Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/August 2007

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


August 2007[edit]


Supposedly, it's “snow that is dirty, often seen by the side of roads and parking lots that have been plowed.” Rod (A. Smith) 00:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The Top Google hit is Urban Dictionary, and the other top hits are garbage advertizing links. --EncycloPetey 18:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Cited, though perhaps not ideally. -- Visviva 16:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


2 senses of the noun are not confirmed by any of the verified references I have added to this entry:

  • an old person
  • eye mucus

-- WikiPedant 04:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've now cited the eye-mucus sense. (Unfortunately, I could only get plural cites — it's really hard to filter through all the non-noun uses of "crusty" — but I don't think this is a plurale tantum.) The old-person sense is more awkward; "old crusties" gets a few b.g.c. hits, and b.g.c. finds plenty of uses of "Old Crusty" as an epithet, but then, that suggests that "crusty" is saying something other than just "old". —RuakhTALK 03:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


Even with proper accent (νοσοφόρος), all (16) Google references to it are in connection with it maybe being the source of the name Nosferatu. Can someone attest it or can we toss it? ArielGlenn 13:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like it may be a rare non-English protologism. I'd recommend listing this one at Wiktionary:Protected titles if we delete it. Otherwise, we'll be re-deleting it endlessly. --EncycloPetey 16:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia mentions νοσοφόρος at w:Nosferatu (word). —Stephen 19:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and that's how it made it here (comments in the article's creation log). Actually the Wikipedia article says the word (?) is not attested in use. The talk page of that article reiterates this. ArielGlenn 20:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


"Joshua" sense (both languages). —msh210 14:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, we don't redirect much, do we? —msh210 14:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I know little about Hebrew, bu I can say that Stong's doesn't give this for any of the Old Testament appearances of Joshua. Each and every instance of that name in the Jewish Bible is keyed to entry 3091, which is יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (I copied this from WP since I can't accurately distinguish in the Edittools between some of the less elaborate squiggles). The entry in question appears to be Strong's nummber 3442 and 3443, which is pronounced "Yêshûwa". Strong's does not give this as "Jesus", but then that name is never translated from any Hebrew source in Christian scripture. I know that I've heard authoritative scholars comment on the etymological relationships between these two names, but don't know whether this particular Hebrew word/name is the actual source for both. --EncycloPetey 16:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The name Joshua is from יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Yehoshua), and ישוע is said to be a late form of יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. Other forms of the name Joshua are Yehoshua(h), Yeshua, Hosea, Oshea, Jozua, Giosuè, Josh, and Iesos. What is more questionable is whether the name Jesus is actually from ישוע. —Stephen 19:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, hopefully someone will manage to pull up a citation for this word in some language and sense, so we have some information to work with. This word isn't familiar to me in any of its uses; I'm used to Template:HEchar "Joshua" and Template:HEchar "Jesus", though I may have mis-pointillated the latter. —RuakhTALK 19:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
In w:Yeshua (name), it explains at some length that ישוע is thought be some scholars to be the etymon of Jesus, but that it is debatable. —Stephen 15:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
(Wow, Hebrew text looks positively gorgeous in that template! Widsith 10:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC))
(Not in Safari on a Mac, it doesn't!) --EncycloPetey 18:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
(in Firefox/WinXP, it looks pretty, but I find it harder to read than the default ;-) Robert Ullmann 15:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A reply on two fronts:

  • On the font front: the goal was not a beautiful font (not that I mind such), but a font in which it's possible to distinguish all the letters and vowels. (In a lot of fonts the tzeirei and patakh — two dots arrayed horizontally, and one horizontal line — look identical unless you make the text simply huge, and in a lot of fonts the dagesh — the dot in the middle that indicates gemination or plosion — is invisible in some letters, again unless you make the text simply huge.) I don't think anyone is particularly attached to this specific font, and obviously the whole template is pretty useless if none of the fonts we've specified is present by default on a Mac; so, please, let's discuss this at Template talk:HEchar and see if we can find a font that's easily readable for everyone.
  • On the word front: I've rewritten the Hebrew section in a way that I hope is acceptable to everyone. The "Jeshua" sense is certainly cited now — the Book of Ezra is a well known work — and the "Jesus" sense seems plausible, if only because I really can't imagine Wikipedia having such a long entry on the name unless people used it that way. If this is indeed acceptable to everyone, I'd like to propose using the exact same text for the Aramaic section (except without the cite, obviously).

RuakhTALK 16:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest adding the Hebrew for Joshua under Related terms, but otherwise it looks good to me. --EncycloPetey 18:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Is that a general rule for derived terms? E.g., should happiness list happy as a related term? —RuakhTALK 16:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
If a term is known to be derived from another term in the same language, such as happy --> happiness, then the entry for happy can list happiness under Derived terms, and happiness can list happy both in its Etymology and under Related terms. In this case, I don;t know whether one is necessarily derived from the other, but they are clearly related. In such a case, each can be listed on the other entry under Related terms. --EncycloPetey 18:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
O.K., thanks. In this case it seems to be clear that Template:HEchar is derived from Template:HEchar. —RuakhTALK 19:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


Once again. I think a lot of the senses are just interpretations of the general ‘execute’ sense. If not, quotations and/or better example sentences are needed to make the differences clearer. H. (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

stage phoning[edit]

Supposedly, “The act or activity of talking on a mobile phone in a deliberately animated and audible manner, especially to impress”. Rod (A. Smith) 18:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This gets two google books hits (1 use, 1 mention), and 13 google scholar hits (12 in English, most mentions), and on the face of it this does meet the CFI. However pretty much all the uses (I've not looked at the mentions) explicitly refer to the same researcher (Sadie Plant) and so I am not convinced the sources meet the independence criterion. See for example Leveraging Mobile Media: Cross-Media Strategy and Innovation Policy for Mobile Media Communication (p 94), TOWARDS A SOCIOLOGY OF THE MOBILE PHONE (p 24) and On the Mobile - The Effects of Mobile Telephones on Social and Individual Life (p 16). Thryduulf 19:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


In the sense of a dressing room. When is a dressing room ever referred to as a toilet? Smokedetector 18:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

struck, known vandal, now blocked. Robert Ullmann 19:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

elephant seals[edit]

Anyone? Definitely not dictionary type content and does this even have a definition available? Neskaya 06:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense/copyvio deleted. Someone can enter a real definition when so inclined. --Connel MacKenzie 06:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Created as a plural. --EncycloPetey 06:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


There are some b.g.c. hits, but of the first several, there appears to be only one common source using the first definition, none using the second definition, some using a different definition (something like “of or related to technology used for sexual satisfaction”), and some merely defining (i.e. mentioning) the term. Rod (A. Smith) 06:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

On the assumption that Google news archives are considered durable for our purposes, I've added some cites; also filled in the missing adjective sense, which is not cited yet but could easily be. The metrosexual sense is still missing one, but something could probably be fished up from Usenet or elsewhere. -- Visviva 17:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


Protologism? Or just an invented word? SemperBlotto 07:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a genuine word, not a protologism or a nonce word. If you're not familiar with this site, you might want to bookmark it. It's a science-ficiton fan site dedicated to collecting citations of SF words for inclusion in the OED. The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction was recently published based on their efforts. They have a considerable number of citations for sophont, and there is an entry for that word in the Oxford Dicionary of Science Fiction. --EncycloPetey 07:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
That site is owned by the OED (at least, it say it is on the [home] page.) I find the lack of any copyright statement misleading. Certainly the original research they do there is valued? Using content from there would very result in our citations match theirs, which would make any copyright lawyer freak out. How can we use that for our verification? --Connel MacKenzie 20:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
We can use it the same way we would any other dictionary -- we can note that the word exists and is cited by another major dictionary. We don't have to take their content. Verification can mean that citations exist, not that they've necessarily been pasted into our entry for the word. I usually have more fun finding original citations myself by reading. --EncycloPetey 21:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering to what extent words from scifi should be included. My first thought are that those that have entered the general language (e.g. grok) are fine, and that those that are used by several (or many) different authors (e.g. spaceport) are fine, but those used in the works of just one author (e.g. w:Chelgrian) are probably not. SemperBlotto 21:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
That's the way I feel mostly as well, however the issue gets sticky when you consider multi-authored series under titles such as Dungeons & Dragons, Star Trek, Star Wars, and the like. Many words that appear in such works are still too sub-genre specific for me. Where do we draw the line between phaser and bio-bed? between the Force and Naboo? --EncycloPetey 21:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, this word also appears in the Uplift trilogy by David Brin with fairly frequent use. If required, I can provide quotes. —Leftmostcat 05:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
That would be nice. I knew the quotes would be there because the OED citations site (linked above) quotes from his works ;) --EncycloPetey 06:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added a quote from Brin -- can't find my copy of the book right now so I pulled one off bgc. Cynewulf 20:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


