Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/2011

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

March 2011[edit]

pedopath[edit]

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

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

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

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)

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)
"...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! - TheDaveRoss 10:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    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)
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)

June 2011[edit]

becomable[edit]

becomable ? Word added by a recurring vandal on fr.wiktionary... Stephane8888 18:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I know of the vandal in question. But sometimes he (she?) slips up and creates a word that's attestable. Haha! --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I can see three uses on Google Books, for what looks like three different senses, one use seems to be for 'pleasant; pleasing', another for this meaning, another one that might be for this meaning too, in a sort of computing context. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed. No citations were in the entry. Some of the hits on Google Boosk were mentions, others supported different senses. It does not appear to me that three support any one sense, but please do restore and cite if you can. - -sche (discuss) 05:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

July 2011[edit]

note[edit]

Rfv-senses for all of Etymology 1 section.

  1. Utility, profit, advantage.
  2. Affair, matter, concern.
  3. An event, occasion.
  4. Business, usually needful in nature; Expedition, undertaking, enterprise.
  5. Conflict; Fray.

These may be vandalism. Webster 1913 has "Note, n. [AS. notu use, profit.] Need; needful business. [Obs.] Chaucer. " --Dilated pupils 11:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Not vandalism. These senses have been verified once before. All are listed in Century Dictionary 1906/1911. Leasnam 20:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence that these senses have been verified. There are no citations. The Century Dictionary is a good source, but we don't accept authority without citation, even the OED. OTOH, we don't challenge such definitions wholesale. Perhaps the senses wouldn't have been challenged had there been a references section with a link to the online Century Dictionary. DCDuring TALK 20:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I should say they were questioned once before. Okay, I can see about adding some cites and a ref. Century is good at providing such, as finding them otherwise will be difficult due to interference from Etymology_2. Leasnam 21:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Could some or all of these senses by limited to Middle English? In practice, we usually are not as demanding for those. DCDuring TALK 21:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I will need to see and evaluate them one by one. I doubt that they are ME, as I am pretty confident that this word survived into the EME period. I am not able at the moment to look them up, but I will once I return home. Leasnam 21:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The talk page links to the old discussion (here); it seems two senses (specifically "use" and "need") were doubted in May of 2009 and rfv-failed in November 2010 as uncited. (Can anyone think of collocations? I'll try "have note of" for "have need of", and "was of note" for "was of advantage" or "was of concern", but I realise that is also a collocation of the "reputation" sense.) By the way, if the senses survived into Modern English, they were also used in the Middle English period, right? Should we also have a Middle English section, or is it our tendency to for(e)go Middle English sections for words that have Modern English sections? - -sche (discuss) 02:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I have tagged the verb senses:
  1. To use; make use of; employ.
  2. To enjoy.
  3. To use for food; eat.
  4. To need; have occasion for.
So far, I have only found a Middle English use of the verb. I continue looking. - -sche (discuss) 03:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
We usually omit Middle English if there is Modern English, not by my preference. I expect that there are exceptions if there are senses that are dead or other radical differences. Having access to the OED helps. I just found out that the Middle English Dictionary is available online. It looks amazingly comprehensive. DCDuring TALK 09:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
A good source for fairly recent cites (year 1800+) may be obtained from the [dialect dictionary]. Leasnam 09:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Sense 5 contains the verb senses; and all appear to be primarily Scottish. Leasnam 10:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Excellent! Resources like that have helped us cite several dated terms before. This copy of Douglas' work has a glossary suggesting "note" also once meant "move" (let's not add that sense unless we can find it in literature), and it uses the word in several senses in the text; however, it also suggests that Douglas wrote in Scots, not English (and that the work was first published in 1553, but that's still in the Modern English era, so not a problem). I am looking through Spenser. - -sche (discuss) 17:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Uncited senses RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 02:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

August 2011[edit]

status[edit]

Rfv-sense: (Canada, attributive, of a Canadian Indian) Registered under the Indian Act. This reads like an adjective. ---> Tooironic 01:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

How about now? JamesjiaoTC 22:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I think it's only permissible as an adjective meaning "registered...", though, as in "he is a status Indian". As a noun meaning "the state of being registered...", as in "what's his status?", I'm not convinced it merits a separate line from the general definition of "status". (Of course, then it is to be debated whether or not the "adjective" is only a noun used attributively, as you had wrote.) - -sche (discuss) 04:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Hm, perhaps Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification_archive/2011#rainbow is relevant, as far as distinguishing nouns from adjectives. - -sche (discuss) 04:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Passed, as in widespread use (just search for "status Indian"). Passed as an adjective per [[rainbow]]: it can't be attributive use of a noun sense if there isn't a noun sense for it to be attributive use of. Of course, an alternative way of handling this would be to make it a noun sense, "The state of being registered..." {{context|almost always used attributively of a noun}}. - -sche (discuss) 22:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

September 2011[edit]

motted[edit]

Not in any dictionary. Doesn't look much like a noun. Any takers?

