:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I guess we can delete "peróna". It was created by Tbot based on the translation "peróna" at platform entered by me. I've had it stored wrongly as "peróna" instead of "perón" in my mind, as Google books research shows, finding "peróna" only as a declined form of the surname "Perón". I could have erroneously inferred the form "peróna" from the phrase "na peróně". --Dan Polansky 11:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, thanks. —RuakhTALK 15:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, even if there were a feminine formed by adding -a to perón, it would drop the acute accent and be spelled perona. Angr 19:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Never mind; I was thinking of Spanish, not Czech. Angr 19:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


Not in DRAE, few google hits, looks like French suffisamment and is probably an invention of French-speakers with poor Spanish-knowledge.Matthias Buchmeier 14:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is not Spanish, and not a common misspelling of the French. Delete. —Stephen 19:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Stephen 02:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


Entry gives 69 as a symbol for the astrological sign Cancer. While the symbol looks somewhat like that, it is actually (Cancer.svg). Possibly used as a substitute by those without proper font support, which is why I brought it here instead of RfD. Carolina wren 19:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Failed. Sense removed.msh210 23:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

sex talk

Any takers? (no formatting) SemperBlotto 07:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Flipping through the first three pages of Google Books results, I see sex talk and sex-talk referring to teaching sex, but also to discussion about gender relations, about the sexual act, adolescent bragging, about bisexuality, and to sexually explicit poetry. I don't see it in any other dictionaries, and it appears to be just “talk of sex” without any special meaning. Michael Z. 2009-03-19 16:22 z

Failed; deleted.—msh210 23:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


Anime sense looks quite hard to cite three times even from Usenet. Anyone want to have a go? Equinox 20:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 22:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


[ digger Etymology for sense meaning Australian soldier. ]

Etymology is given as - Derived from Australian Colonial goldfields terminology. The term represents the mateship of common interests and activities where most of the population were gold miners, and almost everybody was a mate, a "digger", with a common cause against the troopers, the traps, the mining licence inspectors.

This does not show how the term came to be used as an informal term for an Australian soldier, nor does it match any other definition given. I also took out the "See also cobber" from this etymology, as cobber does not match any digger definition. The closest I can think of is that both are sometimes used as a term of endearment among friends, but this is a tenuous link and is not part of either the definitions or the etymology.--Dmol 00:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

See User_talk:Dmol#digger. Equinox 00:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC) (I have copied it below, may as well keep it on the same page)--Dmol 05:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

From Chambers 2005: "digg'er n a person or animal that digs; a miner, esp a gold-miner; an Australian or New Zealand soldier; an informal Australian term of address; a machine for digging." This suggests that the stuff you removed was correct. Equinox ◑ 00:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

But the term cobber does not mean any of the terms listed at digger and this is why i removed it. I have just added rfv-sense to the etymology, as nothing in it explains the origin of the term meaning an Aussie soldier. The quote you show means we are missing a definition (has now been added), which I alluded to in the listing of RFV, but does not explain the soldier meaning.--Dmol 05:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)--Dmol 00:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I always assumed that "Digger/digger" came from Word War I due to the trench warfare which ensured years of trench digging for many young men of the period. I am also pretty sure "digger" applied equally to New Zealanders. It is certainly dated now and you're most likely to hear it in period drama cinema or on Anzac day to refer to old age war veterans.
  • "Digger/digger" can equally be used as a term of address, but "cobber" I have only ever heard as a term of address or perhaps a synonym of "mate". As in "G'day cobber" for the former, and "He's out playing with his cobbers." for the latter. I can't help with the etymology of "cobber" but both "digger" and "cobber" are definitely synonyms for "mate" with their own nuances, and both dated. — hippietrail 08:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I've added an extra sense, meaning an informal nickname for a friend. It matches the quote given above by Equinox, and i have marked it dated. BTW, the soldier sense is not dated, and is commonly used today. It is heard regularly on the news in Australia.--Dmol 07:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


Apparently a recent protologism. --Jackofclubs 07:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

  • And deleted as such. (will need a better definition if it returns) SemperBlotto 08:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


Was listed by me for RFV about 18 months ago and seems to have fallen between the cracks. Still listed. Relisting here for action.--Dmol 08:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

From Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/August 2007:

NMP "not my problem". Almost impossible to find in books without it being explained immediately after its usage. Mostly urban dictionaries come up as first google search. --Dmol 21:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It was used on the episode of Monk, "Mr. Monk Gets Fired".

-- 05:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

RuakhTALK 14:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —RuakhTALK 14:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Striking, since deleted a while ago. Equinox 22:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


Sense 4 (blue, with e.g. dismal are the eyes of the wolf). Not in the OED or Random House, unless this is supposed to mean "blue" in the sense of "woeful" or "depressed" (in which case it is probably already implicit in one of the other defns). -- WikiPedant 23:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

GoldenPalace.com monkey

I'm doubtful of this (and the associated plural) as it seems that the chosen auction name wasn't GoldenPalace.com monkey, but golden palace monkey. Carolina wren 17:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 01:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


This passed RfV before the current WT:CFI#Fictional universes policy. I just removed two citations that did not pass the policy's requirement (one was in-universe, one was introduced as a Star Trek quote in the text before its use). Of the remaining citations, the South Park one doesn't seem to have anything to do with the sense being cited. I haven't seen the video, but the transcript makes it seem just like an attempt to represent a scream in writing, not this specific word. This needs further verification. Dominic·t 10:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If someone has access to the script of Team America: World Police, I think you'll find Qapla' used there. Angr 11:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this it? [53] I couldn't find that word in it. Equinox 22:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but missing the ending apostrophe. bd2412 T 23:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I presume that the Team America web transcript doesn't qualify as an attestation of the spelling Qapla!, but it does serve as evidence for us of the spoken attestation in the movie. Michael Z. 2009-03-25 00:11 z
Good point. I don't think anyone doubts the spelling, given the language is artificial, so what we really want are instances where the term is used. Being spoken would be superior in some ways, no? DAVilla 23:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Why on Earth would you remove citations? Just because they don't meet the CFI requirement does not mean the quotation can't be listed on the page. 10:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, good point. We can be clear that a given quotation does not meet the CFI citation requirement; but if illustrative (and an in-universe quotation, particularly the first use, is good) they should stay. Likewise, CFI-meeting citations that don't help illustrate the term can or should be relegated to the Citations: page. There is seldom any reason to delete them entirely, unless weeding out heaps of them. Robert Ullmann 12:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense, and I wasn't thinking about it when I removed it. (But if we want an in-universe citation a more illustrative and certainly an earlier use could be found.) Dominic·t 12:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The two quotations that remain seem to indicate different use. One is a proclamation of success, the other is wishing success. Either way the single word "success" doesn't really cover it as a definition. DAVilla 23:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Not convinced - if I shout "Success!" before the match, I am wishing success; if I do so afterward, I am proclaiming it. Either way, it's the same word, and I'm not sure the nuance would justify a separate sense. bd2412 T 18:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone really shout "Success!" before it happened? Equinox 18:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
“To success!” “Wishing you success!” “To our success!” Michael Z. 2009-03-27 20:10 z
Only if they're native speakers of Klingon. ;-) —RuakhTALK 20:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


I assume this is supposed to be related to vapid. I can't find any use of it. Nadando 23:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted: does not seem attestable. Equinox 22:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "Liberal Party". A member thereof, yes, but not the collective. DCDuring TALK 08:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Weak keep. We have Labour and Labor for the UK and Australian parties. The only thing is that the term "The Liberals" is often used instead of just Liberal. Difficult to cite with so much of the adjectival form about.--Dmol 10:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Remove, I think. True, in the UK "Labour" is sometimes used to mean "the Labour Party" (as in "Labour is holding its convention this week"). But in Canada (and I think also in the UK), nobody uses "Liberal" interchangeably with "the Liberal Party" (e.g., nobody would say "Liberal is holding its convention this week"). In the case of the Liberal Party, the usual informal short form is "the Liberals". True, people will say "I voted Liberal", but I suspect this usage is elliptical for "I voted for the Liberal candidate". -- WikiPedant 04:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hence the request for verification. 10:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
'The Liberal opinion is...' is a reasonable construction here in Canada, refering to the expressed opinion of the Liberal Party of Canada. However, that's an adjectival use of a proper noun. - Amgine/talk 14:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Or it really is an adjective, meaning "of or pertaining to the Liberal party, platform, policy, or viewpoint". But that still does not establish that there's a corresponding noun "Liberal" equivalent to "Liberal party". (BTW, as w:Rick Mercer pointed out last week, so far this year the Canadian Liberal party appears incapable of expressing any opinions ;-) .) -- WikiPedant 03:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


I-10 has been marked for RFV but not listed so I'll list it here rather than at RFD. Looks to me to be just SOP as I- for interstate plus a number. RJFJR 21:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 22:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


Sense 3 seems dubiously close to a protologism. Any thoughts? This, that and the other 10:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange, I thought this had already passed RFV, but I don't see any history even of discussion. DAVilla 23:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
defenestrate's related sense passed RfV, though now that I look all of its citations actually use "defenestration." Dominic·t 12:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


Only one reference — the Guardian newspaper — appears to meet our requirements for durable sources. Any more out there? Equinox 13:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently not, for the time being. I expect this was one of those made-up media words that they publish a column about every year (as if there aren't enough legitimate new words). Deleted. Equinox 22:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


I think the def is wrong. It seems to be quite unattestable, and for example Chicago: City on the Make (Algren, Terkel, Schmittgens, Savage) defines the same word as "an African American". Equinox 17:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

for the first time

"Interjection expressing exasperation". Not idiomatic in English. Translation of Hungarian? DCDuring TALK 20:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Surely it's "(I'm telling you) for the last time": a threat that more concrete action will be taken if the behaviour persists. Equinox 20:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting for the last time as the appropriate idiomatic translation of először? It seems to (literally) mean first time" per this dictionary. DCDuring TALK 23:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know one word of Hungarian. I was looking at the provided English definition; I suppose that doesn't match what I said, but it felt rather close: they both express frustration that is the result of a repeated circumstance. Equinox 23:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


Noun (2): “A chain of restaurants specializing in burritos and tacos owned by the McDonald's Corporation.” Mis-capitalization aside, can we just strike this without going through verification as not meeting CFI? Michael Z. 2009-03-26 22:37 z

Yes, it’s nonsense. Cleaned up. —Stephen 02:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Nonsense? Then how do you explain w:Chipotle Mexican Grill? 20:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Including this in a dictionary is nonsense. Michael Z. 2009-03-28 21:58 z
"Nonsense" means that it's totally bogus, whereas this definition is fairly accurate in contrast, or anyway not too far off the mark. Moreover the term could potentially be included under the brand name criteria. I don't think the chain is part of the English lexicon myself, and I've somewhat confirmed that by looking through a few Google Book hits, all of which give it away as a Mexican food restaurant. If that's the case then it wouldn't pass the criteria, which were written rather tightly specifically to keep terms like this out. Nonetheless, it deserved more than the cursory glance it was afforded. 07:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

account code

Template:banking The numerical designation assigned to each account for the purpose of segregating status of stock by broad purposes or intended use. Definition seems bogus. Real definition likely to be SoP "A code for an account". DCDuring TALK 00:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The intimation (correct) is that account codes are structured and contain information used to classify accounts. This seems like encyclopaedic, rather than dictionary, information. Maybe a usage note - is this enough to justify an entry though? Pingku 16:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


Protologism? Needs cleanup if OK. SemperBlotto 17:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Citable; goes back much farther than the entry's claim:
  • 1990, Zach Schiller, "P&G Tries Hauling Itself Out of America's Trash Heap", Business Week (April 23, 1990), Environment, p. 101:
    P&G is steering clear of exaggerated claims. Indeed, it has campaigned against "biodegradable" products, many of which don't break down in landfills. "We're not trying to outgreen everyone with advertising slogans," says Viney.
  • 1997, Gene Swimmer, How Ottawa Spends, 1997-98: Seeing Red, a Liberal Report Card‎, p. 202:
    In last year's How Ottawa Spends, one of us argued that the Red Book chapter represented the Liberals' effort to "outgreen the Tories."
  • 1998, Dennis Lock, The Gower handbook of management‎, p. 211:
    Political parties scramble to 'outgreen' their rivals in a bid to retain or win the support of electorates. Few of the environmental issues which arouse concern are new.
  • Cheers! bd2412 T 18:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Also: 1999, John Tierney, "Martian chronicle; plans for manned exploration of planet Mars", Reason (February 1, 1999), p. 24(9) Vol. 30 No. 9:
      It was a lovely moment, a developer outgreening environmentalists by nobly espousing the largest real estate project in history, and it illustrated why Mars is a no-lose proposition for libertarians.
    • bd2412 T 18:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I put the citations down under a new sense which they support better; I think the original sense is too narrow and should be subsumed by the sense I drafted. bd2412 T 20:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Cited, so kept. Equinox 01:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


May not meet criteria. Goldenrowley 18:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC) RFV failed. Word deleted. Goldenrowley 17:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


Alternate spelling of sulphorhodamine, or misspelling? It's much rarer. Equinox 21:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If we accept the authoritativeness of the naming authorities, we could ignore our own lack of standards or misspellings vs. alternative spellings and the inclusion of uncommon misspellings. IUPAC has on-line resources here. We might want a distinctive tag like Template:i-c for terms checked or conformance and use "non-standard" or "non-IUPAC" for others. Maybe we could have a special {{rfIUPAC}} for chemical terms, though {{attention|chemistry}} may suffice and might be better or such entries than rfv. DCDuring TALK 19:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "maintaining the integrity of the powers of life and love placed within the person and opposing any behavior that would violate one's personal dignity or the dignity of another." PoV, probably rarely used this way. DCDuring TALK 10:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 22:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

monkey boy

Added by an anon, this is supposed to be some sort of corporate jargon. Seems suspect to me. Dominic·t 13:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The first 2 are just sum of parts to me. Why is the final example one word? Should we verify monkey boy or monkeyboy? Goldenrowley 05:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The second sense isn't sum of parts to me, but it may be specific to a single movie. I believe all usages of the second sense trace back to a quotation in the film The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension, specifically: "Laugh while you can, monkey boy". As such, it might be supportable with sufficient citations from a variety of science fiction sources not connected to nor quoting the film. --EncycloPetey 05:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


Much loved by "weird word" lists. Can't see any usage though. Ƿidsiþ 13:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

At least the Greek origin seems to be correct. It’s a question of transliteration. On the Greek Wikipedia under el:w:Κίρκη: Η Κίρκη ζούσε στο νησί στο οποίο ήταν βασίλισσα, την Αιαία... (Circe lived on the island of Aiaia, where she became a queen...).
Not in the OED (checked today) ... The w:English words with uncommon properties list says: For the purposes of this article, any word which has appeared in a recognised general English dictionary published in the 20th century or later is considered a candidate. That is not the case - the only dictionary this seems to appear in is allwords.com ... but they pull their contents off from here. Regretfully, looks like a candidate for deletion. -Iakub 15:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

hydrostatic pressure relief system

This particular phrase, while reasonably common in architectural engineering and construction, appears to remain a sum of parts. - Amgine/talk 14:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If it’s a common phrase in engineering and construction, keep. Is it a system that relieves hydrostatic pressure, or is it a system that relieves pressure in something via hydrostatic means? Very technical. —Stephen 22:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


Sense 2: Any of ship, real or fictional, named USS Constitution. The Constitution is moored in Charlestown.