I am concerned with the second poker sense, "A round in a poker game". I have never heard "pot" used in this way. Unfortunately, given its prevalence in the poker literature (used in the first sense) I have no idea how to check for this usage. I hope others can help. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

My inclination is interpret this as a misunderstanding of the previous sense "money wagered in a poker game". I can imagine that someone hears that "Jack has won the pot", and assumes that it meant the round of play rather than the money. Of course, that sense might have crept into usage. I'm not well-versed in poker and can't say one way or the other. --EncycloPetey 06:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

My wife watches a lot of those poker tournaments on TV (UK shows) and she said that pot is the money played in a round, not the round itself.--Dmol 09:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That's good to know. I've played poker for 6 years, read 20 or so books, and watched it on TV and I've never heard this usage. But, I'm in the US and I thought perhaps this usage might be a UK thing. If it's not that, then it's much less likely to be correct. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

For background (not defense) of the definition in question, note that came from this edit, which referenced MW. MW says, “3 a : a large amount (as of money) b (1) : the total of the bets at stake at one time (2) : one round in a poker game c : the common fund of a group”. Rod (A. Smith) 19:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... That's very strange. To be honest, I'm not even sure what "round" means in this sense. "Round" is not used in poker discussions very often since it is unclear if it refers to one "betting round" (of which there are many in a given hand) or a "hand". Usually "game" is reserved for a session consisting of several hands, so perhaps this means that "pot" is (claimed to be) synonymous with "hand". Confusing. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I've asked some folks at Wikipedia's WikiProject Poker if they've heard of this usage. We'll see where that goes. Also, the Dictionary of Poker has something like this use (although slightly more specific). This suggests to me it might be an antiquated use. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe MW meant, “3 a : a large amount (as of money) b : the total of the bets at stake (1) at one time or (2) in one round in a poker game c : the common fund of a group”. Rod (A. Smith) 20:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


‘Anything that can be spread on toast.’ It is mentioned, uncertainly, in an article in the Times, but I can't find any corroboration. Widsith 10:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It is opsony - anything that can be eaten with bread. (Though it seems to be from Latin obsonium) SemperBlotto 11:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. How on earth did you find that?? Widsith 11:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
OED online - search for *sony => crimsony, monopsony, oligopsony, opsony, poisony and treasony SemperBlotto 11:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
So a monopsony is one thing eaten with bread, and an oligopsony is when you eat a small number of things with bread? Robert Ullmann 01:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


A Drago entry I stumbled upon. Problem is, WP claims it should be spelled álfr (with accent). Which is correct? (In this respect I'm pretty close to jump to conclusions, so I'd better ask...) \Mike 11:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Kind of both. I don't think Old Norse was ever written with accents, but most of our entries here use them because most modern editors do. This is unlike the practice with Old English or Latin, but there you go. Widsith 11:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
But then one should use redirects instead of writing two entries, right? \Mike 11:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Becuase it's a modern editorial convention rather than a real spelling difference in the language, I would say that some sort of redirect is useful. But, perhaps not a hard redirect, since that could be lost upon the addition of a later entry. We should also decide which is to be the main entry: with accent as modern convention, or without' as period use? We don't have a Wiktionary:About Old Norse, do we? --EncycloPetey 18:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
No. But such entries as exist already do use accents (slightly annoyingly). Widsith 08:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

black cat[edit]

Verb sense. SemperBlotto 10:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

While we're about it, the noun sense also. Sum of parts, isn't it? Are we going to have white cat, grey cat, ginger cat, tabby cat, etc? Although perhaps tabby cat might have a case. -- Algrif 13:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

visitor team[edit]

Shouldn't this be visiting team? (poor English) SemperBlotto 07:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a Great Lakes regionalism. DAVilla 08:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


Questionable sense:

  1. (Spain, reflexive) to cost

Rod (A. Smith) 01:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That sense is not in the RAE. --EncycloPetey 01:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a colloquialism, a bit like saying "what's the damage" when asking about cost. —Stephen 13:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
There's definitely evidence of this on Google (looking through google web:"se llama * euros"), but I can't find anything on Google Groups, and the only thing I see on Google Books that might be relevant is a 1947 snippet-view hit, with the pre-click snippet reading, "Para el empresario, se llama mil pesetas. Yo creo que la lección debiera ser aprovechada. Pienso que en la protesta ruidosa del público contra el sueldo tan […]" ("For the businessman, it's called a thousand pesetas. I believe that the lesson should have been taken advantage of. I think that in the noisy public protest against the salary that's so […]"), and the post-click snippet not having any obvious connection, unfortunately. Make of this what you will. —RuakhTALK 15:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it might be enough to keep the sense for now and label it colloquial. --EncycloPetey 18:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm O.K. with that. It would be nice to have a better idea of this sense, though; is it absolutely restricted to cost, or can it be used with, say, the weight of an object? Is it generally understand by people from Spain, or is it youth slang or an Internet-ism? Does it have any connotations — say, does it imply that the item is overpriced? Good cites might give us an idea. —RuakhTALK 21:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
To me, this idiom is only for cost, not for weight or other things. Generally understood, not an Internet-ism, not youth slang, no connotation of overpricing. Just a softened, friendly and euphemistic way of asking how much is owed. —Stephen 21:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Is it permissible for me to withdraw this rfv-sense now? Rod (A. Smith) 22:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Since you put the entry forward, it's certainly within your prerogative to withdraw it if you're satisfied the issue is resolved. --EncycloPetey 05:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. RFV withdrawn. Rod (A. Smith) 06:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 06:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Also tax avoision. Thryduulf 07:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I can personally verify that these terms are fairly widely used among tax practitioners to capture the sense of doing everything within the law (or at least arguably within the law) to avoid paying taxes. Google books citations for this use go back to the 1950s and before:
  1. 1948, Walter Eucken, Ordo: Jahrbuch fur die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, page 147:
    The contempt for the tax laws in Southern Europe has lately spread to historically law-abiding Britain, where a new form of tax «avoision» has appeared: a mixture of tax avoidance (legal) and tax evasion (illegal) that expresses in the taxpayer's mind a blurring of the moral distinction between the two that used to be acceptable because it was thought that what was legal was moral and what was illegal was immoral.
  2. 1953, Australia Parliamentary Debates, Senate, Weekly Hansard, page 1218:
    He has been pushing for action on tax ‘avoision’— that may be a suitable word to coin.
  3. 1955, John Chamberlain, Henry Hazlitt, The Freeman, page 511:
    It is "avoision," compounded of "avoidance" and "evasion."
    The higher the tax rate, the more popular the "avoision" schemes.
And many more recently:
  1. 1979, Alfred Roman Ilersic, Tax Avoision: The Economic, Legal and Moral Inter-relationships Between Avoidance and Evasion, page 54:
    Avoision by some taxpayers need not result in a higher tax burden for others. The revenue lost through avoision may be small, or it may not be measurable.
  2. 1988, Robert Walker, Gillian Parker, Money Matters: Income, Wealth and Financial Welfare, page 134:
    Though strictly locating a fiddle, in practice there is likely to be a grey area, usually labelled ‘avoision’.
  3. 1996, Leo Katz, Ill-Gotten Gains: Evasion, Blackmail, Fraud, and Kindred Puzzles of the Law, page 103:
    We have a sense of what the argument is going to be, because the sort of advice the Princeton Review, How to Beat the System, and The Speeders Guide to Avoiding Tickets give smacks of tax avoision. And we know tax avoision to have this character: it subverts an ethical institution but is not itself unethical!
  4. 2003, Kathryn S. Brogan, Robert Lee Brewer, 2004 Writer's Market: 8,000+ Book and Magazine Editors Who Buy What You Write, page 302:
    From computer hacking to gardening to tax avoision, we are the name in beat-the-system books."
Cheers! bd2412 T 07:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Under Connel’s guideline, are these valid citations (except for the 1979, 1996, and 2003 citations, which are)? –Or does the guideline only apply to foreign borrowings? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 10:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The guideline to exclude citations that merely mention the an entry’s term is not only Connel’s. I strongly support that guideline. We should prefer citations that use the entry’s term without ornamentation, because writers and editors who always italicize a term typically blur the use-mention distinction in order to acknowledge that the term is not in common English use. Rod (A. Smith) 16:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Part of the problem, I think, is that writers with a background in tax making recent use of the term will tend to italicize or explain out the term when describing it to lay persons, much like a doctor explaining to a patient (or writing for lay persons) that his alveoli are clogged might frame the word with an explanation, but would not need to do so in speaking with another doctor (or writing in a medical journal). The word is a technical term used among tax professionals, and should be marked as such. bd2412 T 15:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The 1948 and 1953 cites are clearly mentions rather than uses, but the earlier one should probabaly be included if it is the earliest citable instance of the term's existence.
The 1988 and first 1955 cites are either a mention (not valid) or a simultaneous use and mention (I'm not certain), the second 1955 cite appears to be a use and mention, which I believe is valid.
The 1979, 1996 and 2003 cites are clearly uses and therefore valid. These alone fulfil the requirements, so I think this has been verified, pending further objections. Thryduulf 11:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree this has been verified. I agree with BD2412's sentiment above, that it should be marked as {{context|tax|_|jargon}} or similar, to explain its rarity. Otherwise our entry might be too similar to Urbandictionary's (the other dictionary to favor this spelling.) I'm glad no one suggested a usage note indicating it is a Three Stooges-esque alliteration of either "aversion" or "evasion," even if that is the first thing that comes to mind, when seeing this spelling. --Connel MacKenzie 16:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


"A poorly played golf shot..."