  • 841 raw google hits for "motted skin" but I think the pertinent question is "Did you mean "mottled skin?" Fugyoo 23:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Another gtroy (talkcontribs) entry. If this is valid, then it's very very regional. Maybe Gtroy would care to tag it as such? JamesjiaoTC 23:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
There are many pages on the Internet where mottled and motted coexist (eg. "Ice blue motted background with brown mottled dots", or "For sale - Mottled Japanese bantam hatching eggs (...) Here for Auction is 6 Pure Black Motted Japanese bantam"). Seems like a typo to me, but a rather current one and it may deserve a {{misspelling of}}. As for the "emergency medicine" tag, I'm rather doubtful. — Xavier, 00:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Added a bunch of citations
Yes there are 3 non-scanno citations now for the "mottled" sense so {{misspelling of}} seems best to me. Fugyoo 06:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's just assume that all usages are scannos and typos except for W H Auden's usage in 1947 where he deliberately made up the word "motted" to mean "having a motte". Since no-one else picked up his new coinage, it doesn't deserve an entry does it? We could add a note to the mis-spelling entry. Dbfirs 21:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
made some big changesAcdcrocks 01:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for identifying the scanno, but, in view of the obvious scanno (8kin) in one of your chosen cites, what makes you think that "mottled" was not intended in all of them? Dbfirs 08:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Any objection if we follow Fugyoo's advice and make it {{misspelling of}}? Dbfirs 22:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
In the absence of any cites that make sense, may I go ahead and treat this as a Misspelling of mottled.? Dbfirs 23:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Done. - -sche (discuss) 03:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

T字尺[edit]

123abc. -- Liliana 12:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There are some Google Book hits which match the term, just I can't read them, so someone else will have to. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
A quick look at Google Images turns up 1,700 hits, a lot of which are pictures of a carpenter's square. (Note: even with SafeSearch set to "strict", one of the top image hits is still NSFW.) The characters are plausible for this meaning too (literally, "T-letter ruler"), and I could tell what it was without knowing much Mandarin just from my Japanese background. I'd be very surprised if this one is not just what it says on the tin.  :) -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Ugh. 丁字尺 (N.B. is not T) seems to be the standard term and gets a lot more image hits. The only Google Books hit for T字尺 where you can actually see the text is a scanno for 丁字尺 [1] (note the little hook on the bottom of 丁) so there's no way of knowing if the other Google book hits are scannos or not without getting hold of a physical copy. I think this should be marked as a misspelling or non-standard version at best. Fugyoo 19:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Non-standard / misspelling sounds like the way to go. This Baidu entry for 丁字尺 explicitly lists "T形尺" as an alternate name, so it's not far to go to see how someone might use "T字尺" as yet another alternate. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 20:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
In Chinese character ‎(dīng) and Roman letter T are used alternatingly when one needs to express the T-shape. Look at 丁字 entry (T-shaped). ‎(dīng) is the preferred way and 丁字尺 ‎(dīngzìchǐ) is used 10 times more often than T字尺 ‎(T-zìchǐ), although it is a synonym. Not all shapes based on Roman letters can be rendered using hanzi, though, so it is a good example how words can be formed in Mandarin, so eg. Y字, X字, etc. are all valid (i.e. Y-shaped, X-shaped, etc.). ‎() means "character" or "letter". --Anatoli 23:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Anatoli on the alternate use of 丁 and T. Another good example is T字路口/丁字路口 (three-way junction or T-intersection). I grew up with 丁字路口 but I have seen T字路口 used. JamesjiaoTC 23:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Please archive this (I'm not sure how this is done). I think the discussion is over and the tern is verified. --Anatoli 03:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this should be closed until there are 3 citations. Fugyoo 08:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, no-one provided three actual citations, so I deleted it. - -sche (discuss) 22:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

October 2011[edit]

OP[edit]

Rfv-sense: (wiktionary) open proxy -- Liliana 18:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"op server" has lots of Google hits (rfv removed) —Saltmarshtalk-συζήτηση 08:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
RFV returned; the Web is not durably archived. There could be a valid Google Books hit for "op server", but all I'm seeing is junk. I didn't check Google Groups.--Prosfilaes 09:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 02:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

4tw[edit]

Tagged but not listed. Myself I have never encountered this one. -- Liliana 19:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Struck as in clear widespread use. (Look on Usenet.) If anyone feels strongly that this should be deleted as uncited instead, I don't mind. - -sche (discuss) 05:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Pollyanning[edit]

pollyanning[edit]

I assume this would be a two-component misspelling of Pollyannaing, which might be a word. DCDuring TALK 02:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds more likely, or even Pollyanna-ing. I find the juxtaposition of "a" and "i" very odd. In any case, we need citations if we are to keep any form. Dbfirs 12:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that any one form of the participle meets CFI. For example, some find the oddness to require a hyphen. I'm not really sure that this kind of conversion is worth a separate section, ie, Pollyanna#Verb. The Pollyanna entry seems to be encyclopedic in its second sense, which might belong in an etymology section if we were better about including sense evolution in our etymology sections. DCDuring TALK 13:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
You know when I first added this entry I added, pollyann with the conjugated links to pollyanned, pollyanning, and pollyanns, I have heard all of these used and I in fact had cited pollyanning thrice if any admin would be kind enough to dig it up please.Acdcrocks 09:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the entry to Pollyanning, but I think it still fails because the quotations do not support a single part of speech. - -sche (discuss) 01:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

There already is a citation that examples that in the entry.Lucifer 18:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
ONE is not enough. The magic number is three. — [Ric Laurent] — 20:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
That's ONE. You need at least THREE.[Ric Laurent] — 00:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
Yes sir.Lucifer 08:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Has been deleted. - -sche (discuss) 05:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
Not cited, therefore deleted. - -sche (discuss) 00:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

microglomerate[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
RFV-failed, deleted. If you want to put it into the LoP, go ahead. :) Cheers, - -sche (discuss) 03:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

December 2011[edit]

medible[edit]

As above, same originator, cross-referenced. --Hekaheka 09:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

lamero[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)

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)
Was not actually cited, so I have RFV-failed it for now. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)