Obviously, this would refer to a particular Constitution, not any one. Anyway, which, if any, Constitutions meet CFI? Michael Z. 2009-03-30 15:03 z

This raises a larger question of whether we ought to have names of vessels, particularly those that happen to be named after common nouns as opposed to proper nouns (e.g. Enterprise, which we have, and Endeavor and Monitor, which we don't). I propose that the test for inclusion of a ship by name ought to be the same as that of any other famous single object, as in the Empire State Building or Eiffel Tower. bd2412 T 23:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking of. No need to propose it, as it is the current policy in effect. This clearly falls under WT:CFI#Names_of_specific_entitiesMichael Z. 2009-03-31 05:54 z
Which unfortunately makes this particular case muddier, since the fictional Star Trek usage is a class of vessels, not a particular one. My sister informs me that the Enterprise in the original show was a "Constitution class vessel", so the term is used attributively. On the other hand, this is a sense specific to just one fictional universe. --EncycloPetey 05:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


Equinox 22:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

While it appears to be used solely with respect to Firefox 3, it is mentioned in online reviews of Firefox 3 by the mainstream press, and thus is likely in print as well for those sites such as PCMagazine's that correspond to a print publication. Doubtful it'll ever get used beyond this narrow field of use though, but who knows? Possibly troublesome to get three durable cites, but I'm fairly certain it meets CFI, tho barely. — Carolina wren discussió 02:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Possibly cited. Please take a look, let me know what you think. (BTW, as Carolina wren says, it appears to be used solely with respect to Firefox 3. So, I don't know how I feel about this; if it were a Microsoft-ism, I'd be clamoring for its deletion …) —RuakhTALK 02:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Two of the citations are very poor because the word appears in quotation marks, suggesting that they need to define it: this is bordering on mention rather than usage. The third looks okay, but is very recent (don't we need to span a year?). As you suggest, there are always plenty of Microsoft buzzwords (I believe the new Internet Explorer 8 has a few) that might be comparable, and comparably "unkeepable". I feel we should move the citations to that special page and ditch the entry until (and unless — which may not happen) it really catches on. Web buzzwords are two a penny. Equinox 04:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: needing to span a year: yeah, that's why I added the very recent cite. The term is only about a year old, so it doesn't span a year unless it reaches the present. :-)   —RuakhTALK 11:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind quotation marks so much. Even though a term is awkwardly set aside as such, it can be a structural part of the sentence. However, the citation
a feature called "frecency"
in particular is very weak indeed. DAVilla 07:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, good point. :-/   —RuakhTALK 22:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
O.K., I've added a new cite (from late May). Please take a look. —RuakhTALK 17:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


I think it's probably real, but we are going to have trouble attesting it. Equinox 23:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


Appears to be in "lists of really cool words to sound pretentious with," but that's about all. Might be genuine Scottish of some sort. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I did not see that this had already failed rfv. My apologies. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


Not great definitions (the most common uses of the name is for one ship or another, not for the name of anything, and possibly not for a series of anything), comprising several starships, a space shuttle, and eight US Navy ships.

WT:CFI#Names of specific entities applies, requiring attributive use. I'll betcha at least one will remain if someone applies themself to this. Michael Z. 2009-03-31 06:03 z

  • And remember that citations for Star Trek senses must not be in-universe. bd2412 T 14:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


I'm pretty sure that Lebanese is not a language. SemperBlotto 07:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

So am I, but now this hoax entry has a Template:rfv and a Template:speedy. Why could it not just be deleted? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't obviously a hoax - could have been innocent Romanization of Arabic - anyway, deleted. SemperBlotto 08:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
There have efforts to write the Lebanese Arabic dialect in the Latin alphabet, such as those by the poet Said Akl but they haven't gotten very far. Might the entry have been an effort to document such usage? — Carolina wren discussió 16:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Striking, since already deleted. Equinox 22:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


Adjectival sense. rfv tag was added by User:Elkaar who forgot to add a section here. -- WikiPedant 19:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

delete Does not look like an adjective to me. The word "flag" only has this meaning (Of or pertaining to an admiral, commodore, or general officer) in combination with the word "officer", and we already have flag officer. Worse, it would be misleading, since there are flag captains as well. --Hekaheka 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
There's also flag rank, flag bridge, flag lieutenant, and flag plot at least, and googling those will yields sufficiently many citations. This is either an adjective or an attributive noun, but seems certainly to have the meaning specified ("of or pertaining to an admiral, commodore, or general officer"), or one like it.​—msh210 19:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a strong suspicion that one can be a flag officer and not be on a ship in the contemporary navy as well as in Gilbert and Sullivan's navy, so the nautical definition of flag#Noun may not cover all uses of this.
But I also don't see this as being an adjective, as it doesn't seem to be gradable or comparable and can't appear as a predicate, AFAICT.
I would think that an actual designated military position, like flag lieutenant, would have a rationale for inclusion parallel to the legal/regulatory one for ground beef. DCDuring TALK 20:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Re gradability et al., fine, but then we're missing the noun sense, and this should be moved. Re "actual designated military position": I don't know that flag lieutenant is the official title: AFAIK it's just a job description. I could well be wrong, but w:flag lieutenant makes it seem like I'm not.​—msh210 20:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
But the WP is for w:Aide-de-camp. One of the great things about working for the government is that your job description is almost always the subject of regulation (and therefore due process of law) and sometimes actual legislation. Ergo, #ground beef. Also, I'm not sure that there is a good way to write the nautical definition of flag so that it would adequately enable one to infer that a flag lieutenant was a personal assistant to an admiral (or captain?). All words and all that. But if it can be done, the possibly obsolete UK regs defining the position of "Flag Lieutenant" might be a thin basis for a "legal idiom". So long as we can't be seen as giving privileged treatment to academic linguists over military officers, we should be OK. DCDuring TALK 21:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps there is a law defining flag lieutenant in some country, but I can't find it at [54], [55], or [56].​—msh210 22:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
It appears to be at best dated as something official in the US (WWI). It appears as an appointment in the UK in the 19th century. We can leave it to a nautical antiquarian to enter and cite. About the other English-speaking navies, who knows? DCDuring TALK 23:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I'm going to delete it. 02:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

bio energy

Was created anonymously. I'm not seeing it, but maybe it exists.—msh210 21:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be very rare indeed. Rather than this, bio-energy might deserve a listing as an alternative spelling, since it appears to be more common. --Hekaheka 22:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —RuakhTALK 17:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

April 2009


All three senses- there was an earlier rfv to sense 3 that did not lead anywhere. Very rare as a surname, I found 6 bearers through Ancestry.com, might be misspellings of Merton, etc. City in Europe?? Can somebody find a reliable definition for this word in any sense, in any language? --Makaokalani 14:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What about deleting the whole entry? A rare word with three suspicious-looking and unverified definitions. It can be re-entered if somebody finds a valid definition.--Makaokalani 16:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


Is this English? Does the trade mark meet CFI for brand names?--Makaokalani 15:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing both definitions and replacing them by a surname, the only real meaning I could find.--Makaokalani 16:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


Reasonable? - but not in the OED. SemperBlotto 19:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sense 3 should be likely be kept, but at Diaglott, not at this spelling or capitalization, the others I'm largely skeptical of. — Carolina wren discussió 20:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
1 & 2 look like misspellings of diglotMichael Z. 2009-04-03 20:37 z
I'm very suspicious of the "program written in two languages" sense. Equinox 19:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

a onde estar?

Portugese, currently off-scope and possible dupe of estar. --Sigma 7 02:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


Two senses: ‘pole used to catch people’ and ‘the game of tennis’. Ƿidsiþ 10:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Both senses are probably real. They come verbatim from the public-domain Century Dictionary — see http://www.leoyan.com/century-dictionary.com/cent2jpgframes.php?volno=01&page=0859 — though it gives them with different etymologies, and tags the latter as Scottish. —RuakhTALK 15:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I've cited the ‘pole’ sense now. Still can't see anything for tennis though. Ƿidsiþ 16:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I got intrigued by Scots being mentioned. DSL-SND says:
†CACHE-POLE, Catchepoole, Kaitchpull, n. “The game of [hand or field] tennis” (Sc. 1825 Jam.2). [ˈkɑtʃpol, -pʌl, -pul]. It gives a 1928 citation:
“Catchepoole” or “Kaitchpull” is the French jeu de paume or tennis, not the modern lawn-tennis, but the game played in specially prepared courts. There seem to have been a number of these courts in Edinburgh [in the 16th cent.].
and this etymology:
[O.Sc. cach(e)pell, caich(e)pule, catchpole , catchpul, the game of hand-tennis, earliest quot. 1526 (D.O.S.T.). Mid.Du. kaets-spel, ball-game (Kilian). For first element, see Cache. The second element is from Du. speel, play, Ger. spiel, the s being assimilated to the final [ʃ] in the first element. The prevalent Sc. spellings of the second element are due to some obseure analogy.]
Says nothing about it being used in English, though. --Duncan 17:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, fantastic! Ƿidsiþ 17:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the "tennis" sense. Although it might deserve inclusion for Scots (though it's hard to tell which, if any, transcription could be attestable), it certainly has nothing to do with English the way we treat it here. --Duncan 20:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Striking. --Duncan 13:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

done done

Either a protologism or a neologism, and is sufficiently jargony/slangy I'd prefer to see it cited. — Carolina wren discussió 15:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like contrastive focus reduplication rather than an actual term of the sort we include. (But, I could be wrong. It's possible that it's a fixed term that simply originated as contrastive focus reduplication.) —RuakhTALK 16:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
See also: funny ha-ha


Another questionable entry. Goldenrowley 21:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a joke: the word itself is a palindrome. Clearly nobody would really have this as a disorder. Equinox 21:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
If it’s a palindrome, it would have to be "aibohphobia". —Stephen 19:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, delete this as a misspelling of aibohphobia. Conrad.Irwin 09:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. —Stephen 11:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


RfV for third sense:

–Firstly, what is an “Organ building”?, and secondly, the definition is not at all elucidating; prospect has no suitably explicatory sense.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  • 1899, Salomon Jadassohn; Harry P. Wilkins, A Course of Instruction in Instrumentation:
    Some, and occasionally many of these pipes serve only as an ornament to the front side — "the prospect" — of the organ; all visible (exterior) pipes are therefore, called "prospect-pipes".

DCDuring TALK 18:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Then it means the front side of the organ. Is this generalizable to some sense of "visible side of anything", which is also a generalization of the building sense (sense 1)? Not durably archived, but [57] has "facade of the car" (meaning its surface). Other examples?—msh210 23:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
WNW has the more general sense which they combine with the "misleading false front" sense. They keep the building sense separate. I think we c/should have at least three senses. The organ sense does seem to have a distinctive synonym: prospect. It is less than obvious to a non-church-attending, non-musical person what the façade of an organ might be. A visual-dictionary-style drawing might help more than a wordy definition. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: door-key child? H. (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There's some evidence (not a lot) that this is a back formation from door-key to dorky, hence a dorky kid becoming synonymous with a latchkey kid. Needs further investigation before eliminating. -- ALGRIF talk 14:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


Supposed to be a noun. Word looks like an adjective to me. SemperBlotto 21:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Changed to adjective. Equinox 01:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


avoiding as a noun, "the action of avoiding". RJFJR 16:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

>100 b.g.c. hits for "avoidings". Most present participles seem to have become attestable nouns. Sometimes there is a word I'd prefer (like "avoidance"); sometimes not. This one has been used by Sidney and Carlyle. DCDuring TALK 20:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that the w:gerund? If we do this, then we add a noun heading for the gerund of every single English verb, don't we? Anyone know if the gerund is always identical to the present participle? Michael Z. 2009-04-07 22:45 z
Sure, it's just a gerund. No dictionary lists them separately. -- WikiPedant 23:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
We already have hundreds, many with their plural forms. Most English dictionaries don't have entries for inflected forms generally and it has long been policy and practice here to have entries for inflected forms. Not all gerunds are actually attestable as nouns, so there is nothing automatic about having one for each verb (let alone its plural). Nothing in WT:CFI would lead to their being omitted. This is RfV anyway, so only attestation is germane. If we feel they ought be excluded, we should start a BP discussion preparatory to a proposal and vote. DCDuring TALK 00:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was going to make the point about us already having hundreds. The main issue in terms of dictionary entries (or perhaps I'm just coming from a Scrabble viewpoint) is whether they can be pluralised. I expect almost everybody would agree that beatings is okay but defragmentings is not. As DCD suggests, it has to come down to attestation. Equinox 01:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd bet against even "defragmentings", there being no perfect substitute. DCDuring TALK 02:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
defragmentations is a perfect substitute for me: it's the plural of the action or process of defragmenting. Perhaps debatable, but I don't personally have a feeling for the ing being different from the ion. Equinox 02:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense 2, "The action of entering a long position in an equity". looks weird to me. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 17:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Already covered by verb sense 3 of long. — Carolina wren discussió 18:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
We didn't have the verb under long#Etymology 1. But now see long#Verb. DCDuring TALK 00:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


