Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/2011

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

March 2011[edit]


Looks like an invention. I see one possible Usenet hit, nothing on Scholar/Books.​—msh210 (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to delete it as a protologism. SemperBlotto 08:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
pedopathy gets some Google Book hits, all in medical dictionaries and lists of interesting words AFAICT. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found two. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 04:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria's Secret[edit]

WT:CFI#Company names says this needs to be attested with a meaning other than the company name. That's more or less impossible. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is for RFD. I would even vote delete, as this company name cannot carry any information that is of lexicographical interest. The section WT:CFI#Company names is an invention of DAVilla. Curiously enough, "Victoria's Secret" entry was created on 16 April 2007 by DAVilla. But I see that the company name just passed RFD on 10 February 2011. --Dan Polansky 08:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...as this company name cannot carry any information that is of lexicographical interest." I suspect that twelve years ago the same would have been easily said about Enron. I agree that at the moment it does not carry any information which is significant to us here, but who knows what the future may bring! - [The]DaveRoss 10:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1. When an entry with citations is deleted, why aren't the citations moved to the Citations page?
    2. Why was this put in RfV when it had been cited for RfD? DCDuring TALK 14:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I've removed the tag. Feel free to delete it if you believe the citations in the entry do not meet CFI; otherwise, by default, this stays. - -sche (discuss) 05:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011[edit]

cum junkie[edit]

Requested at RFD, but not done. Frankly this is a waste of time, you're not going to find a quotation indicating that this means "person that uses their sexuality to obtain luxuries", because that's not what it means. It's simply a junkie for cum (semen), and we have precedent for deleting such entries at Talk:travel junkie. The only reason I'm putting this here is so Martin won't restore it and harp about a proper process. So let's get this stupid, stupid, stupid ball rolling. — [Ric Laurent] — 12:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a citation that examples that in the entry.Lucifer 18:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ONE is not enough. The magic number is three. — [Ric Laurent] — 20:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tons of words have just one or none at all. Are you contesting that this is not in actually use? Forgive me if I am wrong, but you of all people seem well versed in vulgarities.Lucifer 10:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am. I'm not contesting the existence of this term. However, it is a sum-of-parts, like travel junkie, and we don't include those. See Talk:travel junkie. What I am contesting is the definition you gave. If it weren't for Martin, this entry would still be deleted and I wouldn't have started this stupid rfv. Basically, I'm just waiting for a week so I can delete it again, because the definition that you gave is inaccurate.
Ideally, all words should have citations. — [Ric Laurent] — 17:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm contesting it on the grounds I don't know it and the citations don't back up what the entry says. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This one does: Also known as “cum junkie,” obsessed with enjoying the finer things in life in exchange for putting out.Lucifer 23:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's ONE. You need at least THREE.[Ric Laurent] — 00:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well you said I didn't have any and implied I made it all up, on google books there are others that imply or show it being used as more than a cumslut, which there are many that show that use, but there others that show this 'prostitution'-like use.Lucifer 03:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should read Criteria for Inclusion, especially Attestation. When an English term is contested, you need three citations spanning at least a year. —Stephen (Talk) 08:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sir.Lucifer 08:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has been deleted. - -sche (discuss) 05:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

l'art du déplacement[edit]

Supposedly Spanish. It looks French to me. And should the name really include the article? SemperBlotto 08:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's French, but it's also used in Spanish (e.g. see es:w:Parkour). In French, the title should not include the article. In Spanish, it seems that the article should be included, it belongs to the phrase, as a French (not Spanish) article. Spanish also uses the French related word traceur. Lmaltier 08:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we are to allow it as a Spanish term, it must include the pronuncation. The Spaniards that I know have a terrible time with French pronunciation. I have no idea how this would be pronounced in Spanish. —Stephen (Talk) 08:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lart du deplacement pronounced phonetically, almost everything is, except a few french wine terms and a few english technology terms.Lucifer 08:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not cited, therefore deleted. - -sche (discuss) 00:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


A kind of small company. Added today by an IP. Everything I can find online relates to one company, Brick Cave Media, which appears to have introduced this term. I don't think it meets WT:CFI. Equinox 23:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I introduced the word to Wiki today, and am unaware of Brick Cave Media or it's claim to introduce this word. I developed the definition for the word "Microglomerate". If Brick Cave can produce their definition of what a "Microglomerate" is, then we can evaluate it based on it's merit. At any point as needed I can provide the date at which I created the word "Microglomerate" and the date to which I established the definition for the word Microglomerate". Here is my definition of the word "Microglomerate" - "A Microglomerate is a combination of two or more Brands, Businesses, and/or Entities engaged in different businesses that fall under one Business structure. They are a parent company and several (or many) subsidiaries. It acts like a conglomerate but without the corporate structure, cost, and inefficiencies. Each entity acts as its own profit center reporting to the parent company." I am open to discussion regarding word Microglomerate.

To further establish my claim to this word, I am notarizing the document that establishes the dates by which I created the word, and its definition, also the dates I made public claim to the word. —⁠This comment was unsigned.

Makes it sound even more likely to me that it won't meet CFI if you've just made it up. By the way, are you saying you created the word and established its definition at two separate dates? What's the date then? Anyway as interesting as this all is, can we delete the entry yet? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't add words based on merit or based on any one person's definition, but on established usage as evidenced in print etc. Equinox 13:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary is not a publicity engine for Bob Nelson of Brick Cave Media. I suggest that we move the word to our list of neoprotologisms. Dbfirs 23:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this seems to merit a line in WT:LOP, but not yet a full-blown entry. ~ Robin 16:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RFV-failed, deleted. If you want to put it into the LoP, go ahead. :) Cheers, - -sche (discuss) 03:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011[edit]


I looked for this before removing it from the translation table at asslicker and found nothing, so replaced it with sicofante. It was re-added, and the article was created. — [Ric Laurent] — 12:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search seems to support this meaning, although it's much more commonly used as toponym "El Lamero" and surname, in that case derived from lama and not lamer. Matthias Buchmeier 14:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was not actually cited, so I have RFV-failed it for now. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]