  • Given in the adjective section - is it an adjective or a noun?
  • Not correctly formatted; the "see ..." links belong in the "See also" section.


  • Does "phat" belong with the other adjective definitions, or does it have a different etymology? Maybe not.
  • Surely the sense "vat" has a different etymology.

Paul G 13:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

whisper craft[edit]

The name of this fictional vehicle doesn't appear to have infiltrated the English lexicon. Rod (A. Smith) 01:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have heard this word used many times, primarily in the workplace when a male employee does something stupid. —This unsigned comment was added by Kharper87 (talkcontribs) at 05:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC).


Supposedly, it's Australian slang for “beard”. I see only definitions (no direct uses) of the term in that sense. Rod (A. Smith) 06:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


“A fan of the television series The X-Files”. Some cites exist, but I'm not sure they pass the independence test. Rod (A. Smith) 07:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There are definitely at least three independent cites. I'm less sure that the term passes the used-​outside-​a-​narrow-​community test, but even on that point, I'm leaning toward "yes." —RuakhTALK 15:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Now cited. —RuakhTALK 15:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the citations. Looking more closely at WT:CFI#Independence, I see "This is meant to exclude multiple references that draw on each other" and "The presumption is that if a term is only used in a narrow community, there is no need to refer to a general dictionary such as this one to find its meaning." I don't think these citations (except possibly the very last one) show it being used outside that "narrow community." Should this move to WT:RFD? --Connel MacKenzie 19:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually I disagree. The first citation is not being used outside group concerned (fans of The X-Files), but if this is the earliest citation it deserves mention for that reason. The other cites are all from works that are wider than the X-Files fandom community, and so are valid according to the CFI as I read it. Move to RFD if you like, but I'd vote to keep it. Thryduulf 19:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think our disconnect stems from the fact that I consider the portion of the TV/movie industry that pertains to X-files, to be a "narrow community" while you take the much more exacting interpretation of only the subset of fans. I'm not convinced, but I'm also not willing to press the issue right now. Someone else can, if I'm not out to lunch on this one. --Connel MacKenzie 21:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from, but don't agree with such a broad interpretation of "narrow community". I think this is one situation where a third opinion is needed. Thryduulf 22:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking at version 2818856, fyi. The cites are not from within the TV industry afaIct. Here they are:
  • Well, the first one is from the X-Files community.
  • And the second is from the TV/film industry.
  • But the third seems to be from a musicologist.
  • And the fourth seems to be a marketing person (marketer??). (He claims to have been part of the X-Philes community, but he seems to be writing for a marketing audience.)
So that would seem to be two cites from without the "narrow community". I'm not sure what "The presumption is that if a term is only used in a narrow community, there is no need to refer to a general dictionary such as this one to find its meaning." means. Do we need three cites from outside the community? (That's not how I read it.)—msh210 22:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

lapsus calami[edit]

Looking at the first page of b.g.c. results, they seem to all use it in italics or quotation marks or poetry section titles. Haven't checked the Icelandic, yet. --Connel MacKenzie 08:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. It's defiantly Latin, and I did find the translations in an English-Icelandic dictionary. It was also linked to from the phrase lapsus linguae. --BiT 17:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree it is definitely Latin. May I ask what English-Icelandic dictionary that is? Is it an idiomatic, or a direct translation? --Connel MacKenzie 18:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC) (The other Icelandic translation you added around the same time was clearly idiomatic, not a direct translation; presumably from the same source.) --Connel MacKenzie 15:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
pennaglöp (means mistake of the pen), ritvilla (means writing error), slæm ritvilla (means bad writing error). I got it from the Ensk-íslensk orðabók; með alfræðilegu ívafi (English-Icelandic dictionary with an encyclopedic element). --BiT 17:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

argumenta ad hominem[edit]

Latin, not English. --Connel MacKenzie 17:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I am guessing that argumentum ad hominem, its plural argumenta ad hominem, and all the other names of logical fallacies are not idiomatic in Latin. If this is the case, they would not deserve Latin entries under the CFI — so I ask you, how else can we give this information to our readers, if the Latin entries may not exist due to CFI, and the English entries may not exist due to “Connel’s diktat”? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 18:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Doremítzwr, please refrain from posting inflammatory language. --EncycloPetey 18:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course; sorry — perhaps a bad joke. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully ask some other sysop to block user Doremitzwr for his renewed personal attacks, such as the ones directly above. Compounding that, are the lies 1) "not idiomatic in Latin," 2) "would not deserve Latin entries" (see Pawley list again - flatly untrue,) and 3) the implication that this is somehow my doing, simply because I am the first one to call him on his outrageous behavior. --Connel MacKenzie 18:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Read hereinbefore: “I am guessing…” — a guess is an assumption made without complete certainty; “If this is the case…” — this preposition indicates possibility, not certainty — I am not asserting this to be the God’s honest truth, only stating that if this is the case (as I believe it to be), then our predicament would be as I described. Point two is a logical consequence of point one (if the latter is true), except if there’s something else I’m unaware of (such as this “Pawley list” — what the hell is that?). Concerning point three: as we’re discussing argumenta ad hominem, I believe it would be appropriate for me to clarify that the fact you brought it (that is, the alleged invalidity of italicised citations) up neither lends weight to nor discredits such a guideline — I admit, you have a good point with it; however, I raised problems with it, which in rational discourse you are required to address (that problem being what we do with foreign phrases, used in English, which would fail CFI in their original languages due to lack of idiomaticity). Naming the guideline “Connel’s diktat” was a satirical joke on my part; names are of little importance — it is the content which must be addressed. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
No, names are very important, especially when conflict is in the air. Refrain from such jabs or you will be blocked. Rod (A. Smith) 19:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
My comment “names are of little importance — it is the content which must be addressed” was meant in the sense that they do not affect the validity of the named thing (that is, the fact that I called the guideline “Connel’s diktat” does not affect that the guideline has some worth). Obviously my sentence was ambiguous and poorly written, for which I apologise. The original “jab” was meant light-heartedly, but I see in retrospect that it was not an appropriate time to make such a joke. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Doremítzwr appears to be trying to help this project, not intentionally hurting it. You use of “lie” implies that he is intentionally deceiving someone. I don't think that's the case, and blocking would be inappropriate. Several deep breaths and steps back seem to be in order. Rod (A. Smith) 18:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
As to intentional deceit, please take a look at his talk page, or elsewhere on this discussion page, or on WT:VOTE, or on WT:RFC. As to taking deep breaths, giving him about a week of breathing room has resulted in his increasing nonsense on all fronts. Had I blocked him immediately (justifiably,) it could be construed as inappropriate and he might be unblocked. Instead, I am proceeding with exaggerated deliberation. From his very first edit, he has been here only to disrupt. While he has followed conventions for formatting citations, he has not followed convention of using the citations found to promote the common forms (of anything,) rather instead, has used citations to game the system, promoting only the rarest forms as if they were the most common. Enough, is enough. --Connel MacKenzie 19:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Please prove your accusations that I have deceived people. Yes, I have cited a great many rare things; it is rare entries that most need citation, being as their existence is called into question far more often than the existence of more common entries is — the latter of which often being included due to the far more informal criterion of being in “clearly widespread use”. However, I do not assert that said rare entries are the most common — only that they are used; if you want a perfect example of someone asserting a rare (or, rather, inextant) sense to be the most common, you need only reread all your spoutings concerning usuress. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not an English word, I agree. In English, I've usually heard the singular simply called "an ad hominem argument" or "an argument ad hominem", so calling the plural Latin form "English" is a big stretch. The singular in Latin is a set phrase, and so warrents an entry; idiomaticity is NOT the only criterion for allowing an entry. As the singular warrants an entry, so will its inflected forms. --EncycloPetey 18:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I hang around with a too-intellectual crowd then? Since that particular phrase was used in the office I work in 2 weeks ago as part of an English sentence, and today at lunch, when again the main language is English. It might just be that we're a bunch of intellectual fools, but pointing out that it is used at least in everyday speech by some crazy people. Neskaya 06:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
<joke>And was it pronounced in italics?</joke> Seriously, do you expect that any of your "too-intellectual crowd" does not know it is Latin? --Connel MacKenzie 16:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
LOL, we all know it is Latin, but it was said as easily as if it was English. It's very much every day use, of course, we deal in that sort of stuff and settling disputes between departments and whatnot too, but that is sort of beside the point. Neskaya 06:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand what is funny about this one. The proper designation as Latin vs. English is the basis of this RFV (see line one above and several related RFV nominations.) No one (at least, I think no one) is disputing that this is borrowed into English in certain contexts. I dispute this is considered English, particularly by those who use the phrase. --Connel MacKenzie 17:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
For anyone that would like to misinterpret my above comment: Neskaya is an incredibly kind person, who even laughs at my jokes on IRC. To consider my bad jokes to be genuinely funny, is quite a foreign concept, for me. --Connel MacKenzie 19:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Which phrase? The singular argumentum ad hominem or the plural argumenta ad hominem? --EncycloPetey 07:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Both? Neskaya 06:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