Nothing in Books; all matches on Groups appear to be defining the word self-consciously. Is this the cousin of all those phobias nobody ever really talks about? Equinox 21:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 01:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

jack of all trades, master of none

Sense 2, which reads "A master of integration, who knows enough from many learned trades and skills to be able to bring their disciplines together in a practical manner; a polymath; a renaissance man." I'm not familiar with this distinct sense (although it clearly overlaps a bit with sense1) and find no support for it in the OneLook dictionaries. -- WikiPedant 23:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


[ dude #2 ]

The "archaic" noun sense meaning a pimple on a backside. Equinox 00:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Not in the OED, the Random House, or any of the major dictionary links I checked on OneLook. Also no sign of this sense in literature searches of the works of early-20th-century writers of Old West fiction (including Zane Grey, William MacLeod Raine, O. Henry, Jack London, B.M Bower), although the "dandy" and "inexperienced cowboy" senses are common enough in those works. I note that this sense was added by an anon on Feb 13/09, whose only other edits were a handful of worthless edits, riddled with misspellings, made the same day. Not my idea of a credible contribution. -- WikiPedant 04:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, tosh removed. —RuakhTALK 18:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


New entry from IP. Couldn't find any evidence myself that this was ever more than a dictionary word, so bringing here. — Carolina wren discussió 00:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don’t know the word either, but Spanish for cough is toser, Latin tussire. So perhaps it’s a technical medical term? —Stephen 09:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't go so far. English itself has antitussive.—msh210 20:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Passion flower

Rfv-sense Passion flower - is meant to be a sex position, so could be fun to verify. A useful link is The Sex Bible (which everyone should own). --Jackofclubs 16:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably shouldn't be capitalized either. --Jackofclubs 16:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)



The third sense is highly dubious. I am pretty sure that the Hellenic Republic never associates any state entity with the name Μακεδονία other than the own province (which is a sub-state entity). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Will likely be hard to document if used by speakers of Greek, but the official position of the Hellenic Republic is irrelevant except perhaps as a usage note. — Carolina wren discussió 23:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it’s easy to confuse the source with the target (word in the source language versus the translation in the target language). Μακεδονία means Macedonia, and Macedonia is a recently constituted country to the north of Greece, therefore it might seem logical to say that Μακεδονία means what Macedonia means (if A=B and B=C, then A=C). But words are complex values, not at all like A, B or C. With words in different languages, usually the meanings only partly coincide. Although in English, Macedonia is the name of a new country, I’m pretty certain that Μακεδονία is not the name of a new country. So Μακεδονία only means Macedonia in certain senses, not in others. —Stephen 21:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I was talking with User:ArielGlenn and User:Flyax earlier today, and it appears that the word is in use, but it's quite rare, and almost always politically motivated. I imagine that an English word of similar frequency would be no problem for our crack rfv team, but it appears to be rather beyond our current Greek resources. However, it's rare enough that I'm ok with it being nixed. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Μακεδονία is never used for the country, even by the relatively small minority of leftish Greeks who oppose the government's stance vis-à-vis the naming dispute. In defence of the neighbouring country's "right to self-determination", they tend to use the constitutional name, «Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας» ("Republic of Macedonia"), instead. As for the quote cited, it not nearly as definitive as the erroneous translation suggests. The full sentence reads as follows: "But as long as we encouraged their further harmonization with the ancient Greek Macedonian heritage, if we helped them feel that – they too! – were descendants (if not equivalent, at least adopted) of the multicultural Alexander the Great, in the near future we would be bordered to the North by a friendly and familiar Macedonia, by a late "Macedonian kingdom" of the Hellenistic variety (mutadis mutandis, of course)." ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I knew it! I would have erased this POV meaning a long time ago, if I was conversant with the Greek language (I am not) and now, when a native Greek speaker explicated the inadmissibility of this meaning being associated with Μακεδονία, I suggest removing the meaning and moving the ciatation to the appropriate namespace. As Carolina elsewhere explained, one should have patience for one whole month, but I ΚΕΚΡΩΨ's comment was stringent enough. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
RfV fails - no three quotations were provided. Meaning is about to be removed and the existent sole quotation moved to Citations namespace. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


This plural form was deleted from codex with the comment that it was just a mistake that got slipped past an editor. Nadando 23:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Overcited DCDuring TALK 00:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Passed and passed again, all under an hour and a half. 01:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "A large beast". --EncycloPetey 03:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 01:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

label scar

I don't think it is attestable. www.labelscar.com doesn't count. DCDuring TALK 10:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 01:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


When does sufficiency mean efficiency (and which kind of efficiency)? Equinox 14:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the kind you live in? Just a wild guess. DAVilla 04:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 01:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


I don't think either sense is attestable by CFI. We might be able to attest two other senses, not currently in the article, from Usenet: (i) an interjection of amusement (like lol), (ii) an event that sparks hilarity. Equinox 19:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 01:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


Equinox 19:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 01:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


Verb: "to undergo a backlash". I thought it was more the opposite: to cause or set off a backlash. Equinox 21:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. One might say "His scheme backlashed on him". Dbfirs 07:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Right, I think. DCDuring TALK 10:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


Sense just added by an anon (currently sense 9): "A person who shows ambition or diligence" -- WikiPedant 04:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Creative invention. Remove. SemperBlotto 07:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 01:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

nosebleed seat

[ nosebleed seat sense 2 ]

Sense 2 of nosebleed seat

2 {{idiom}} A seat right at the front of the main stage.


An inkjet from a squid? Ho hum. Equinox 21:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I bought a refill kit, but my squids always wriggle when I use it. Michael Z. 2009-04-10 22:17 z
I find nothing on b.g.c searching for "inkjet" + "squid"/"octopus" that isn't about printers. --EncycloPetey 16:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 01:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


I'm seeing this everywhere as LaserJet, a capitalised Hewlett-Packard trademark — not as an adjective or in lower case. Equinox 21:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Two of the quotations have extended the meaning, but the third is just a miscapitalized brand name. I have heard the same in spoken use. If it does pass CFI, I would consider it a rare mistake and label it non-standard, as well as trademarkMichael Z. 2009-04-10 22:16 z
Which ones? DCDuring TALK 22:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The first two are using laserjet as a synonym for laser printer. LaserJet is HP's trademark, so obviously the Samsung and other laserjets quotation doesn't intend to refer to HP LaserJets. I'd like to see the 1994 quote in context, but it's clearly making the same mistake, and it's been fixed or removed in the 10th edition, available for online preview[58] (it also doesn't agree in number, so I'd like to check that). I really hope this doesn't pass CFI. Michael Z. 2009-04-10 22:59 z
Eactly. I believe that "laserjet" is commonly used to mean "laser printer". That is what I have defined as a noun. I believe that it usually used attributively. DCDuring TALK 01:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Cited as lower case noun. I'll leave it to someone else to find evidence of true adjectivity beyond attributive use of the noun. DCDuring TALK 22:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Passed in noun sense, changed to rfv-sense for adjective. DAVilla 18:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Not passed – the 2009 citation refers to HP's printers, which are branded LaserJet. It is a typo or editing mistake, and not a clear citation supporting the generic use of the term. Michael Z. 2009-04-20 17:18 z
The rfv was for the adjective. It is the unchallenged noun that has been cited. I doubt that anyone could cite predicate use or comparative/superlative/graded use. But perhaps someone will. I don't see how one could be certain about the specific usage instance being a mistake. Was it subsequently corrected by author or publisher? DCDuring TALK 17:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
If it may be a mistake, then it's not a clear qualifying citation for CFI, is it? Shall I post another RFV for the noun sense then? Michael Z. 2009-04-20 19:07 z
Anything might be a mistake. The text is presumed correct. In this case a plain reading does not suggest any obvious error. Put in an RfV for the noun if you wish. DCDuring TALK 19:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
A plain reading suggests to me that the short article is poorly edited, using ink jet cartridges, inkjet printers, laser printers generally, and laserjet printers specifically for HP's LaserJets.
Filed at #laserjet (n), below. Michael Z. 2009-04-20 20:18 z


I don't think that this is an adjective. —Internoob (Talk|Cont.) 02:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted as Wonderfolly. —RuakhTALK 03:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "including or containing a mixture of diverse elements or styles; mixed". I don't find this in major dictionaries. --EncycloPetey 18:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think he may be referring to the common usage, "I’m/he’s an ecumenical ___", as an ecumenical abuser (who abuses both sides, both parties, both groups equally). Synonymous with "equal opportunity" (as an equal-opportunity abuser). —Stephen 00:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


Sounds dubious to me. Nadando 18:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Remove. Not in the OED or the Random House dictionary. Zero hits at OneLook; zero hits on Google books; zero hits on Google scholar; zero hits on JSTOR academic search. A few Google web hits, but I don't see any actual usages--just hits in lists of supposed meanings of words (philias and phobias), all of which may trace back to the Wiktionary entry (created in 2004 by User:Danny). -- WikiPedant 20:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 01:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


[ patronage as a verb? ]

patronage as a verb? RJFJR 19:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "Any of the fictional ring-shaped wormhole-based devices used for interstellar travel in the Stargate universe." Needs citations independent of the Stargate universe. DAVilla 04:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Easy enough to search for cites before the move debutedMichael Z. 2009-04-19 01:11 z
As long as you can show that they're ring-shaped. DAVilla 03:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

otto of roses

otto of roses calims to be a variant of attar of roses. To me it looks like a really bad spelling by someone who doesn't know what attar is. I'm not even willing to consider it a common misspelling without attestation. RJFJR 19:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems like SOP, since otto is an alternative spelling of attar. —RuakhTALK 03:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


  1. {{slang|derogatory}} A homosexual person of the goth or emo subculture.

Attestations meeting CFI? RJFJR 20:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

One, to start.msh210 01:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


I don't think any of the three quotes meet the attributive-use standard for words that are trademarks. DCDuring TALK 20:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The 1993 citation is no good because the term is defined two pages prior. The 1984 looks okay in the limited view, but I have a feeling that it's referenced more exactly and we just can't see that. The 1987 borders on mention, and that alone could be considered enough to throw it out. DAVilla 21:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 01:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


Limited hits for this - Encyclopedia Dramatica has a picture (which is blacklisted by Wiktionary filters), UrbanDictionary has some definitions, and an Internet slang dictionary has another. On Google Groups there's only evidence that "Lmaonade" is someone's username. --Jackofclubs 07:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not attestable (yet). Deleted. Equinox 01:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


third person sing. verb: sometimes crescendoes or only crescendos? (Google had some with the es but about 10 times as many with just s). RJFJR 17:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't checked Google (or elsewhere), but the stats you cite seem to answer your question: Both.—msh210 17:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure that the hits you saw were for the third-person singular present active indicative form of the verb, and not for the plural of the noun? Suffixing -es to <o>-terminal words is pretty common in English (e.g., mottoes, potatoes), but that’s not the case for the third-person singular forms, which are almost without exception formed by the suffixation of -s (the exceptions are a few irregular verbs, like be and wit, and archaic forms which use -(e)th). As a verb form, *crescendoes would either be the third-person singular form of a verb *crescendoe or a non-standard third-person singular form of crescendo. (IMO, unless one uses the superior crescendi, crescendoes makes more sense than crescendos as the plural of crescendo because of its pronunciation, which ends in /—əʊz/ invalid IPA characters (—) rather than /—ɒs/ invalid IPA characters (—); the conflation of the two pronunciations of <os>-terminal words (the aforementioned /—ɒs/ invalid IPA characters (—) — usually singular — and /—əʊz/ invalid IPA characters (—), usually plural) is what leads to words like *kudo, erroneously back-formed from the properly singular kudos — correctly pronounced /ˈkjuːdɒs/ but often mispronounced /ˈkuːdəʊz/.)  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


Sense7, recently added by an anon.: "a fabricated backstory for spies". -- WikiPedant 02:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Now cited.msh210 16:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Cited so passed. Equinox 00:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki:Yog's Law

Protologism? --Jackofclubs 17:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed for lack of citation. Word deleted. Goldenrowley 04:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "Ornamental covering for a horse". Al dictionaries I've checked say this is trapping, not trapper. --EncycloPetey 18:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OED has trapper, Obs. exc. Hist., “A covering put over a horse or other beast. . . ; trapping; housing”, with citations from the 1300s to 1902. Michael Z. 2009-04-21 19:33 z
See some examples of this usage in print. They are easy to find: The wars of the Crusades, 1096-1291 by Terence Wise, Transactions - Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society by Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, The seeing stone by Kevin Crossley-Holland, Harlequin by Bernard Cornwell, ... Donama 07:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Main character in Squaresoft’s & Disney’s collaborative game: "Kingdom Hearts". DCDuring TALK 00:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and delete this, because it was so definitely an encyclopaedic addition. The character isn't well known outside his universe and there's no evidence to be found for "a Sora" (generic type of person) on Books or Usenet. Equinox 04:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


"A toy soldier or other human figure made from tin." Isn't this always a tin man? Equinox 02:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I found 5 distinct hits on COCA (20 quotes in all), but they were all either the Tin Man from Oz or an allusion to him, and mostly Tinman, not tinman. — Carolina wren discussió 23:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


do it. I think it's legit and that's why I looked it up.