See argumentums ad hominem? –That there is the Latinate phrase, pluralised as a regular English word — proof of naturalisation, nay? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 10:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly does the use italics mean for that phrase, that the pluralization was inadvertent? (And how do you indicate italics on Usenet? AFAIK, you simply can't.) --Connel MacKenzie 17:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
What, Fulke Greville, in 1790, accidentally added an ‘s’ to pluralise the phrase, even though the rest of the sentence agrees in number (“oh, how my argumentums ad hominem would deal about them, were I inclined (as I am not at all) to let them looſe, gentlement, among you!”)? It shows that your “italicisation = not English” argument is not as strong as you argue it to be — or are you going to show me argumentums ad hominem in use in Latin? (Are we to assume that every Usenet writer intends italicisation, just because that function is unavailable for them? And what about the second cite?) † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
To repeat (as you are so unwilling to listen, ever,) it is not my argument. But it is long-standing practice here, despite the opinion of the wave of relatively new supporters you've rallied. Thanks for not answering my question directly. So, you assert then, that his use of the incorrect plural form was just a direct error, then? As for Usenet, since you are trying to prove this is used without italics, a Usenet citation (where such a thing isn't even possible) indeed, is counter to its purpose: providing evidence of use. --Connel MacKenzie 20:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you called a regularly formed English plural incorrect! –That’s a first. I thought I did answer your question with my first sentence; to recapitulate: yes, I think Fulke Greville purposefully used the non-Latinate plural of this phrase — I don’t pretend to know why (I can’t exactly go ask him, now can I?). A Usenet citation is neutral on the issue of italicisation — why ought we to assume that an author would want to use special formatting just because he can’t? Italicisation can indicate many things — emphasis, mention (rather than use), as well as the its pertinent function, xenogenesis (used loosely — foreign origin); all the citations provided show use, and not just mention — the question is whether the phrases being used are English or not — do not try to confuse the two issues. I remind you that you have not addressed the second citation, which is in a medium which permits italicisation, though the author has decided not to use it. The crux, Connel, is this: Is argumentums ad hominem an English phrase? –If so, fine; if not: Is it a Latin phrase? –If not: What is it? –If so: Do you therefore claim that this is a Latin phrase which pluralises according to an unprecedented pattern borrowed from English, despite the fact that there is no evidence that this plural form is used in Latin, and that the only examples of its existence are in an English context? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Technically speaking, the "regularly formed English plural" would be argumentum ad hominems. —RuakhTALK 03:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Not so. Consider attorney generalattorneys general & mother-in-lawmothers-in-lawthey are “regularly formed English plurals”. When phrases are pluralised, the pluralising -s pluralises the pertinent word — it doesn’t act like the enclitic ’s. (Although I don’t doubt that someone out there writes the incorrect argumentum ad hominems to mean multiple personal attacks against a person arguing something; if one means “a personal attack against multiple people arguing something”, then he ought to write argumentum ad homines, plural: argumenta ad homines.) † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 10:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
*sigh* Creating an uncommon and irregular plural for a rare (if existing) word before we even have an article for said rare word. Can you be even more obvious that your only purpose was to push your POV? I would have deleted this on sight, frankly. And all this discussion we always generate at these threads is just more demonstration of the futility of feeding trolls. Dmcdevit·t 10:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I had not created the singular form yet as I wanted to wait for the issue of how we label these kinds of highly-unnaturalised borrowing to be resolved. I want to add all the names of the logical fallacies — my forebearing doing so stems from my desire to act in good faith. What would you have said if I’d gone ahead and added them? –That I was a disruptive editor, crap-loading Wiktionary? Talk about Catch-f’ing-22† Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

nigger rich[edit]

The term is potentially inflammatory, as some of our sysops would like to point out. But why be afraid of it? The anonymous author of the entry stated that

In the 2000 film Boiler Room, Vin Diesel's character is referred to as being Nigger Rich due to spending his new found money lavishly and being "unable to put ten dollars of gas in the tank".

The term is on Urban dictionary (although it is not an authoritative source). The identical combination of words is also present in some book titles: Growing Up Nigger Rich (although I can't be sure if it is the same term, or just a coincidence). All in all, I dunno. --Dart evader 19:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I confess I was relieved when I saw it zapped the first time. The b.g.c. hits didn't look particularly good; secondary sources mixed with obviously inflammatory tripe. The chapter under the heading "usage notes" is unreferenced and could use significant trimming. I don't think it is fair to list the new definition without qualifiers such as {{context|racial slur| pejorative| extremely offensive}}. I also don't think it is wise to encourage open proxies to resubmit obvious garbage. --Connel MacKenzie 20:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I agree with Connel that we need some serious sense-labeling here. Secondly, going through google books:"nigger rich", this isn't the sense I'm seeing. I wonder if the contributor was thinking of hood rich? —RuakhTALK 21:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agatha Christie[edit]

I'm querying whether this really is used as an adjective. The quotation given, "...you couldn't read an Agatha Christie novel because you'll know how and why the butler did it..." doesn't seem to be using it in a sense other than a proper noun. If it is adjectival, then logically so must the names of every other author ever to publish a novel. Thryduulf 22:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right in thinking this might be better treated as an attributive use of the proper noun. --EncycloPetey 22:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep, it's just a plain old attributive noun phrase. StradivariusTV 23:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a tendency among some crime writers to use Agatha Christie as the antonym of hardboiled fiction, (which according to wikipedia "is distinguished by an unsentimental portrayal of crime, violence, and sex"). AC novels are typically less violent and this is the genre the name is used to imply. However, the definition given for literature does not seem accurate, and unexpected twists in the plot are more commonly associated with Jeffery Archer or Sidney Sheldon. In all these cases, the comparison is being made with a particular person, and is not being used generically. I'd say Delete as is, but maybe someone might like to try wording a definition regarding the softboiled fiction as mentioned above.--Dmol 10:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The request here is for verification, not cleanup or deletion. If you would like a rewording of the definition, then we need citations to work from. The only quotation we currently have implies unexpected twists in the way it is used, so that is what the definition says. Whether other authors are more apt to use such twists is irrelevant for the definition of this word. --EncycloPetey 18:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete (Even though that means nothing here.) I agree with Thryduulf's thin-edge-of-the-wedge argument. Pretty much every book has back-cover text that pigeon holes an author into a particular genre. That doesn't make the author definitive for that genre. Even if it did, I don't this it should merit an entry here. Move to RFD? Or wait for it to fail RFV? --Connel MacKenzie 18:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Where the name of an author is used to define a genre or style of writing, the -esque, -like or -ian suffixes are normally used, e.g [1], [2]. These terms should not be added as the suffix can be added to any name, e.g. "Connel MacKenzie-esque", except where they individually meet the CFI (e.g. Pythonesque, Dickensian). Thryduulf 13:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, deleted. —RuakhTALK 21:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

as far as[edit]

First, is this an eggcorn for as for or as to? And if so, does it have any currency? Second, how is as far as I know derived from as far as if the latter means "with respect to"? As far as I know means " to the extent that I know" and has nothing to do with this entry afaIct.—msh210 23:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

See incidentally Special:Whatlinkshere/as for and Special:Whatlinkshere/as far as.—msh210 23:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it's an abbreviation of “as far as [...] is concerned”. Rod (A. Smith) 23:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you seem to be right. I've added cites. That doesn't answer my second problem above.—msh210 00:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