Deleted. Equinox 00:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


English, supposedly. DCDuring TALK 16:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably a sort of typo or misspelling of undistinguished. —Stephen 11:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
distingued exists in Middle English. distingué is French, often used in 19th-century English works. distingue#English seems to exist in English. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Distingue is an obsolete verb synonymous with distinguish according to the OED; the purported meaning of undistingued logically follows thence. I found one Google Groups citation for this term, which I added to Citations:undistingued; Google Books’ only search result seems to be German; 0 via Scholar and 0 via News; this term may be verifiable if a couple of the hits yielded by the Google Blogue or Google Web Searches turn out to be durably archived.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I have done a crude Middle English entry for [[distingue]] because the OED quotes predate 1500. DCDuring TALK 00:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I note that Wiktionary is the root source of most Web hits for "undistingued". Morphological plausibility does not imply usage. DCDuring TALK 00:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

grandaddy purp

Cannabis variety. DCDuring TALK 19:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely can be cited from Usenet. I might dig something up later. Equinox 22:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't look citable today! I suppose I must have been looking at Google Groups generally and not Usenet, which has one (and it's embarrassing to cite because it seems to be a personally-identifying abuse thread). Equinox 09:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  1. Perhaps it's granddaddy purp.
  2. Perhaps purp is citable as a marijuana variety with more ease? DCDuring TALK 10:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

New Game+

[ new game+ ]

Can anyone cite it? Equinox 22:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Chrono Trigger, 1995, SquareSoft. CyberSkull 23:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
We need something meeting WT:CFI: probably three such separate citations. Equinox 23:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
CyberSkull 01:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not now and has never counted for attestation. DCDuring TALK 10:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
There are some books using the term "new game+", but not enough. -- Prince Kassad 12:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't pointing to Wikipedia, I was citing the games themselves. CyberSkull 04:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Square Co. (1995) Chrono Trigger, Super Nintendo
  • Square Co. (1998) Parasite Eve, PlayStation
  • Square Co. (2000) Vagrant Story, PlayStation
Cited. If others worry about the non-independence of the citations from November 2006 and October 2007 (both of which quote the magazine GameAxis Unwired), then consulting Google Groups Search shows that there are clearly enough examples of use for this term to satisfy the CFI.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say I was worried about the independence. It's the same author, so they're outright not independent. Another citation as you mentioned would be good. DAVilla 11:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I've moved it to New Game+ --Jackofclubs 13:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, but, FWIW, new game+ is more common than New Game+ on Google Groups, and New game+, newgame+, Newgame+, and NewGame+ also exist as spelling variants; they probably all deserve entries.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Iron Age


  1. Any dark or depressing era, characteristic of malice, oppression, war, poverty, suffering, etc. Opposite of golden age.
  2. A time of poor or controversial progress or achievement in a particular field, as opposed to golden age.

Both seem to be rare figurative use of the classical w:Ages of Man. This is in contrast to the much more common golden age. DCDuring TALK 10:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

laserjet (n)

See also #laserjet (adj), above.

The 2009 citation[59] uses “laser printers” generally, and “laserjet printers” specifically for to HP's laser printers, which are branded LaserJet. It is a typo or editorial mistake, and not a clear citation of this term for “laser printer” generally. Michael Z. 2009-04-20 20:17 z

It also appears to be a blog posting[60], cited without page number of any print publication. It's not clear that it qualifies as an attestation in permanent media. Michael Z. 2009-04-20 20:31 z

The 2004 quote[61] also lacks a print citation. Michael Z. 2009-04-20 20:36 z


The adjectival sense "acting with deliberation" with the quotation: "He that is slow to wrath is of great understanding. --Prov. xiv. 29". I looked through the numerous senses for "slow" in the OED and Random House dictionaries and didn't see anything that struck me as supporting this defn. Also, I don't read the quotation as representing the sense. -- WikiPedant 18:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I see what happened -- Rodasmith was tightening entries and moved a bit too much into the synonyms/antonyms sections. I restored some content back into the defn and removed my rfv. -- WikiPedant 18:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "On the far side of a continent." Really? DCDuring TALK 19:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

my stories

The quotations that have been proferred seem to be mentions. All are in quotes; some are immediately defined. DCDuring TALK 18:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The first one isn't in quotes. If you had asked me directly instead of coming here, I would have told you that Dominic was helping to find better sources than the ones I've had. I can't help but take this a little personally, like people think I'm making a word up or something. Mike Halterman 18:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't take offense. It's the term we dislike, not the contributor.—msh210 23:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
This is one of the places we hash these things out. It's not personal; it's just business. And it has a slow fuse: minimum of a month, usually longer. DCDuring TALK 00:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
As Mike Halterman notes, the first is not in quotation marks. This is real: google books:"watch|watching|watched my stories" subject:fiction has sufficiently more citations. (I don't know, though, whether it's idiomatic: see User_talk:Msh210#my_stories.)—msh210 18:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
So true. I erred, but it has "soap operas" in brackets immediately after to define it. I didn't do as good a search as yours. There are more than enough good quotes in there. The entry page itself could support three quotes because there won't be too much more content, at least not in the near future. DCDuring TALK 00:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Passed, then.—msh210 15:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

grotto, cave and cavern




This may not be an overly exciting topic, but according to our entries grotto is a small cave and covern a large cave. [www.dictionary.com] is less explicit saying that grotto and cavern can be synonymous. Which is right? --Hekaheka 07:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

From OED it seems like grotto being a hyponym of cavern:
  • grotto: 1. A cave or cavern, esp. one which is picturesque, or which forms an agreeable retreat. 2. An excavation or structure made to imitate a rocky cave, often adorned with shell-work, etc., and serving as a place of recreation or a cool retreat.
  • cavern: A hollow place under ground; a subterranean (or submarine) cavity; a cave.
However, OALD just says (like our entries) "a small cave, esp one that has been made artificially" for grotto and "a cave, especially a large one" for cavern. What seems certain is that cavern has wider usage. --Duncan 14:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
COCA counts: cave 6,434; cavern 830; grotto 381.
I think both are right. Synonyms are rarely exact. DCDuring TALK 15:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I've added a sense to grotto of - A Marian shrine, usually built in a cavern-like structure- which is the common meaning of the term in Ireland. I'm not sure if this is the only place it is used this way, and haven't tagged it with Ireland yet. Anyone know if this meaning is used elsewere. --Dmol 01:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Irish sense certainly understood in rest of UK, though we would probably associate it with Ireland. Cave is a general term. Cavern implies large. Grotto implies small or man-made. Dbfirs 07:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
"grottoes" would be a recognised term especially among Roman Catholics. See w:Grotto? DCDuring TALK 19:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


Citations for workstrand: a project of work? RJFJR 15:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Like w:workstream? DCDuring TALK 15:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems like project management jargon. Near synonym/hypernym: subproject. Scholar seems most likely source. I'll leave it to someone who has access. DCDuring TALK 15:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Unsure whether quotes are "durably archived". Seems to be in the news because of big UK IT study, which uses the word several times. DCDuring TALK 15:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

чăваш чĕлхи

I've never seen this anywhere other than the Internet, only чӑваш чӗлхи. Is it attestable? -- Prince Kassad 19:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The admins on the Chuvash Wikipedia use the form чăваш чĕлхи and say that the reason is that this is what almost everyone uses. Many of the non-Slavic languages of the old Soviet Union often or usually used certain Roman letters together with the Cyrillic alphabet to fill in for letters that Cyrillic lacked. The Unicode Consortium has newly provided them with special Cyrillic letters, but they have been slow to adopt them. The Cyrillic counterparts to these letters are brand-new and most people in those regions still do not have fonts that have them, even if they had the special keyboards. I have noticed that this is gradually changing. Four years ago, the Cyrillic чӑваш чӗлхи was virtually nonexistent; today, Roman чăваш чĕлхи has 15,700 Google hits, while чӑваш чӗлхи has 23,300. So the Cyrillic is catching on, at least with this language. Some other languages, such as Chechen, have been much slower to change their special Roman letters to Cyrillic ones. —Stephen 17:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have noticed, most of the Google search results using the Cyrillic letters are only databases, and not actual Chuvash webpages. I myself don't know how to deal with this situation (especially as it affects multiple languages), but there should be a solution that works well for everyone. -- Prince Kassad 17:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I just now noticed that. All the Google hits that I see using only Cyrillic are databases. All the Chuvash text pages use the Roman letters. So it would seem that the Cyrillic letters still have not caught on. I think the only way to deal with it is what we have done, to have both ă, ĕ, ç and ӑ, ӗ, ҫ. But if we have only one, then prefer Roman ă, ĕ, ç, since that is what people use. It’s the same as with Spanish ch, Croatian nj, and Dutch ij. There are special Unicode characters newly provided, but nobody ever uses them. People write them separately. —Stephen 18:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
My idea is to use the Cyrillic versions, but provide redirects with the Latin letters. This prevents needless duplication of entries. -- Prince Kassad 20:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the redirect, but I think it should redirect to the forms that are in standard use. This would mean that Serbocroatian words with nj -> nj, lj -> lj, Dutch words with IJ -> IJ, ij -> ij, but French oe -> œ (œuf). And then Chuvash words with ӑ, ӗ, ҫ -> ă, ĕ, ç. If it ever comes to pass that the Chuvash change the alphabet, it will be very simple for us to switch the direction of the redirects. —Stephen 20:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh yay, here comes the Latin vs. Cyrillic arguing again, which I wanted to avoid because we have different opinions on that subject. -- Prince Kassad 21:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
We seem to be talking at cross purposes. This question about the Chuvash is about Latin vs. Cyrillic. If you don’t want to talk about it, why did you start the question of чăваш чĕлхи in the first place? Chuvash and a number of other languages that use the Cyrillic alphabet also use certain letters from the Roman alphabet. There is a long tradition of this and for good reasons. But if you want to avoid the subject, then there is nothing to be said on the subject of чăваш чĕлхи. —Stephen 21:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Chuvash and a number of other languages that use the Cyrillic alphabet also use certain letters from the Roman alphabet - this might be what the Internet community is doing, but historically it is wrong. ӑ and ӗ were derived from Cyrillic а and е with the addition of a breve, in a similar manner to й. ҫ is also a modification of Cyrillic с, and does not originate from ç. WT:CFI dictates the use of Cyrillic letters, as these are the only ones that can be attested in printed sources. -- Prince Kassad 22:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
It’s not wrong historically. It’s only since the advent of Unicode that Roman e and Cyrillic е became fundamentally different symbols, or Arabic ى and Persian ی became different letters. Until about 2000, Arabic and Persian ى were the same, just as English and Spanish e are the same. In a given typeface in the days of metal type, a Roman e was also a Cyrillic e in a house that handled both scripts. A font manufacturer would create a Roman helvetica typeface and take the same e to suppliment the Cyrillic helvetical counterpart. Only the letters that were actually different were actually different. A Roman B was a Cyillic В, but letters such as г, д, з, ж had to be manufactured specially for each Cyrillic font. Until about 2000, typographers mixed and matched Roman and Cyrillic letters that were identical, and it was the letters of different typefaces that could not be mixed. And it is not just the Internet Chuvash community that uses ă, ĕ, ç, they were using ă, ĕ, ç in the days of metal type and in the days of Compugraphic film font technology, because as long as the letters were the same typeface and point size, they were the same letters. Only now have they been differentiated as though they were not similar at all, and this has so far not been completely accepted by users. If they created a single digraph for English sh , ch, gh, and th, they would only be used by a small number of oddballs...the rest of the English-speaking world would continue to use separate letters. In the same way, the Dutch write ij separately, the Croats nj separately. They don’t need or like the special Unicode symbols that were offered to them. And the Chuvash have not accepted ӑ and ӗ. Chuvash Wikipedia uses the Roman letters and always has. Chechen Wikipedia uses Roman I, as does Avar and others. What it means is that they consider ă, ĕ, ç to be Cyrillic today just as they have considered them to be Cyrillic for centuries past, that ă, ĕ, ç are the letters that the Chuvash use and have been using for decades. —Stephen 22:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The question now is what the goal of our dictionary is. Either we try to be be technically correct and use the characters we're supposed to use Unicode-wise, or we decide to be a service to the readers and leave out characters which may have low font support. -- Prince Kassad 16:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
A similar issue comes up with traditional Hebrew punctuation; for example, Israelis usually type English apostrophes instead of Hebrew geresh-es, but conversely, an Israeli restaurant whose name ends in ־׳ס (-'s) will use a geresh on its signage. In other words, Israelis generally treat the geresh and apostrophe as one character (albeit one that looks a bit different online, א', than in print, א׳), but Unicode treats them as separate. (For that matter, I suppose the same issue comes up in English, with ASCII 's online vs. non-ASCII ’s in print.) I'd be interested in a general solution, if one is possible. —RuakhTALK 18:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a living language, and we need to serve its readers and writers. On the other hand, Cyrillic e and a with breve have been in Unicode since version 1.1 (1993), so maybe these folks are not using Unicode, rather they might be restricted to some other character set's repertoire for compatibility. Are other newer Cyrillic code points used online, like Ç and Ӳ?
We should probably have entries from the one form redirected to the other. If the standardized Unicode spelling displays correctly on most computers, then let's use that for main entries.
But folks, please let's not confuse the language with technical methods for representing it. Whether you use code points from the Latin or Cyrillic block, you are still spelling the same word with the same letter. These are not alternate spellings, they are different ways of representing the same spelling.
Funny how so much work has been put into the Universal Alphabet, but Unicode still gets used and misused like metal type. Michael Z. 2009-04-26 19:16 z
Chuvash people use ӳ online, due to lack of a Latin alternative. ҫ is used by Bashkirs for the Bashkir language. Latin Ç is not an acceptable alternate for them (ҫ needs to contrast with ҙ). -- Prince Kassad 19:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I face this problem repeatedly when dealing with Soviet languages. Especially with Ossetian ӕ / æ. So, let's continue the discussion and reach a consensus. While I agree with redirecting entries from Cyrillic to Latin or vice-versa, I don't see what can be done with translation tables. Any ideas? --Vahagn Petrosyan 11:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
There's the alt= parameter for {{t}} which we can use to show the user the Latin version but silently link to the Cyrillic one. -- Prince Kassad 18:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

em quad, en quad

em quad

en quad

A quad, or quadrat, is a metal object, and there is no question of it being condensed, expanded, or altered in width.

The usage notes (and the ones under em space and en space) imply a second sense of quad “in electronic publishing.” But quads are not used in phototypesetting or digital publishing, and today's designers don't know what they are. Yes, the Unicode standard has named two characters after the em quad and en quad, but these are not used in publishing, and I doubt that their names are attested per CFI. Some publishing systems do have distinct quad left (align left) and quad right (align right) controls, named after the distinct verb sense, as in to quad out a line.

  • OED (draft 2009) puts the quad “[i]n letterpress printing,” and calls it “now chiefly hist.
  • M–W: “a type-metal space that is one en or more in width”[62]
  • RH: “a piece of type metal...”[63]
  • AHD: “A piece of type metal...”[64]
  • Webster's Revised Unabridged: “A block of type metal...”[65]
  • Monotype, Fonts.com Glossary, s.v. em space: “A space equal to the measure of the em at a given point size. In composition with metal type, it was created by the em quad, a block of type that was less than type high so that it would not print. . . . Em quad is a synonym”;[66] s.v. quad “See em space, en space.[67]

So, if the sense of electronic quads can be attested per CFI, then can we also find a reference supporting the encyclopedic discussion of the difference between quads and spaces? – at best this seems encyclopedic and non-defining, but the facts look arguable to me. If the sense can't be attested, then let's remove the usage notes about it. Michael Z. 2009-04-24 02:34 z

At least two Microsoft Press books include this sentence: "Fonts use a break character called a quad to separate words and justify text." Equinox 18:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
And this has been copied to a few other websites. It seems to be related to the typographic quad, but I can't find another reference to this precise sense. A fuller quotation:

The blank character is the first character in the Windows character set. It has a hexadecimal value of 0x20 (decimal 32). . . . Fonts use a break character called a quad to separate words and justify text. Most fonts using the Windows character set specify that the blank character will serve as the break character.

0x20 is the regular space, corresponding to Unicode U+0020. So in this context (handling fonts at the program code level?), the regular space is usually the “quad.” Or maybe it's a mistake.
Also confirmed that the Unicode characters for em quad and em space are equivalent and identical:

U+2003 EM SPACE, also known as the “em quad,” is a space one em wide. . . . U+2001 EM QUAD was a mistaken duplicate encoding of the same thing and now has a singleton canonical decomposition to this character. (Gillam 2003, Unicode Demystified)

\quad is a command in TEX digital typesetting, representing “a quad space”, where \enspace, \quad, and \qquad (repr. en space, quad space, and two quad spaces) have identical properties, corresponding to letterpress quads, contrasting with the several smaller word spaces which expand in justification. “Note that \quad, \qquad, and \enspace have no stretch and shrink associated with them.” (Clark 1992, A plain TEX primer; see also the accompanying table) Michael Z. 2009-04-25 02:42 z

speak to

I don't remember seeing or hearing this, and I can't find any evidence. -- ALGRIF talk 12:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Not too familiar with it; is it US-specific perhaps? Here are a couple of possible examples from Google Books: "if freedom speaks to the recognition of necessity, then survival speaks to the necessity of recognition"; "The phrase Buddha animals speaks to the provenance of identities". Equinox 14:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
It's very common here (Upper Midwestern U.S.). For plenty of examples, check out google books:"speaks to what". —RuakhTALK 15:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Also common in speaks to the fact that...Michael Z. 2009-04-24 15:31 z
Fair 'nuff. Just a couple of good quotes into the entry to make it clearer would be nice. Thanks. -- ALGRIF talk 15:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. Lazy me. I'll do it now. -- ALGRIF talk 15:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry; it was easier for us to point you the right way because we knew what we were looking for. Embrace lazyweb (I do). Michael Z. 2009-04-24 15:42 z
"Speak to the topic" also gave some hits, including The governing of Britain, 1688-1848: the executive, Parliament, and the people, by Peter Jupp, published by Routledge, 2006 - page 131. Pingku 18:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)



Rfv-sense: Noun sense 2: "(grammar) The first of the three degrees of comparison." Created here, rfv-ed 6 Aug 08 here, but the link is dead - was it brought here, and if so, what was the conclusion? --Duncan 17:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is at #absolute (noun) above. DCDuring TALK 18:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --Duncan 20:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Striking - settled cf link above. --Duncan 21:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


Watch out for scannos for thirteenth. Equinox 18:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Especially on Fridays. Pingku 18:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
But now I recall that w:Bilbo Baggins famously celebrated his eleventy-first birthday. Pingku 20:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


Meaning overpowered in an MMO (of an item or player perhaps?). Equinox 18:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps to clarify; an example is the MMORPG World of Warcraft. Within this game, it is commonly thought that the race Night Elf with the class Druid is "overpowered," simply meaning their skills are significantly superior from the beginning. Using World of Warcraft slang, a sentence in the discussion of this view could sound "nerf drewds r OP," 'translates' into "Night Elf Druids are overpowered."

internal branding

Rfv-sense: Definition seems implausible, having next to nothing to do with any plausible sense of branding. DCDuring TALK 22:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeesh, corpspeak. The definition should be labelled business or buzzword, if it is a good definition at all.
I think what it means is branding, “establishing a brand's identity among a market group”, from brand 3, 4, & 5, aimed at the staff of a company (internal 4). I call it SoP, but possibly includable because the sense of the parts is restricted to a specialized subject area. Michael Z. 2009-04-25 18:02 z
I now see how it is used and have seen worse: Nation branding], which includes "internal nation branding". DCDuring TALK 18:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki:Economic interest

Contains fragmentary vague definitions, that don't make sense to me. Goldenrowley 04:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing the nine cites for the three definitions. DCDuring TALK 18:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed. Lack of citations. Phrase deleted. Goldenrowley 21:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Alpha Centauri

There are a lot of star name entries. Do any of them meet CFI? -- ALGRIF talk 16:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Proxima Centauri is since 2006 see History of Proxima Centauri. Proxima Centauri 16:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sirius is more often called by that name and less often called Alpha Canis Majoris. Alpha Centauri Beta Centauri and Proxima Centauri are most often called by that designation.

WT:CFI#Names of specific entities applies. Is there any reason not to RfV most of the capitalized entries from Category:Stars, as well as the non-alphabetics starting from ٭ and Michael Z. 2009-04-25 17:16 z

As I see it if Sirius, Canopus, Procyon, etc stay Rigil Kent should stay. If Rigil Kent stays Alpha Centauri should stay because the star system is more often known by that name. Proxima Centauri 17:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Each entry is included on its own merits; that's why we post individual RfVs. That said, can you point out even one star name entry which is attested to meet WT:CFI#Names of specific entitiesMichael Z. 2009-04-25 17:26 z

I don't know what your criteria are. I'm off to some other wiki where I'm valued. Proxima Centauri 17:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess we can't really discuss this productively if you won't read the paragraph in the guidelines that I just linked to. Good luck. Michael Z. 2009-04-25 17:47 z

I'm sure at least a few must be includable. I seem to remember Poe or Lovecraft referring to some quality of Algol (al ghul, the ghoul star). Michael Z. 2009-04-25 17:52 z

According to my copy of Chambers, Rigil is another name for Alpha Centauri, and is cognate to Rigel (the bright blue-white star in Orion). The connection is from an Arabic word (of course), rendered in Chambers as rijl, meaning 'foot'. (Rigil appears in a foot of the Centaur, and Rigel appears in a foot of Orion.) Clearly there are rich pickings for Wiktionarians in star names. :) Pingku 18:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on our willingness to include gazetteer entries, I think it is quite revealing of our Earth-centric bias that we have singled out this class of proper nouns for RfV. And what about all the excluded or offensively defined adjectives, like Sirian, Mercurian, et al? After the photon belt hits in a couple of years and we need intergalactic assistance, don't come crying to me when they see all this evidence of our narrow-mindedness. DCDuring TALK 18:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, watch your language! You make it sound like we're all a bunch of dirty earthists. I'm not even from this planet. Michael Z. 2009-04-25 20:44 z

Watch it Earthlings! I'n from Proxima Centauri 02:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC).

It says "Cite, on the article page, the word’s usage in a refereed academic journal.". Sounds like it would be easy to find all the mentioned star names in some Astronomy journal? Whats the problem? Mutante 20:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

These are proper nouns. We only include them if they become part of the language independent of their proper referents. Please see WT:CFI#Names of specific entities for the requirement. Michael Z. 2009-04-25 20:41 z
What about our gazetteer proper nouns? We don't seem to be interpreting WT:CFI#Names of specific entities that way. See Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Rostov-na-Donu. DCDuring TALK 00:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Apotentially useful principle has come to mind. When I step outside on a clear night, I can see many of the referents for star proper nouns. I can't do that with most proper nouns. I think that these proper nouns refer to things people can see for themselves from their own homes merits consideration. --EncycloPetey 02:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
When I step out, I can see a 1970 Thunderbird, about a hundred American elms, my street, a couple dozen buildings including several named ones, and sometimes my mom. Let's leave my mom out of the dictionary.
More specifically, the proposal would potentially add entries for multiple names for the 9,110 stars in Yale's bright star catalogue, including HR 4241, also known as HD 94083, SAO 27809, or BD +53 1439. I think we should articulate any new principles for CFI very carefully. Michael Z. 2009-04-26 15:07 z
When any person in the Northern Hemisphere steps out on a clear night, any of those people can see those stars. Only you and a handful of people can see a 1970 Thunderbird, your street, etc. Note that American elm, building, street, and mom are all valid dictionary entries and are not proper nouns. --EncycloPetey 19:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Quite right. So does star meet our criteria, but not HR 4241, and Alpha Centauri still awaits three durably-archived attributive quotations.
I'm open to suggestions for new principals, but I don't see a clear relationship of this to our mandate or method (we have many definitions of things forever unseen). There seems to be some agreement that some proportion of proper place names belong, but we haven't figured out why. Our CFI is based on only lexicographical principles, and maybe we do have to go beyond that. It would be nice if we had some common rationale for defining the names of important cities and important stars. I'm not convinced that prominence or visibility is it. Michael Z. 2009-04-27 05:27 z
As I understand it, a proper noun needs to demonstrate attributive usage (see New York), or representative usage (see Whitehall). Unless anyone can find durably archived quotes about eating Alpha Centauri hamburgers, or show that Alpha Centauri is used to represent another place, person, or institution, such as the seat of the intergalactic peace-keeping corps, then it should be deleted as being "not dictionary material, please add to Wikipedia". That's my interpretation of CFI anyway, and judging from other comments and other decisions, I suspect the majority of you would agree. -- ALGRIF talk 07:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that the main reasons for current CFI is that dictionaries such as Webster's seem to follow this policy, and that most proper noun dictionaries are encyclopedic. A striking example (for French) is the "Petit Robert", usually considered as a typical example of a language (not encyclopedic) dictionary. Nonetheless, its proper noun counterpart ("Petit Robert 2") is purely encyclopedic (without any pronunciations, etymologies, etc.). Therefore, I think the added value we can bring is a good reason for accepting all proper nouns, provided they can be considered as words (remember, all words in all languages...). It's very difficult, and usually impossible, to find pronunciation information about proper nouns such as place names or family names (etymological info is less difficult to find, as there are a few specialized dictionaries). Lmaltier 08:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter very much to me whether you keep these star names or not as I can always link my userpage directly to Proxima Centauri but I think you should keep them. Product differentiation works in business and product differentiation should work with dictionaries as well. I suggest making Wiktionary different from Websters so users value the difference. Proxima Centauri

That is an interesting argument for changing policy. We seem to be backing into a policy change that goes in that direction. See Rostov-na-Donu discussion linked above. DCDuring TALK 20:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the twenty brightest stars should certainly be included and so should other notable stars like Polaris the Pole star or North star. What about Gliese 581? It's a bit notable so I'll make a provisional entry. Barbara Shack 12:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: The notability of a referent is completely irrelevant to anything. The star named Gliese 581 may be notable, but the star named Gliese 581 obviously doesn't warrant an entry. Something could well be notable without there being even one English term for it that merits inclusion. (Wikipedia would then have the difficulty of finding an appropriate name for its article; but we would have no such problem.) —RuakhTALK 14:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Among the OED's quotes are such as these, which may help qualify some stars for inclusion in Wiktionary by the current CFI:
  • “Binaries and Variables of the Algol Type”
  • “Each gem turned into an Aldebaran or a Sirius
But the OED has many more stars included (even though it is not an encyclopedic dictionary, hence omits many proper nouns). Anyone have insight on their CFI?
Doesn't answer the question, but good reading on this topic is a short paper by the OED's astronomical advisor: Mahoney 1998, “Historical Astrolexicography and Old Publications.” Michael Z. 2009-04-28 20:23 z

frack, frack


Please add fraks, fraking, and fraked to the decisions Goldenrowley 05:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


Keeping WT:CFI#Fictional_universes in mind. Equinox 17:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Move these and their ilk (to the extent that we can find them) to an appendix of fictional curse words. I can think of a few others, my favorite being zark from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy books (as in, zark off!). bd2412 T 17:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Red Dwarf gave us smeg, but that's caught on sufficiently in the UK to be trivially attestable (from Usenet, anyway!). Looks like you might be able to manage this with zark as well, at least in zarking or zark off. Equinox 21:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather they all be in an appendix. No doubt there are enough in-universe sources to justify that. bd2412 T 23:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


Requesting verification of sense 2, vulgar slang for the male member. — [ R I C ] opiaterein — 17:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


Sense 2: a nightclub owned and managed by a record label. Equinox 21:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 23:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

game rage

Previous RFV [68] was closed without the term being cited. Equinox 00:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 23:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

second quest

Citable, bearing in mind that "a second quest" may be literally a quest that comes second and not this supposed unit? Equinox 00:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "An activity or object as popular as the PlayStation" --EncycloPetey 05:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cited. Conrad.Irwin 21:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that doesn't fly. If it meant what the definition says, we would have "bullfighting is a PlayStation". But thank you for citing the gaming device. DAVilla 07:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