Supposedly, it's “(pejorative) Someone who suffers from diabetes”. I see some references to “'betes” as an abbreviation for “diabetes”, but nothing that supports this sense. Rod (A. Smith) 05:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've searched to cites in groups, books, scholar, and news without meaningful English results. DCDuring 02:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, deleted. —RuakhTALK 21:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


Definition: “(slang) the blogging self; I the blogger”. Rod (A. Smith) 05:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


Definition: “(slang) A knife used as an offensive weapon”. I cannot find any use outside of Urban Dictionary and its followers. By the way, if it seems I am overwhelming the RFV system, let me know and I'll throttle back. I'm trying to get prune some maintenance categories and keep finding dubious entries. Rod (A. Smith) 05:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

hardkill and softkill[edit]

Any takers? Supposed to be nouns, but defined as verbs. Dummy reference sections. SemperBlotto 07:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Do a dogpile.com search and you will find both terms are in use. Please do not assume a term is not in use just because you have not come across it in your fields of endeavour. Andrew8 23:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, and don't worry, no one has made any such assumptions; that's why the entries were brought up here, rather than simply deleted. (If you'd like to help verify that the term meets our criteria for inclusion, you're very much welcome to do so; you might want to read through Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion and Wiktionary:Quotations for an idea of how to do that.) —RuakhTALK 04:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I really don't feel like trying to guess which of the criteria you THINK the words do not meet. I have a better idea! Instead of me having to justify that these words are valid, why don't you justify that they are not. To start with, rather than say "these terms don't meet our criteria", why don't you be more specific as to why they do not meet the criteria and provide evidence? Saying they "don't meet our criteria" is like saying "You broke the law, we won't tell you which one WE think you broke, but you have to prove that you didn't break it." Over to you. Andrew8 21:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
There are only two criteria for inclusion: attestation and, for something that some might consider a simple sum of its parts, idiomaticity. That rule is straight from Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion; that page is devoted to expounding upon that rule. I don't think anyone would say hardkill, defined as the destruction of an incoming munition, or softkill, avoidance of an incoming munition, is not idiomatic (see CFI for why not). So the question is one of finding attestation. I hope that this helps answer your question ("which of the criteria you THINK the words do not meet").—msh210 19:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
There appear to be plenty of google scholar and book hits, so the only criterion they really fail is "can anyone be bothered to add cites". I think jamming would count as softkill so we might need to revise the definition if kept. See also w:Countermeasure. Kappa 00:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


Def is "of or pertaining to crapulence." This seems unlikely enough to require documentation. --Jeffqyzt 19:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  • That is how it is defined in the OED - but tagged as obsolete, rare. SemperBlotto 19:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • crapulent is the primary adjective form (the one that people seem actually to use), so I've changed the link from crapulence to point there. Unfortunately inclusion in the OED isn't sufficient in itself... does anyone have access to the sources they cite? -- Visviva 04:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


Supposed to be a German noun, but doesn't start with a capital letter. (No gender, or plural given) SemperBlotto 21:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

From the b.g.c hits this is clearly a German word although it is always capitalised, and the individual parts (Gedanke m (thought) + Experiment n (experiment)) support the definition given. It appears to be used in English as well - capitalised by some authors and not by others. My take is that uses that capitalise it are using it as a German word in an English context (c.f. #argumenta ad hominem above) whereas those that don't are using it as an English word. Thryduulf 23:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
This has become somewhat standard as a term in physics, as a result of Einstein using them to reason his theories on gravity and relativity. I've also seen the word calqued as "thought experiment", though I cannot readily find either term in the few physics books I own (though my books contain such experiments described, they do not draw specific attention to the term used to describe such experiments). --EncycloPetey 02:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Interesting! I'd encountered "thought experiment" a number of times, but never knew where it came from. :-) —RuakhTALK 02:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing it showed up here because it was featured in a slashdot story yesterday (uncapitalized). wikipedia:Thought experiment also uses the term. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Move and delete redirect. (I know, this isn't RFD, but here we are). Perfectly valid word, but not at this capitalization. -- Visviva 04:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I have converted it to English, but now it needs a proper German entry (with gender and plural). SemperBlotto 08:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

locum tenentes[edit]

Listed as evidence of English naturalization of locum tenens with italicized citations and secondary source. Unclear if cites are English, or just Latin borrowings. --Connel MacKenzie 20:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahem! There was originally one citation which italicised the phrase (the other two did not). This word now has five citations — three of which neither italicise the phrase nor enclose it in quotation marks; of the other two, one italicises it, and the other uses quotation marks for it (however, the latter source also features what I assume to be a new coinage — “locum-tenential” — whose existence, alongside the fact that this word’s been in use in English for centuries, and this word’s being listed in the COED [11th Ed.], kinda suggests that this phrase is naturalised into English by now). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I suppose it's too much to hope that you both might someday stop squabbling over the same issue? We don't currently have any convention for deciding whether a word or phrase has been borrowed into English, and I don't see that these arguments here are accomplishing anything. —RuakhTALK 03:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
That won’t stop Connel asserting that there is one. It is beneficial that I add unitalicised and otherwise unformatted examples of these words’ use when Connel brings them to RFV, despite the fact that they clearly satisfy the CFI as they are presently written. Doing so stops him, a sympathetic editor, or an editor unaware of how shaky his claim that a convention exists is, from wrongly deleting such an entry. In the long term, it may show to all and sundry how unreliable a guide to naturalisation italicisation is. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 10:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think they clearly satisfy the current CFI; all the CFI say on the topic is, "Any word in any language might be borrowed into English, but only a few actually are. Including spaghetti does not imply that ricordati is next (though it is of course fine as an Italian entry)." So, what category are these Latin phrases in? They're certainly used frequently in English contexts, and have distinctive English pronunciations, but no one uses them without recognizing their Latin provenance. The CFI offer no assistance, and the BP discussion I started on the topic did not seem to suggest any consensus. —RuakhTALK 15:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I do wish you wouldn't lie, suggesting I am requesting their deletion. I want them labeled correctly as Latin, not English. --Connel MacKenzie 18:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, that would be deleting the English entry, with the possibility of recreating the page as a Latin entry, assuming the phrase's use in Latin can be verified. (And I wish you wouldn't make a point of trying to goad other editors.) —RuakhTALK 18:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Connel, please refrain from inflammatory comments. Rod (A. Smith) 19:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


Does this make any sense to anybody? Caps? Noun or proper noun? SemperBlotto 21:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It makes a kind of sense, yes. The word Eben-ezer appears three times in the KJV version of I Samuel (1 Sam 4:1, 5:1, and 7:12). The text of 1 Sam 7:12 reads as follows:
Then Samuel took a stone, and set it between Mizpeh and Shen, and called the name of it Eben-ezer, saying, Hitherto hath the LORD helped us.
The Wikisource text has elminated the dash and renders the word as Ebenezer, though that is not the spelling in the printed KJV. Stong's refers the reader to Hebrew entry 72 for a word meaning "stone of the help". --EncycloPetey 21:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


Never heard of it, don't find it in dictionaries, no google hits (except from various wiktionaries) and on top of all, it's spelled very oddly. Possible confused with þráður? --BiT 04:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


Protologism? (three Google hits) (platea is used correctly in the blurb) SemperBlotto 13:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No google books or google scholar hits; 18 google groups hits, however all of them are copies of the same quote, ("I wish to thank you for plateally showing me how shabby you are." -Andrea Beniamino Previtera) which first appears in this message from 25 February 1998 in talk.bizarre. This message starts "First of all, I apologize for my english.

But you know, I am just a poor little italian." (capitalisation as original), which supports the etymology given and suggests that this is truly the first use of the word in English. Send it to WT:LOP but keep the notes about the etymology. Thryduulf 13:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 17:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Meet's CFI's "'Attested' means verified through 1. Clearly widespread use" clause. Anyone Stateside during the Vietnam War knows what a teach-in is. —msh210 18:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the intention of that part of the CFI is "Clearly in current widespread use"; meant for words like "cat", "cleverly", "discriminate", etc.
Speaking as a Brit who was born 5 years after the war ended I've never heard the term. That Connel, an American, brought this to RFV I'm guessing it isn't current in (his part of) the USA either. If it was in widespread use during the Vietnam-era then citations shouldn't be too hard to find. Thryduulf 19:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Now cited further; should satisfy y'all (and CFI). (Although this really was very clearly very widespread Stateside forty years ago.)—msh210 01:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. Thanks, msh210. —RuakhTALK 21:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

public policy[edit]


Def is: To divide or fork into four channels or branches.