Found some mentions, but no evidence of usage of this word. --Jackofclubs 09:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a job for {{only in}} to prevent this and its ilk from wasting our time excessively. DCDuring TALK 21:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This is found only in what though? --Jackofclubs 07:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of an Appendix, perhaps "Words often mentioned, rarely used" or similar. DCDuring TALK 10:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd call it a misspelling, and would be inclined to remove it. Pingku 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


Contributor says it's a protologism, but I'm not so sure.—msh210 21:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it almost exclusively in terms like "free-fooder", "raw fooder", "raw-fooder", "fast-fooder", "anti-fast-fooder". IOW it is almost always formed by adding -er to an open or hyphenated compound. How should it be presented, then, whether or not it an be attested as a stand-alone? DCDuring TALK 21:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Added that sense (and others which are attested); converted this to a {{rfv-sense}}.—msh210 23:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)



Rfv-sense: Ireland,slang immoral woman. Spelling? DCDuring TALK 14:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've marked it as dated. It was common enough when I first lived in Ireland about 30 years ago, but haven't heard it much since. But like most insults, they often don't end up in print. Spellings in Ireland are typically British rather than US.--Dmol 00:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The 2 "g" spelling is very rare in US and much less common (not rare, not dated) than the one "g" spelling in the BNC. (I didn't check for this sense in any spelling.) I put a tag at the same sense with the US "wagon" spelling. Was it in "widespread" colloquial usage there at that time, previously, or after? Should 0, 1, or 2 of the spellings remain? DCDuring TALK 00:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense 2 "- someone skilled with the penis". Looking through Google Groups, this word is usually used as an insult. --Jackofclubs 16:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Definitely should have a sense for the insult. bd2412 T 03:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2007


as in "the oldest continually published magazine in the English language". Is there an attributive use of this specific magazine? --Bequw¢τ 12:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Does this sort of thing count? "the meaning of the capital letters at the end of each Spectator issue", "he is a regular Spectator columnist". If so, we could easily include many far less notable publications. Equinox 12:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we would question their "independence". DCDuring TALK 15:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Cited in attributive use, IMO. DCDuring TALK 15:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The cites given are "...Spectator contributor...", "...Spectator essay...", and "...Spectator piece...". Consider the city of Mukilteo, which WP says had 18,019 people in 2000. Google News and News Archive bring up loads and loads of cites for "Mukilteo man" and "Mukilteo business". Consider the even smaller Arcadia, which according to WP had 391 (yes, three hundred ninety-one) residents in 2000. A durably archived citation in attributive use is then "The other two members serving on on the Arcadia board were Patty Peterson and Mary V. Shead."[69]. I'm holding out for two more.... No: Seriously, the CFI say "A name should be included if it is used attributively, with a widely understood meaning. For example: New York is included because "New York" is used attributively in phrases like "New York delicatessen", to describe a particular sort of delicatessen." (emphasis removed). This does not include terms like Mukilteo, Arcadia (Kansas), or Spectator (with the cites given).—msh210 21:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm having trouble squaring this with the gutting of standards in the case of Rostov-na-Donu vs. WT:CFI. WT:CFI seems a dead letter with regard to Proper nouns and, indeed, any multi-part word whose components are polysemic or technical. We don't need votes if we an be so, um, flexible with regard to interpretation. DCDuring TALK 23:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


I was going to add this about a month back, but I simply couldn't find any use of the term that wasn't in close proximity to discussion of the film Slumdog Millionaire. Anyone else? Equinox 18:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I was in the same boat as you, also resulting in a fruitless search. Come back in a year and see if there's any independent cites then. At the moment I'd tag it as a protologism. --Jackofclubs 10:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Protologisms get deleted.—msh210 16:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Except when they don't, e.g. protologism itself. Equinox 20:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
What, I deleted protologism... (or {{only in}}ed it anyway). Conrad.Irwin 21:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
delete for now, this is what Citations pages are for. Conrad.Irwin 21:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 14:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


cap#Etymology 4

Rfv-sense: abbreviation of capture. DCDuring TALK 18:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In screencap and vidcap, yes. Alone, I am not so sure. Equinox 20:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "(slang) Abbreviation for regulars, a street term used for marijuana less potent than it's counterpart "murdas". Also called: reggies, reggie millers, regulators, garbage."

  • Tagged November 2007. I could not find a contemporaneous heading here. DCDuring TALK 23:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm familiar with regular visitors to a chat room, etc. being known as regs. That's the reg sense of regular. Don't know about drugs. Equinox 00:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


Wagner's house. Quotes don't seem attributive under WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 00:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


I am seeing this used as a company name but not as a word. I am not sure it meets our critera. Goldenrowley 01:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's a company name and nothing else. The original Wikipedia article appears to have been deleted. (Could we keep track of these somehow? We have an awful lot of transwikied junk.) Equinox 22:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
They are kept track of have been since 2003...see the Wiktionary:Transwiki_log.Goldenrowley 04:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed. Word removed. Goldenrowley 21:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


RFV context. It is a valid word but the definition could use some clarification in context. Goldenrowley 01:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


Anything for WT:CFI? Equinox 01:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I added two citations from news sources. There's more references circulating on blogs and forums. Goldenrowley 03:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki:Domestic support

"demands for end of direct payments to farmers to produce their goods"...huh? Goldenrowley 17:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC) RFV failed. Entry deleted. Goldenrowley 21:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

ехісоrnt switch

I guess it's been a full year. DAVilla 07:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

And there are still 0 books hits, 53 web hits, and the 1 google groups hit runs:
  • exicornt switch. Hoi, On the en:Wiktionary there is a bozo who thinks it funny to create articles with titles like "exicornt switch". [70] Conrad.Irwin 07:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Also note that the first five letters are not from the Latin alphabet, they're Cyrillic. ехісо. Conrad.Irwin 07:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
This is User:EddieSegoura, a persistent vandal from NYC. He uses a number of computers at a public library (we’ve tracked him down to the specific place), moving quickly from one computer to the next as each account is blocked. Besides trying to invent terms for the NY subway system, he also likes to impersonate Wikipedia and Wiktionary admins with names that look like one of ours but with a letter in a different case or alphabet, and uses it to vandalize pages in other Wiktionaries or Wikipedias to try to cause trouble for the admin being victimized. He has been banned from both Wiktionary and Wikipedia with extreme prejudice. User:EddieSegoura has vandalized more pages than any other vandal, including AP and WF. —Stephen 21:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone has deleted it. Striking. Equinox 14:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


"An inner or special power/energy mentioned of in graphic novels (manga) Ex: In the Manga/Anime series Yu Yu Hakusho, the amount of power someone has is measured by their Aura." Equinox 16:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't really pass judgement on the meaning but I think that maybe it should stay (perhaps with a less specialised tag); I would not say that it is uncommon, e.g. the Pokemon Riolu and Lucario have "aura" based powers. 50 Xylophone Players talk 10:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you reckon you can cite it from our usual suspects? Nobody else is going to bother looking up anime stuff. Equinox 22:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


A noun, eh? Equinox 20:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

  • 1884, The popular educator‎, page 49:
    Pearly is that silky and often coloured lustre which renders of such value
    DCDuring TALK 20:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't argue with that. Will you humour me and find two more? Equinox 00:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


Any takers? SemperBlotto 21:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

w:Le Corbusier was the nickname of a Swiss architect, and he was known as Corb for short. —Stephen 21:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes - but are the nicknames of famous people fit for a dictionary? SemperBlotto 11:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Not unless we can attest attributive usage. I don't think I would count the attributive used to indicate possession, as “a Corb building” meaning one that he designed. But if the name signifies an architectural style, it could be suitable for inclusion. Michael Z. 2009-05-04 13:51 z


The verb. Equinox 23:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete. I thought we'd already RfD/RfV'd this sense in the past, but maybe it was the noun. It's a neologism derived from the character of Charlie (played by Charlie Sheen) in the American sitcom Two and a Half Men. --EncycloPetey 21:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


I'm actually RFVing my own word here, because it looks like it might not pass WT:CFI and only Jason Burke has used it (in English, bien sur). Has anyone encountered this in English by another author? I love saying it in French though. Babby-low-ZUR. Equinox 00:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it meets the CFI even as a French word. google groups:"babyloser|babylosers" gets two hits: one unrelated (a blend of Babylon 5 and loser), and one being a copy of the Observer citation you give that references Chauvel directly. google books:"babyloser""babylosers" gets four: one Spanish (referencing Chauvel), three German (?). google news archive:"babyloser""babylosers" gets four: one English (the aforementioned Observer article), one Greek (referencing Chauvel), one Spanish (referencing Chauvel), and one Flemish (Belgian Dutch). And google scholar:"babyloser|babylosers" doesn't seem to pull up anything of relevance. All told, this doesn't seem to meet the CFI in any language, especially if we're uptight about independence. (Of course, I only looked at Google-indexed sources, which are bound to miss a great deal, but probably makes it unlikely we can find other durably archived sources.) Sorry. :-/   —RuakhTALK 01:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 23:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

poor joke

3 definitions. All seem more like amateur encyclopedia entries. DCDuring TALK 11:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It also doesn't seem like native English. Compare bad joke. DCDuring TALK 11:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be the only entry of User Manas Tungare. --Hekaheka 04:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


Proper noun. Trademark. Needs to meet attributive-use standard. DCDuring TALK 11:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Not going to happen. I don't think "Passfaces users" counts, and there's essentially nothing else. Deleted. Equinox 14:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-senses: (many) On July 30, 2005 many unvetted items from w:AAA were moved here: some proper nouns, some jargon, some dupes. Of proper nouns about 10 are for orgs that have WP articles; some might get articles; some had articles deleted, some are debatable. I've rfved the ones that seem the worst. I have the feeling that the WP dab group is likely to do a better job with proper nouns than us. We might do better with the jargon. Under our current interpretation of the lemming rule the terms would all be included I think. DCDuring TALK 15:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


RfV-sense for “abbreviation of: material; materials”.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

[This b.g.c. search] suggests use in bibliographies for journal names. Not in OneLooks as abbreviation.
BTW, is "mother" sense really "formal"? I think of as a UK public-school, class thing. DCDuring TALK 19:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
As mater, as mater., or elsewise? Seems like a strange way to abbreviate it to me; matl and matl. seem more intuitive to me (and they’re shorter). But hey, if it’s verifiable, add dem cites!
The OED agrees with you; I’ve added that context to the entry.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
We have a few hospitals here (Australia) called Mater, but their full formal name is Mater Misericordiae which I belive is "Mother of Mercy" in Latin.--Dmol 23:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
See quotes at mater#Etymology 1. "Formal" tag removed. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ƿidsiþ added an {{obsolete}} sense meaning “the womb” to the entry in this revision; the OED also has it, but its two supporting quotations are unconfidently dated ante 1425 and ante 1475, which makes them both Middle English (the boundary between Middle English and Early Modern English being circa 1470). This information exists in the entry for mater’s Middle English etymon, matere. Consequently, I have requested verification of this sense, which means that it needs supporting quotations that are clearly post the Middle English–Early Modern English divide — i.e., preferably from the sixteenth century or later.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


a "spanish beer" DCDuring TALK 11:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, because it's very evidently a trademark for one brand of beer. I couldn't find any generic usage, so if nothing else the capitalisation was wrong. Equinox 21:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


I have not been able to find this word in any accredited dictionary, including current unabridged dictionaries. I also do not believe this word is a well-enough used word for inclusion, at least where I live. Icefall5 13:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It made the top ten for Merriam Webster's word of the year for 2007, so maybe they have it. :) See here. Pingku 14:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Cited, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 16:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Good job. Pingku 17:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

RFV passed. Thanks, DCDuring! —RuakhTALK 15:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Alahu ekber

Somone replaced "Croatian" with "Croatian (not really)" summising that "no such phrase exists". Conrad.Irwin 16:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

hủy diệt

There's a verb with this name, but I've never heard of this adverb (neither do I know how "destruction" can be used as an adverb) -- Prince Kassad 18:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


reverse hagan

msh210 20:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted reverse hagan: no evidence even on the Web generally, let alone our usual CFI sources, and I don't get the impression this came from recent media. "Pull a Hagan" does, though, score a few hits: whether they relate to the given definition I don't know. They are probably just separate coinages relating to different people called Hagan who did copiable things. Equinox 21:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


Possibly rather difficult: "Mac OS and Mac OS X, the Macintosh operating systems". When does Mac alone mean this? The difficulty is that if you say that some software is "for Mac" it might be for the OS, but that's basically equivalent to the computer because you can't run the OS on anything else (can you?). In any case, can it ever unambiguously refer to the OS and not the machine? I don't think emulation counts, because even then you have an (emulated) machine. Equinox 22:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Attributive uses like “Mac program” seem to refer to the OS and not the hardware, at least in some cases. Or is Mac just an adjective? Michael Z. 2009-05-06 13:56 z
  • 1991, “Breaking Communications Barriers”, in Compute!, v 13, n 9, pp 28–31:
    Built by Matthew Weed, a blind political science and history major, and Victor Grigorieff, a computer science and psychology major, the system is based on a Macintosh IIfx, although it can run on earlier models, since each Mac program has a similar interface.
  • 1993, “The New Microprocessors Powerchips” in Popular Science, v 243, n 1, p 58:
    Apple, IBM, and Motorola have teamed up to produce this 32-bit chip that will be used in future Apple Macintoshes and IBM PCs. PowerPC systems will run Mac or Unix programs, and possibly Windows software in the future.
  • 1993, “The Newest Appliance” in U.S. News & World Report, v 115, n 21, p 90:
    If you invest the time to learn one Windows or Mac program, you'll automatically have mastered the basic skills to use hundreds of others.
Need to spend more time searching for cites like this one. There may be cases where Mac refers to either or both the hardware or software.
  • 2007, “Uninspiring Vista”, in Technology Review, v 110, n 1, pp 72–4:
    As this shift accelerates, finding software that works with a particular operating system will be less of a concern. People will be able to base decisions about which OS to use strictly on merit, and on personal preference. For me, if the choice is between struggling to configure every feature and being able to boot up and get to work, at long last I choose the Mac.
 Michael Z. 2009-05-06 14:03 z