Seems reasonable, but I wasn't able to find any cites in Google Books. --Jeffqyzt 19:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Only cite I found after a short search was to U.S. Patent number 4310816's Description. Q.v. (Google "patent 4310816" and a link to the USPTO site should be the first.) (Another use in a blog may not be permanently recorded media: [3].)
Numerous hits on Books and Scholar for "quadfurcated" and "quadfurcation." -- Visviva 03:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


3rd sense (not sure if it should be rfv-sense or rfd-redundant.) --Connel MacKenzie 08:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Or just re-written? --Connel MacKenzie 08:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many different types of irony. DAVilla 12:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
...But this isn't one of them. This sense of irony appears only in the misnamed Alanis Morsette song of that name. The irony of her song Irony is that it contains no irony at all. A better title for her song would be Bummer. --EncycloPetey 20:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


This is an rfv-sense for the definition: A person who enjoys french-kissing in public places, i.e. bars, restaurants and nightclubs.

...seems unlikely to me, but as use would probably be informal and regional, I'll defer to the RFV. --Jeffqyzt 20:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Tosh. SemperBlotto 21:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


Hippietrail tagged “dunelmensis”, saying, “surely this is an adjective rather than a noun?” The same question applies to “dunelm”, its abbreviation. Rod (A. Smith) 01:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really speak Latin, but that looks to me like a noun — or rather, a proper noun — in the genitive case, and not an adjective per se. —RuakhTALK 02:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a adjective. --BiT 02:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Definitely an adjective (even a proper adjective?) - The Sanctuarium Dunelmense et Beverlacense (1507) has a writeup of one of my probable ancestors seeking sanctuary in Durham Cathedral after killing someone with his sword. SemperBlotto 07:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Fourth adjective sense "Unable to rape others.". Thryduulf 11:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Example sentence does not match part-of-speech. Vulgar term deleted until at least one reference can be provided. DAVilla 12:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Claims to be Australian slang, retarded + turd. A half-hearted Google search didn't seem to support this; anyone want to claim it? --Jeffqyzt 19:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

kaypoh etc[edit]

This, and another eight similar were added in seconds in order to claim the 500,000th entry. The language does not have an ISO number. The contributor has not edited before or since and is thought to be Wonderfool (CheckUser requested).

If this, and the others are rejected then the 500,000th entry was rigoler. SemperBlotto 13:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC) NOTE: I am told (by someone who understands these things) that this entry could not have added to the statistics and become the 500,000th entry as it contains no wikification. So it should be judged solely on its merits. i.e. Is Singlish a language? SemperBlotto 16:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So almost certainly not WF; he would know that he'd need to wlink definition words; and he would just use missing English forms not open to dispute ;-) Robert Ullmann 13:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
A quick Google search supports this entry, and suggests that it should have an adjective sense as well (something like "nosy"). That said, I don't know if Singlish is a valid language name here; it seems like these words should be marked English with a {{context|Singlish}} or {{Singapore}} sense label. —RuakhTALK 15:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your NOTE: Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your meaning, but I disagree that keeping this entry is equivalent to judging Singlish to be a language. Singlish definitely exists and might merit the term "language", but might not have this word; and if we don't consider it a language, then Singlish words (such as, perhaps, this one) should be listed as English words with appropriate sense labels. (Personally, my preference is to treat Singlish as a form of English, either as "Singlish" or as "Singaporean English"; and my suspicion is that this word is valid.) —RuakhTALK 18:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
See w:Singlish; I don't think this is/should be a separate language here; note that all of the usage examples there are very much standard English except for the word being explicated. I changed this entry to use English and the {{Singapore}} tag. I think that is probably the way to go. (And wait 'till we get to meh ;-) Robert Ullmann 13:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and this word is valid, and correctly defined. Robert Ullmann 13:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


The English sense listed is for the capitalized “Gog”, so if this is verified, it needs moved. The questionable definition says, “Slang in the 1300's for God”. It's difficult to find citations of this, but based on this, it appears that the contributor of the definition probably took it from a NY times article titled Almost Before We Spoke, We swore [4]. Does anyone have a subscription to the NY Times? Rod (A. Smith) 04:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading that article in the print Times when it appeared, but unfortunately, it seems that I don't have a photographic memory. I'll have to work on that.
I have a bit of difficulty imagining that Gog could be a slang name for G-d, firstly because, well, since when are there slang names for G-d? There are slang variants of G-d's name, but that's not really the same thing. And secondly, because Gog is the name of a character in the Bible; if I recall correctly, Gog and Magog were two Canaanite kings. It's hard to imagine that in a time period when people were fairly well versed in the Bible, they could take the name of a Biblical character, no matter what it sounded like, and use it to refer to G-d.
Also, English (by our definition) didn't exist in the 1300s. If this is real, it should be in a Middle English section.
RuakhTALK 04:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You refer to Gog of Magog in Ezequiel. I'll edit back in a moment with chapter and verse. This is generally understood by Bible students to refer to the Devil himself. So I would strongly dispute any idea that this was ever used as a slang name for G-d. Used as some sort of swear word is probably correct. -- Algrif 10:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)---- Ezekiel ch. 38 and 39
Thanks! :-) —RuakhTALK 18:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a kids' book entitled The Shakespeare [sp?] Stealer, set during Shakespeare's life but written recently. It uses "Gog" as a euphamism for "God". Fwiw.—msh210 02:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was definitely used as a form of God in curses etc. - "by Gog's blood" and that kind of thing. This completely separate from Gog & Magog. Widsith 13:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I would continue to dispute that it is a form of God. I doubt anyone can provide any proof to the contrary. It is most unlikely, given that Gog was well known from the profecies of Ezequiel, and is clearly an enemy of God, as the secundary reference to the same Gog in Revelation (20:8) shows. The only other Gog is a descendent of Ruben (1 Chronicles 5:3) Gog was not a common name outside of the Bible. (Nor even in it!) Meanwhile, any suggestion that it is an alternative, would be very offensive to the many religious groups who accept the writings of Ezequiel as divinely inspired profecies. (Jews. Muslems. Christians) -- Algrif 14:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
There is plenty of proof to the contrary. It was very common in the sixteenth century. The OED has it too: Gog (obs.): A corrupt form of God employed in oaths and gives several dozen citations. Widsith 14:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you can provide thousands of Google hits etc for things like Gog's blood, Gog's teeth, Gog's eyes, or even Gog's pinkie. What you cannot and should not do is declare that the writer / speaker is using Gog to mean God. What? On the basis of a know-nothing journalist and a writer of children's books? Come on! Please! Or are we now going to debate whether the etymology of strewth is in reality from Gog's truth? -- Algrif 09:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The editors of the OED aren't know-nothing journalists. Or are you referring to me? Besides, the OED entry is at least evidence, whereas there is no evidence that it represents anything else. God had lots of corrupt forms used in oaths, including Gog and odd (as in "odd's bodikins" etc). There is nothing contentious about it. Widsith 12:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No. Not personal. I refer to the first entry on this item, about the NY times article. Followed by the reference to the kid's book by Msh210. I don't doubt that there are some corrupt phrases such as "odd's bodikins". But I'm not convinced that any part of Gog's metaphysical "body" used as an oath is anything other than a direct referal to the Biblical Gog. I have not seen what the OED says, but they are also prone to error. I do not object at all to any entry about Gog's blood. But I think any statement as fact that it is without doubt a corruption of God's blood would need some pretty strong corroboration. It is nothing more than an opinion of some, doubted by many others. -- Algrif 13:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
OK mate. Still, the fact remains that we have much evidence that it refers to God, and no evidence that "many others" doubt it - except for you. I'm still not sure why you doubt it exactly? The quotes on the OED refer to "Gog's wounds", "Gog's bread" (ie the eucharist), "Gog's sacrament" and even "Gog in heaven", none of which could feasibly refer to the biblical Gog & Magog. Widsith 13:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It is hard to imagine Shakespeare and his printer being so bold as to directly have appear in print the kinds of oaths we are discussing if they were unambiguously referring to G-d. Using "Gog" may have been a clever way for him to convey a strong oath and yet escape sanctions: defensible in terms of Biblical reference, yet ambiguous and daring. The same might have been true for ordinary English speakers. The citations alone don't seem to get us to a conclusion. Have any scholars gotten at this in accessible works? DCDuring 00:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Another theory holed by scholars and citatons. Scholars seem to have agreed that there are many uses of increasingly coarse substitutes for G-d in English literature, used by everyone from Kings and Queens, possibly excluding some of the clergy and some womern and children. The entry under Gog looks all too accurate. DCDuring 00:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


I can only find capitalized versions of this used in the name of several US conservation organizations. Any wider usage? (Needs a proper definition) SemperBlotto 07:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —RuakhTALK 02:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

conspiracy theory[edit]