No Google hits, only one Yahoo hit which ultimately leads here. Your turn, gentlemen. --Duncan 15:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, let's not bother with the song and dance. This is not English, nor a term in any sense. It clearly doesn't meet CFI. It's already listed at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#!o^@Inside-PalmBack, and should get zapped as soon as possible. Michael Z. 2009-05-06 16:31 z
I know pretty well it's listed there, but as obviously not everyone thinks it's "clear" it doesn't meet CFI (eg "I think the questions is actually not that but the following two: (1) Does that gesture meet CFI? (1′) (As English, or should we emend it?) (2) If so, what pagetitle should we file it under? I think that the answer to 2 is that this pagetitle is the best choice: it's the one we use for sign languages, for example." or "As for whether the gesture meets CFI, consider that not all of our entries are for words, e.g. b, -er, and !.") I got very curious how they're going to verify it here. (In other words I partly hoped this might help as more ammunition for the zapping you mention before the RFD discussion gets really surreal - after all, if gestures, why not whistling? There are set tunes with specific meanings ;-)). --Duncan 17:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I realize that, but humouring such an entry by letting it get through to RfV sets a bad precedent. Next we'll have to RfV every conceivable gesture, smile, frown, raised eyebrow, body-language posture, and so on as “English terms.”
We can only attempt to verify actual terms. Things which clearly don't belong in any dictionary, and aren't included in WT:CFI#“Terms” to be broadly interpreted shouldn't be brought here just to make a point. Michael Z. 2009-05-06 17:45 z
Let's not bother with the song and dance, indeed. RFD is discussing whether this is the kind of thing we wish to have, and what its pagetitle should look like if so. If that discussion ends up saying "yes, we keep this, and at this pagetitle", then this RFV will pass easily under the clearly-widespread-use rule (or with numerous citations from films, if you prefer). Otherwise, this RFV is moot, as the page will be deleted.—msh210 18:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
(After edit conflict:) I almost stroke this, but now I think I'll wait for the numerous film citations of !o^@Inside-PalmBack. --Duncan 18:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I assume, Duncan, that you are not obtuse, nor being disingenuous. I assume that you are not awaiting film citations of a string of characters that starts with an exclamation point and the letter o. After all, my comment, immediately above, in this section, mentioned that citations for the term whose verification was requested here will be necessary iff the RFD discussion ends up saying that this entry's PAGENAME is to be that string, even though the entry is that of a gesture and not that string, so your awaiting citations is depending on that. I am thus assuming that when you say you await citations, it's for the gesture, not the string. I will try to dig up three; someone with a better knowledge of films than I (I haven't seen that many) should be better able, though.—msh210 19:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to save you the time: of course I do want you (iff the RFD discussion ends up saying that this entry's PAGENAME is to be that string - I agree with that) to cite the very string of characters. A film shot of the gesture is no more a citation for such an entry than a photograph of a PC is a citation for computer {even if it had a capture reading компьютер). --Duncan 10:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Nonsense. One might just as well say that Ancient Greek words all fail RFV because they weren't actually written in UTF-8. If the conclusion of the RFD is that this is an appropriate entry for the gesture, then verification of said gesture, in English-speaking contexts, is all that RFV can require. Your analogy is flawed: if someone added an entry for the concept of the computer, and it passed RFD, then all RFV would require is verification that the concept exists in English-speaking contexts. It would be stupid, ridiculous, and wrong; but the stupidity, ridiculousness, and wrongness would be in the RFD discussion, not in the lack of citations. —RuakhTALK 16:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I don't think Wiktionary has an explicit policy against POINT-pushing, but I still think it's bad form. If you want to comment at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#!o^@Inside-PalmBack, pointing out the silliness of using [[!o^@Inside-PalmBack]] as an entry for the finger, since no one else uses that notation for gestures, then by all means, please do. But adding an RFV is not an appropriate way to make that point, and if the RFD discussion should end up in "keep", an RFV is not going to change anything. —RuakhTALK 16:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with part of what you say, disagree with another part and don't quite understand yet another, but it doesn't matter. You're right that the RFD will either decide this way or that way (or, as quite often, not decide at all, at least in the foreseeable future), and this debate won't change anything. If RFD says that it's all right to make entries for gestures, use ASL as their titles and call them terms in the English language, such entries can be then verified by just about anything. Anyway I removed the tag. --Duncan 18:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Striking per msh210: insofar as this is our entry for the birdie, it is clearly in widespread use; and we're currently in the middle of an RFD discussion to determine the farness insowhich this is our entry for the birdie. —RuakhTALK 20:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


[ orgy#Swedish ]

I can find no support of this as a word used in Swedish. Now, I don't know much about snails, but nevertheless... \Mike 10:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That was added by User:, along with the definition of "company of snails" added to the English word. I have no idea why he used the Swedish template, but it seems to be only English (and I’m not sure it’s used in English...an orgy of snails?). —Stephen 13:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Striking the Swedish section, then. Should I strike this too? \Mike
Presumed to be vandalism. Vulgar language needs a reference. Deleted and striking. DAVilla 10:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

big one

Why? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this used to mean "a thousand dollars" (as "a grand" still does), but it got demoted (much as "troop" used to mean a group of soldiers, and has come to mean one soldier). —RuakhTALK 14:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Both senses cited. —RuakhTALK 15:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

the big one

Death. DCDuring TALK 15:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is plausible but difficult to search for. A quick glance on the Web did find a few items that might support it, e.g. "Is swine flu 'the big one' or a flu that fizzles?"; "In-custody death: Getting ready for the big one". Equinox 21:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
To me the "big one" is just a pronoun, possibly meriting an entry, but not with such a limited meaning. It's referent always depends on context: in auto racing, it's a multi-car collision; in California, it's a titanic earthquake; to many veterans, it was WWII. DCDuring TALK 23:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The "death esp. by heart attack" usage probably originates with the old w:Sanford and Son US TV show, in which Sanford (w:Redd Foxx), did a standard shtick where he would clutch his chest, look heavenward, and exclaim, "It's the big one!" I'm not sure how much this usage really caught on beyond the TV show. The California mega-quake sense noted by DCDuring is certainly more common. (And, indeed, back in the early 1960s, on the old w:Dobie Gillis TV show, Dobie's father did a regular shtick where he would speak with pride of being a veteran of WWII, "The Big One.") -- WikiPedant 06:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


Any scandal

Is this used in the generic sense? I can only find references to the specific Watergate scandal, including indirect ones like “another Watergate”. Michael Z. 2009-05-08 15:41 z

Any proper name can be used to refer to what it exemplifies (a Thatcher, a Kissinger, a Kennedy, a Vietnam). Only some become eponyms: solon/Solon. This one doesn't seem likely to get there, let alone be there. DCDuring TALK 16:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Watergate salad

“I'll have a Watergate?” Michael Z. 2009-05-08 15:41 z


Supposed to be a male given name. SemperBlotto 15:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It is glossed as British, but I have never heard of it here. You can find it on a few baby-naming Web sites, but that is true for literally hundreds of vanishingly rare inventions that are unlikely to pass CFI. Equinox 15:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Blue was sometimes used as an informal nickname in Australia. Very dated, and possibly was not used much back then anyway.--Dmol 05:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I've heard it occasionally in the U.S. as well. In fact, some friends of mine recently had a son, and they gave him the middle name Blue after one of his great-uncles. It's hard to find examples on b.g.c., but I've managed to find three:
  • nickname: the main character of Gilbert Sorrentino's 1983 novel Blue Pastoral;
  • name or nickname (I can't tell): a character in Carl Weber's 2005 novel The Preacher's Son; and
  • name (but given by a semi-delirious mother, with narrator's tone suggesting it's an odd name): a baby in Raymond Andrews' 1979 debut novel Appalachee Red.
Are those enough, or do we need to demonstrate common use for this to be worth including?
RuakhTALK 01:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It was an Australian nickname, usually for someone with red hair. Brilliant Aussie humour strikes again. Ƿidsiþ 09:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a real surname, though. I've added that definition. The given name Blue does appear in birth records. It's mostly a middle name, more often for women: Bonnie Blue, Skye Blue, Blue Bell. But any English surname can be a middle name - Green, Brown, Black, White are not defined as given names. In the absence of quotations, shouldn't there be a minimum requirement of bearers? A hundred, maybe, or even five hundred, among the one billion potential English speakers. ( Five persons would do for Icelandic names.) You can find quite incredible names in vital statistics. Here's a sample from Zambia: Table, Petrol, Seventy, Behave, Railway Station, Moby Dick. --Makaokalani 15:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Defined it as a female given name+male nickname, and added quotes. After all, we have many even sillier names here.--Makaokalani 13:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


Does Basque use ñ? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 16:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. See [[w:Basque language#Writing system]]. —RuakhTALK 01:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

go out on the town

"To party all night long." Is that a suitable definition? Can you go out on the town but get home before midnight? Can you party all night long at home and claim to have gone out on the town? Equinox 16:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a good definition. I wonder, though, whether this is not an SoP combination of [[go out]] + [[on the town]]. MW and RHU have "on the town" as an idiom at their entries for "town". AHD and Cambridge idiom dictionaries have it too. Other collocations "night(s) on the town", "(be) out on the town", "evenings on the town", and more.
Not worth citing, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 15:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


"Best of its kind", with the example sentence "It is the class of Italian bottled waters". I can believe it, but I've never heard of it, and I'd like to see a citation from a proper work. Equinox 21:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Cited, IMO. DCDuring TALK 23:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. One of them says "class of the field", which almost looks like an expression in itself. Do you think it is? Equinox 00:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Dunno. It might be, but in some moods I might be tempted to RfD it. Because we now have it on [[class]] in a quote, search for that term would bring a user to the right page. DCDuring TALK 00:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe. Bear in mind that everybody is too stupid to click a link after searching. We get enough Feedback entries saying "I CUD NUT FYND SINGY-LAR OV DIS PLOORUL". Equinox 03:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Cited, so closing. Equinox 11:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense “Template:transitive To make a picture of.” —RuakhTALK 02:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added the missing depict sense, which seems usually to have not the artist, but the work as subject. But I think the other can be cited too. DCDuring TALK 04:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it's cited. DCDuring TALK 04:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

RFV passed. Thanks, DCDuring! —RuakhTALK 02:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Morocco agency

Defintion is - Any one of the British post offices in Morocco.
But I don't think this was ever a singular, refering to an individual post office. The more common term Morocco agencies meant the entire British postal service, not specific offices.--Dmol 07:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Morocco agencies

Rfv-sense, as above, the plural of Morocco agency.--Dmol 07:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense —This comment was unsigned.

Delete. It's actually pretty citeable using Usenet ([71]; [72] or [73]; [74]), but I just don't think this is something we want. —RuakhTALK 19:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is citeable. I don't like it because the subject is so encyclopaedic and fleeting (who will remember this game in five years, especially when it was never actually released and its developer no longer exists?), but then again we list abbreviations for many encyclopaedic subjects — albeit mostly less obscure. I abstain! Equinox 20:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added a few more senses for you to argue about! (Some will be more permanent than the Duke) Dbfirs 08:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: the Google search term qualifier. Is it attestable in use in English? Is it per se to be excluded? DCDuring TALK 14:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's surely not an adjective! I would have deleted this on sight, but I won't now since there's an open RFV. Equinox 22:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The contributor was trying to respond to a request. Unlike most of our entries, this one actually meets an actual, known, specific user need. I felt a little mean-spirited even putting it here. As to its PoS, well, it might be the subject of the copula ":" in Google. Is Google an unrecognized (by ISO) language or a dialect of English? DCDuring TALK 23:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Neither. intitle is a keyword, just as REDIM (re-dimension) is a keyword in BASIC and bool (Boolean) is a keyword in C++. We don't document such things unless they enter English in their own right (e.g. enum). Equinox 23:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed in this case, though I actually think that bool and redim may have entered English as well (see e.g. this b.g.c. hit for "bool" and this b.g.c. hit for "redimming"). —RuakhTALK 02:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Not seeing much for redim, but I think you're right about bool. I'll add it if I can find a few citations I like. —This unsigned comment was added by Equinox (talkcontribs) at 20:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC).
As the contributor who "was trying to respond to a request", I'm quite happy to have this deleted because I wasn't happy about my attempt ( -- I should have referred it here -- thank you to DC for doing so). I notice that we do record keywords such as "rem" (though it is possible that this word has entered the language outside its programming origin). Since our aim is "every word in every language", should we not find some legitimate way to record specialist usages, even if it is only in an appropriate appendix? Dbfirs 07:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
... (later) ... The word occurs in quite a number of books, but only as a keyword, so I agree it is not part of the English language, but it is part of database search language in English (not just Google). I feel that it should be recorded, but I don't know how or where. Incidentally, I was shocked to see how many books use "intitle" when they mean "entitle". Are they all mis-spellings? Dbfirs 14:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
An appendix for all programming keywords would be quite unimaginably vast and I don't think it would serve much purpose: the place to look them up is in the language documentation, not a general-purpose dictionary, and people know that. Equinox 14:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 01:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: obsolete, uncountable: A state of existence. Does the OED have a cite for this? Date? DCDuring TALK 14:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like OED 2 (obs.), roughly meaning a state of fact as opposed to possibility. Quotations follow. Michael Z. 2009-05-11 05:27 z
  • 1398 TREVISA Barth. De P.R. IV. i. (1495) 78 The noblest thynges of shappes of kynde and of crafte that be hydde comyth forth in acte and in dede.
  • 1595 SHAKES. John IV. iii. 135 If I in act, consent, or sinne of thought Be guiltie.
  • 1662 MORE Antid. agst. Ath. Ep. Ded. (1712) 2 Plato, if he were alive again, might find his timorous supposition brought into absolute Act.
  • 1677 HALE Prim. Orig. Man. 109 They are only in possibility, and not in act.
Sounds like a suitable def might be 'actuality'. Pingku 11:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