The last two definitions listed are essentially idiosyncratic usages of the first two, not definitions. Would like to see examples of these from published works. Please see talk page. Blueboar 22:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Frequently on wikipedia some editors inappropriately revert or remove cited information with the check in comment "X is a conspiracy theory", this is proof the phrase is used negatively. See the talk page. Hollow are the Ori 22:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how that counts for the purposes of wiktionary's verifiability policy. SamBC 23:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The criteria for verification is listed at the top of this page. Usage on Wikipedia edit summaries is not sufficient. The "usage note" appears to be an essay by the editor. Will Beback 23:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As a further note, I'm not sure (from reading notes and stuff) that RfV is the right place for this - no-one is disputing the inclusion of the term. SamBC 23:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if I can find a more experienced user who could offer guidance on how to proceed. Will Beback 23:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
RFV is good enough for me, since it is indeed the last two senses for which verification is being sought. I was about to convert it to {{rfv-sense}} but Ruakh got there first. Dmcdevit·t 00:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Ruakh and Dmcdevit, for the clarification and tagging. Is there a similar tag or process (or is this the process to use) for usage notes? SamBC 00:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Although this (RFV) is normally used for definitions, it can be used for usage notes if they need verifying (for factual accuracy, or similar). If they need cleaning up (reformating, improved wording, condensed, or forced into some semblence of order) then Requests for cleanup is the better place. Thryduulf 00:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I will add my thanks as well.... and while you are at it... could you also check on the second definition (the fiction genre)? I am not sure that this actually exists as a word. I think I know what is being referred to... there are novels, movies and other works of fiction that deal with conspiracy as a plot thread (Dan Brown's novels come to mind)... and some of them tie into existing conspiracy theories (the movie National Treasure for example)... but does anyone actually call such works "conspiracy theory fiction" or something similar? This seems to be another usage of the primary definition. Blueboar 00:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Given all that, could we also talk about both of the usage notes. Leaving aside the fact that the second one is written like an essay, which I'm tempted to clean up to extract essential lexicographic points, I'm not sure that there's reliable evidence backing up this note, while the first is similarly dubious. SamBC 00:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I like Ruakh's edits, I think there are still some concerns with how much support there is for some claims, even with my edits added on. I'll ponder this a bit. SamBC 01:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


Really? Widsith 08:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be a product name from the company size of a man (all one word, put com at the end and www at the front, I don't feel like they need an ad here). 10 total google hits about this product only. Surely this doesn't meet cfi under anyone's interpretation. ArielGlenn 08:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, deleted. Widsith 08:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


Plural of unknown singular. OCR error? Any takers? SemperBlotto 09:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

(Thanks to Google books) it appears to be an alternate form of deyes (see dey). Do I know the singular? Nope.:-) But a lot of books do quote the source text with that same spelling. So at least, it's not an OCR issue. ArielGlenn 09:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
OK - thanks. I have now found it in the OED as an alternative spelling of dey. Fixed (and simplified). SemperBlotto 09:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

street beat[edit]

Any takers? (needs formatting) SemperBlotto 21:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


Supposed to be English, but not in any English dictionary I can find. SemperBlotto 21:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

User Ma-Shiou has changed it to Mandarin. --EncycloPetey 20:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


rfv-sense: a whirlwind off the Faeroe Islands. Widsith 15:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's verbatim the definition given by the Official Scrabble Player's Dictionary, Third Edition and […], Fourth Edition. So, probably a copyvio. —RuakhTALK 17:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Any non-mention cites for it though? Widsith 08:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted due to copyvio concerns. —RuakhTALK 20:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


Supposedly, “Someone who decorates a house with a large amount of Christmas lights”. Citations seem to lack independence. All the ones I find appear to originate from http://houseblinger.com. Rod (A. Smith) 19:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, we deleted "houseblinging" as unverified a few months ago. bd2412 T 02:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

RfV failed. Three months on, all google hits still lead back to that commercial website. No currency; deleted. bd2412 T 02:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


Any takers? --Connel MacKenzie 21:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Taken. Please see entry for more citations. HowardBGolden 07:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain that all of the citations there meet our "durably archived" criterion, see [[5]] (shortcut: WT:CFI) for more on this. Our style guide for formatting quotations is located at Wiktionary:Quotations (shortcut: WT:QUOTE). Thryduulf 13:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I have reformatted the entry and used only citations to print publications. However, I haven't confirmed that the printed versions of these publications actually contained the quoted articles. Instead, I have taken them from the publications' websites. Is this sufficient? HowardBGolden 23:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
If it seems probable that these quotes were in the print publications — as in, the Web site is really just an online extension of a print publication, and there's no particular reason to think that the article in question only appeared online — then I think it's O.K. (though not ideal). The bigger problem here is that those quotes aren't all independent: four of them are all by the same guy. —RuakhTALK 00:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. I added another quote by a third author. There's also an off-Broadway play but I guess that doesn't have the permanence you are looking for. I'm just about out of quotations from print sources except reprints. If this isn't enough, I'd ask you to reconsider your criteria, since this word seems to me to be quite well known in the stock market based on the wide circulation of articles quoted above. HowardBGolden 01:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


Sense of: "Someone who avoids effort or work."

Sense of: "Someone who accepts and learns from previous errors to become a better person."

DAVilla 23:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, senses removed, thanks. —RuakhTALK 02:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


Questionable sense: “The ability to know the diffirence between right and wrong”. Was the anon contributor perhaps confusing “morale” with “morals”? Rod (A. Smith) 02:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect definition removed. Added link to -pedia. SemperBlotto 07:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


The b.g.c. seem to all be secondary sources. (Ahem!) --Connel MacKenzie 04:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Tosh. Deleted SemperBlotto 07:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


User: is adding a lot of unusual verb forms as, for instance, in spin (spin (third-person singular simple present spins, present participle spinning, simple past spun or span, past participle spun)). Some of them strike me as obsolete or archaic, others as dialectal, and others I have never heard of (he span a web?). Is this the appropriate way to list these nonstandard forms? —Stephen 17:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If they are non-standard then they should definitely be marked as such on their entry, and ideally link to the present standard form (as a synonym perhaps?). I think that in the inflection line they could be marked as (nonstandard) or (archaic) as appropriate (if one form is archaic and dialectual then it might be better to mark the other as (standard)).
In the specific case, I don't see anything wrong with either "He span a web" or "He spun a web" ("He has span a web" is however wrong). Thryduulf 22:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I have been bothered by this as well - but can't tell if he is playing the fool or being serious (but at times misguided). Need help. SemperBlotto 07:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
"span" as past of spin is archaic, but also used (not sure if written) in Australia, see w:Phonological_history_of_English_short_A#Bad-lad_split. Haven't look at other contribs. Robert Ullmann 16:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not certain it is only archaic in UK English. In most sentences I can think of "span" and "spun" are interchangeable as a simple past form (span is never used as a past participle). There is some difference between the two (possibly related to "span" placing slightly more of an emphasis on the spinning than "spun") however I can't quite put it into words at the moment. I'll keep thinking though. Thryduulf 23:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
This reminds me of a little rhyme frm my childhood:- When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman? I suspect some good quotes can be found. Algrif 17:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


Afrikander is a breed of cattle, but is it also known as Afrikaner, as is currently suggested? Hekaheka 20:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Afrikaner and Africander/Afrikaner --BigBadBen 20:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Convinced. Removed rfv-tag. Hekaheka 23:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