Tagged (by Opiaterein) but not listed. Allegedly Estonian for humorous. 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you question it? It’s certainly Estonian. See w:et:Eri:Search/humoorikas. For example, "Juhansoni reisid" on humoorikas romaan ("Juhansoni reisid" is a humorous novel). —Stephen 21:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I tagged it because the ever-dubious User:Ross Rhodes added it and it didn't strike me as looking very Estonian. (Granted, I don't speak any, but it didn't look like any I'd ever seen) — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 02:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I question it because I don't speak Estonian. 50 Xylophone Players talk 09:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "One who ablates." Is this word used in any other sense than "that which is ablated"? Pingku 17:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

In Latin, yes, which suggests the possibility in English. The Latin definition is "one who removes or takes away". --EncycloPetey 20:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
There is also the spelling ablater, which, when it is not French, seems mainly to be used in the sense of "that which removes", in the medical sense of removing unwanted tissue and also in the setting of images on metal plates. "Ablator" seems almost entirely reserved for the sense "that which is ablated". I found one instance of a psychological sense for "one who ablates" (removes from his/her own memory) - it was spelled "ablator", but this might be a mistake. Pingku 12:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


The definition given is for "smackdown". None of the first five pages of google hits for slapdown mention wrestling, whereas a search for the term 'smackdown' yields a first page almost full of wrestling-related sites. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 02:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've converted the rfv to rfv-sense after adding 3 senses. Please take a look since you know what usage is. Edit freely. DCDuring TALK 03:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense ""# Lua error in Module:labels/templates at line 29: The parameter "lang" is required. a dark skinned or black person (not indigenous), usually used pejoratively or abusively. May be archaic."" Conrad.Irwin 14:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

long goodbye

References and citations all say that the disease may be referred to as the "long goodbye". Can we find any text that actually uses it? Equinox 23:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I added one more quotation which provides a use, not a mention, of the term. But only to humour you. This defn was already adequately substantiated. (BTW, the title of the article given in the Wisconsin Healthlink reference also uses the term in my opinion). -- WikiPedant 05:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
How is it substantiated? Texts that say "'the long goodbye' means this" are not evidence. Equinox 23:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
By authority. Academic journals and medical school links are authoritative with respect to this term. -- WikiPedant 03:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we usually accept words only on the grounds that an "authority" (however that would be defined) says they are words. Need to meet WT:CFI as with anything else. Equinox 13:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Attestation, not authority, is the very foundation of lexicography. We accept authority for non-English terms. We are influenced by those authorities who take attestation seriously (the "serious" dictionaries, OED, MW, AHD, RH, Longmans, Cambridge, Macquarie, etc.). It would definitely be preferred that the quotations not surround the headword with quotes or otherwise mark it as not an ordinary part of the language of the writer/speaker and reader/listener. It might be attestable. DCDuring TALK 15:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Attestation and authority are different albeit related concepts. Attestation of a term pertains to the function performed by the quotation (whether it uses or mentions the term). Authority pertains to the source of the quotation. Each attestation carries with it its own degree of authority. Attestations sourced from literary classics or refereed academic journals are rightly recognized at WT:CFI as having greater authority (since only 1 such attestation is needed to satisfy CFI). Like you, DC, I prefer to avoid quotations in which the definiendum is set off in quotation marks, but I'll settle for them as long as it is clear that this is not a one-off coinage by the author. -- WikiPedant 06:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The straight uses (not mentions) that I find come up in many contexts and always refer to an extended departure. One amusing quote is about it most literally. Others are about extended departures from the public view. The Alzheimer's sense is included in that sense. I am not at all sure that any sense really is idiomatic as opposed to simply an SoP metaphor or figurative use. I also not that is much more common in attention-grabbing titles than in ordinary text. DCDuring TALK 16:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The specific nickname "long goodbye" for Alzheimer's is widely used in North America by health professionals. I've heard it used this way for many years. I honestly believe it qualifies as a distinct sense. Since you still have doubts, DC, I shall look for more quotations. -- WikiPedant 06:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have now added 3 more quotations (all uses, not mentions) and expanded the defn and the etymology. -- WikiPedant 22:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This b.g.c. search produces many hits for "cancer" as affording a long goodbye. It just seems like a nice turn of phrase for the situation generated by many diseases of aging or indeed any debilitating disease without institutionalization. DCDuring TALK 00:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, DC, I saw a few in this vein when I was rummaging around. I see the Alzheimer's sense as a separate, established sense (which has its own wrinkle of meaning since it involves progressive loss of the ability to recognize and communicate with friends and family), but think a 2nd, broader sense is probably attestable with respect to any lengthy, degenerative disease (or even process) which is ultimately fatal. -- WikiPedant 03:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


To lack redeeming qualities: to "suck", basically. The etymology says that this is from a TV show. Can anyone find citations? Equinox 01:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


Someone who does extreme ironing. I can find only one citation (on Usenet) where this doesn't appear as extreme ironist. Equinox 14:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


Both senses - Form of address, and close friend. I've googled "hello blud", "goodbye blud", "ciao blud", "hey blud" and "hi blud" but it doesn't look promising. There's plenty of misspellings of blood, however. Enough to deserve an entry? Maybe --Jackofclubs 16:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious Aloisius

Barely nothing on Google. --Jackofclubs 17:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There are far more Web matches with that corrected spelling. I've also found out that it originates in The Simpsons (Ned Flanders says it). Equinox 12:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 01:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Knock-off Nigel

Apparently the character in a British anti-piracy commercial. Attributive use? --Jackofclubs 17:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

  • More tosh from the same person. Delete. SemperBlotto 21:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Attestable on the Web, but apparently not per CFI. "Wall-E doesn't like Knock Off Nigels."; "But if it wasnt for the good ol' knock off Nigels in the world..."; "what the film industry seems to regard as the “Knock-off Nigels” among the internet service providers"; "heavily promoting a campaign to persuade us not to be "Knock-off Nigels" and buy pirate DVDs." etc. etc. Equinox 11:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

takedown bulldog

Some Google hits, but little on permanently-recorded media. Maybe another definition of takedown required? --Jackofclubs 17:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


Both senses look like tosh to me. SemperBlotto 18:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's one lecturer's (or student's) protologism and the entry admits as much. Deleted. Equinox 11:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

que si

No French entry for this one yet. I know people who say bien sûr que si, or oh/ô que si, but I'm not sure if this is really an interjection or just two interjections next to each other. I'll leave you lot to think about it. Mglovesfun 20:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems good to me. —Stephen 13:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Potentially sum of parts ("but of course!"), but with my limited French I'm not sure. In any case I will try to cite it to pass the "is it real?" part of RFV if nothing else. Equinox 20:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
It's definitely SOP; "que" can be used this way with any number of expressions, and obviously this is one of the main meanings of "si". —RuakhTALK 22:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


Equinox 12:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


I can find two on Google Groups (ignoring the ones that refer to a brand name for boats or something). Any more? Equinox 13:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


"Of or related to frequent sexual intercourse." Is this separate from sense 2? If so, how would it be used? Equinox 14:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 01:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


Wikipedia claims that cuesports is an alternate spelling of cue sports, but I can hardly find it anywhere, nor this singular form. Equinox 14:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Cited from Usenet. (Sorry for the glut of cites; I added the first one I saw, then the earliest and latest on Usenet — and all three were from the same newsgroup. So I had to go back and add some from other groups. Unsurprisingly, all are cuesport newsgroups, and there's definitely cross-pollination/incestuousness/pick-your-metaphor among their membership, but I do think it's enough to consider it cited for the purposes of an "alternative spelling" entry.) —RuakhTALK 02:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Much as I love Usenet, I see it as a last resort in terms of citing. Perhaps we should mark this as rare or non-standard. In any case, the citations are sound, so I am striking this. Equinox 02:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


Sense 2 ("an experienced and usually older individual in business or law"). -- WikiPedant 15:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Cited, I think. Definition ought to be more simply "a dominant older human male". DCDuring TALK 16:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Cited, sealed, and delivered. Striking and removing rfv tag. Also changed defn to DC's wording above. -- WikiPedant 15:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


As above. Same contributor created this entry and placed a hard redirect from the correct entry cue ball. -- ALGRIF talk 15:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This one was not hard to cite, though. Equinox 17:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
RfV passed. DCDuring TALK 17:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


"A bonfire society." More than any other kind of society? Equinox 17:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 01:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


I'm only seeing a small handful of formulaic fantasy books where it's not clear that the word has either of these senses. Equinox 18:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


I'm having difficulty verifying this. SemperBlotto 21:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In Germany we have a similar tradition, called Funkenfeuer or Funken for short... There is a Wikipedia article on the subject: [[75]], and I can imagine that such an event could be formulated in exactly that way it is written under the description... PS: A second sense was added, due to the capitalization... --BigBadBen 20:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


Equinox 01:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I think it is refering to Xanadu - the early (only theoretical) hypertext system that became the world wide web. (We haven't got an entry for that yet) SemperBlotto 09:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes: "It is probably best to consider Nelson's xanological structure to be just an abstract idea, rather like the Turing machine" (The Register). I was thinking of the literary Xanadu (honest). But with only 60 Web results, including some irrelevances and foreign junk, I don't think this can pass. Equinox 14:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, though it's sad to lose an X word :) Equinox 14:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


Another one of those mysterious scientific units that only Wiktionary and its foreign-language cousins know about. Equinox 01:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

zettafarad and zettacoulomb seem equally neglected (while zettaton and zettasecond could probably scrape through). Equinox 01:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted zettakatal zettacoulomb zettagray zettafarad zettahenry zettaweber zettabecquerel, which all have no evidence of usage as opposed to mention. (Adding -dictionary to a Google search cuts down the results dramatically.) But zettaton zettasecond zettahertz survived the cull, as there is some evidence of usage. Equinox 01:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


Rfv-sense - place where criminals congregate. SemperBlotto 12:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The OED does give the sense "a cluster of mean tenements densely populated by people of the lowest class", which may be in the neighbourhood (no pun intended). -- WikiPedant 03:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
cited, I think. DCDuring TALK 04:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, looks good. The first two quotes themselves, without context, are ambiguous, but I checked the books, and agree with your conclusions as to their meaning. Thanks! —RuakhTALK 20:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


1) Is it true? 2) Does it meet CFI? SemperBlotto

Doubt it. But apparently he used the weak pseudonym "Hari Georgeson". Equinox 21:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 22:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


Citation page just looks like a typo. Nadando 00:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It is, or was, a trademark for piperacetazine, thus capitalised Quide (if we consider it worth keeping). Equinox 08:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)



I'm seeing no evidence for the cited dictionary's existence. Not seeing any good cites either. If this fails, anarchyists should also go (if not, it should be formatted). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Scuttle. I can't find any evidence for the existence of this dictionary either. Not listed in Library of Congress catalog. As for finding cites, Google Books and Google Scholar yield some apparent hits, but they all seem to be German language hits in which the construction is "...Anarchy ist...". -- WikiPedant 20:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 21:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Adding anarchyists (plural form) to this discussion. Goldenrowley 05:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete. This is the kind of thing that SB usually gets before we ever see it. "Lala Land", indeed. DCDuring TALK 16:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


"Aspiring deejays and ejays can get their start by broadcasting shows on the Web." But can we cite from BGC? Watch out for the trademark for certain sample sets (Ejay Rave etc.). Equinox 11:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


See WT:RFD#internet_block from April 2008; the consensus was to move here. For my part, I am not familiar with the term (especially hyphenated) and think it should go, as SoP if nothing else. Equinox 21:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks very Sum-of-parts to me, and even the link to Wikipedia redirects to block, not internet block.--Dmol 22:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 11:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


Moved here from RFD per consensus: see WT:RFD#family. Equinox 00:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

(Comment moved from RFD) Keep and expand definition, but delete these cites. Family has a meaning of having traditional values, being conservative, even old fashioned - for example "family values". The examples are clearly wrong, and are attributive uses of the noun.--Dmol 09:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I have inserted two senses with usexes that illustrate the additional meanings that would justify keeping the adjective PoS. I would argue that both have widespread use in the US. The value of the RfVed sense is to remind users that some meanings are limited to attributive use of senses that are the noun's. If there is agreement as to the widespread use and the suitability of the usage examples, this matter can be closed forthwith. DCDuring TALK 10:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


A case of {{only in}}? -- Prince Kassad 08:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added two citations. If anyone has access to ISO 639-3:2007 itself, we can have three; or, we can stipulate to its existence, and count it despite its not actually appearing in the entry. (Alternatively — is either LOC's FAQ or SIL's "scope of denotation" document considered durably archived?) —RuakhTALK 14:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


Note: this section was formerly titled yngling.

Can't find much on this. Is the capitalisation correct? Is it a brand name? Equinox 15:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a brand name (see w:Yngling (keelboat)), and since the original editor included a {{see|Yngling}} at the top, I surmise that (s)he did think this sense existed in lowercase (though w:Yngling (keelboat) capitalizes it throughout, so (s)he may have been mistaken). Searches through b.g.c. seem mostly unproductive; google books:"a yngling" has exactly one relevant hit, and it's capitalized. (Plus, it's snippet view, which is a pain.) —RuakhTALK 20:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
O.K., it somehow hadn't occurred to me till now to try google books:yngling keelboat. It pulls up a fair number of relevant hits — all of them capitalized. So, moved to Yngling. —RuakhTALK 20:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Kathleen Mavourneen

Rfv-sense: Open-ended prison sentence. There's evidence this may be for some kind of undetermined period. Not specifically prison though. Alas, tis a fine tune - my grandmother sang me this. --Jackofclubs 19:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There's not much I can find outside of dictionaries, both online and print