Isn't this a misspelling of tinder box? Also, the first definition itself seems wrong; it shouldn't contain flint or steel. And shouldn't 2 & 3 be combined? --Connel MacKenzie 05:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've not got time to look into the definitions, but b.g.c searches for "tinderbox" and "tinder box" get 830 and 1123 hits respectively. Without looking further, I'd say with more than a third of the uses the single word form is an alternative spelling. Thryduulf 08:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
2 & 3 cannot be combined, because a dangerous situation can also be something else than a danger of fires (e.g. a political situation). The German translation for 3 is idiomatic. Pulverfass (powder keg) implies the danger of an explosion, not a fire, so it cannot be used for a dry forest. --Zeitlupe 16:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
(Not that it really matters, but what is b.g.c ? It isn't in Wiktionary -- SGBailey 22:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC))
It's books.google.com; it's where we generally get our word-verifying quotations from. —RuakhTALK 23:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Is this still up for deletion/move/merge/whatever? It's been more than a month, and it's still here. If more is needed, here's what I found:
I know (other) dictionaries aren't evidence in themselves, but all of the recent American dictionaries I can find (including my hardcopy current American Heritage and MW online) list tinderbox as the primary spelling, while British and older US dictionaries (including my recent compact EOD and the 1913 Webster) use the two-word variant (and a pocket OED doesn't even list the one-word version).
And I know news cites aren't very good, because they tend to expire. But there are a good number of (US, UK and other) uses of both spellings for both figurative senses. (There are a handful of hyphenated citations as well; at least the first ten are either from Canada, or from early in the 20th century--but one of these is the only company I could find that actually sells literal tinderboxes online.)
Turning to Usenet and the web, nearly all top hits for either spelling are for software (Mozilla's automated blame-assigner and Eastgate's note-taking utility) or companies (tobacconists, fireplace specialists, etc.) using the name. Nearly all of these use the single-word spelling--but one notable exception is "The Tinder Box," owners of tinderbox.com.
At any rate, both spellings and both metaphorical meanings are clearly live, which is enough to keep them, I'd think. And the primary meaning, while its use in the literal sense seems to be restricted to medieval fantasy novels and RPGs (except for that Newfoundland company that sells actual, literal tinderboxes), nevertheless seems to be live enough to form new metaphors, ranging from the Eastgate software to the spicy-foods section of a menu I found on my door. I'd suspect, however, that the Mozilla software (whose name is a bizarrely confused metaphor--something that keeps explosive fires from getting out of control) is actually referenced more times per day than any of the mainstream meanings.
If it's important to sort out which spelling is primary, I'm not sure how to argue for it, but here's what I'd suspect: A century ago, the two-word spelling was primary everywhere, and the hyphenated spelling more common than the one-word. But today, the one-word spelling is primary in the US, with the two-word spelling a common alternative; the two-word spelling is primary in the UK and the rest of the world, but the one-word spelling is a more common alternative, and has almost completely displaced the hyphenated (except in Canada, where things are, as always, confusing). Brits seem to use the "explosive" meaning more than Americans, while Americans seem to use the less-figurative "flammable" meaning more than Brits (perhaps because large parts of America are covered with dry brush? it's often Texas, the Los Angeles basic, the Mojave, etc. that are called tinderboxes). If you need actual numbers to back up these guesses, I don't have them. -- 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Supposedly, it's a pretend indian. Dubious, but hard to be sure because the Spanish word pretender (“to intend”) gets in the way. Rod (A. Smith) 06:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

complex system[edit]

Definition 1 seems to be sum of parts. Definitions 2 and 3 seem to refer to complexity not complex system. SemperBlotto 07:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm just in the process of rewritting the complex system article on Wikipedia, and talking about this on the talk page. The definitions I stated here in Wiktionairy are the assumption I made there. They are just like the definitions I recently stated here about systems theory and systems engineering.
The thing is that in the field of systems theory some of the essential terms (like I just brought in) are not well defined. The defintions I gave are ment as a codification: An attempt to define the field. Now I haven't verified those definitions. And I'm not sure what you ment by verfification of terms used in a cloudy field? I'm depending here on my own experiences, that this field is in need of clear definitions.
But you asking for verification of the meanings of complex systems.
  • first a special kind of system
  • second a paradigm
  • third a field of science
Now you agree with the first.
The second definition can be found in the recent scholarpedia article, see [6]. The article is called complex system and starts with complexity. The autor presumes here that those two are the same. Otherwise they would have called the whole article complexity.
About the third definition we had a mayor discussion around the renaming of the Wikipedia category complex systems to complex systems theory. I would like to give the question back here. Where did you get the idea that they call the whole field complexity and not complex systems? I believe you that there are authors naming the field the one and the other. But explicitely complexity and not complex systems? - Mdd 12:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
On second thought SemperBotto is (probably partly) right: The specific field of science and the paradigm are called complexity... and they are also called complex systems. But on the other hand an expert in the field told me yesterday. [7]: ... But as far as technical, scientific meanings go, "complexity" and "complex system" are so close in meaning that they are effectively the same thing.
I guess a thing I can do now is, create an article complex systems here, with cross references to complex system and complexity!? - Mdd 08:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Definitions 2 and 3 removed. Problem solved. - Mdd 22:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


Verb sense 4 ?? -- Algrif 16:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The first thirty results currently on bgc for "well forget you" include six which might, on a cursory glance, be as insulting ejaculations; I didn't check carefully, but if attestation is the issue, I suspect you're fine. I'm not sure what the meaning is, though: is it a euphemism for "fuck" or is it simply the word "forget"? (Incidentally, I don't think forget you is a set phrase; it's used with "him" too.)—msh210 19:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Personally, 1) I've never thought of forget you / him / etc as a euphemism for f***. And 2. I'm not at all happy with the definition as it stands, even if it is an insulting ejaculation. I believe it is very mild... more a dismissal. Ignore him. That kind of thing. -- Algrif 10:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it is - this is how the BBC used to dub swearing when it went out before 10pm. "Fuck you!" would routinely become "forget you!" because it matched the lip synch better. Widsith 11:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Sense 4 is not a usage I have ever heard in the UK. -- SGBailey 22:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Christmas cracker[edit]

Any takers? --Connel MacKenzie 16:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a very common word on this side of the pond at least, but I'll try and find time shortly to cite it if you so wish. If instead you are questioning whether it is a sum of parts, then I think it is, but it is a set phrase and should be kept on that basis. Thryduulf 22:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I've actually pulled one at an imitation-British Christmas party. We had them specially imported for the occasion. It's a standard for a UK Christmas. --EncycloPetey 23:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I cannot believe these don't exist in the States! I could have sworn I'd seen them in films there or something.. Widsith 10:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, but I've never seen or heard of them before. We do have party poppers which seem to be similar, single short tubes, but those are only for children's birthday parties. --Connel MacKenzie 17:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:- Christmas cracker. -- Algrif 11:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd never heard of them. (Granted, I don't celebrate Christmas, but I think I do have a fair idea of how Christmas is celebrated here by those who do.) When I saw this discussion, my first thought was that "Christmas cracker" was a derogatory term for a white Santa. —RuakhTALK 16:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I do celebrate Christmas, but I had the same general notion when seeing this term. :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 17:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added a link to Wikipedia. I'll give it a better definition when I've got some time. SemperBlotto 16:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Definitely UK/Commonwealth, not US. I have tagged it as such. Robert Ullmann 16:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Good enough for me. Thanks all. --Connel MacKenzie 17:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


Oscar Wilde sense. --Connel MacKenzie 17:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


Questionable sense: “able to transport something”. Rod (A. Smith) 21:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  • No, that is wrong. I wonder who added it in the first place (oops). SemperBlotto 21:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sense deleted, thanks. —RuakhTALK 22:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


What's an "Internet code"? (Yes, I know, 3166.)

So do we want to duplicate .za at ZA? Do people use this kind of abbreviation in print? Cynewulf 17:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall ever seeing country code TLDs in uppercase, except as an error. --Connel MacKenzie 18:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned deep in the depths of a random talk page, I think ZA should have {{see|.za}} on line one. But the ccTLDs shouldn't exist as capitalized entries, per se. --Connel MacKenzie 00:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
It's been around 35 hours since I last heard Cynewulf chime in. I want to add {{see|.za}} and the like to the pages like ZA and add .za if it isn't there for all of the 192 UN member states, the observer states, and the non-decolonized territories. I'll do something else for awhile first, to give time for Cynewulf to respond to see if that would be agreeable. Thecurran 08:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to fear that no one has shown you Wiktionary:Be bold in updating pages? :-) —RuakhTALK 15:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. In situations like this where you are unsure of conventions, a brief note as above in one of the public discussion pages should be adequate. I just now clarified the documentation of {{see}} to explain that linking to punctuation-differentiated entries is a good thing. Note, though, that the lemma entry for the TLD belongs at “.za”. So, if “ZA” is found to be an alternative form of “.za”, it would be best to avoid duplication and limit the TLD info at “ZA” to a single definition line using {{alternative form of}}. Rod (A. Smith) 17:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 18:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Seems OK to me - I wonder if it is just UK. The typical use in computing would be a noddy program that just says "Hello World". SemperBlotto 21:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I added three perfectly good uses of this word to wiktionary. There were almost immediately removed by MacK. Why? And does the RFV apply to the deleted 3 entries or to the entire page? There can be no justification for deleting the page unless wiktionary has given up being a dictionary with common words in it. It would be as sensible to remove, say, "rooster". -- SGBailey
    • The tern should have been a noun (I shall add it). The character would be at Noddy (if it met our CFI). The third definition is unknown to me - you might like to find a reference. SemperBlotto 22:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

chacun à son goût[edit]

Claimed to be English as well as French. --Connel MacKenzie 18:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

So claims Encarta [8]. 22:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. That helps, but doesn't attest it for en.wiktionary. Here is {{nosecondary}}:

Please see the description of what the request for verification process is for, at the top of this page. The purpose is not fact-checking, but to verify whether a sense meets our criteria for inclusion. "Occurrence in other dictionaries" is not one of our criteria. The word usage is there, not "listing" and was put there very intentionally. Blindly copying from other dictionaries leaves us vulnerable to copyright violations, allegations of copyright violation, Nihilartikels and invalid appeals to authority. Referring to other dictionaries is fine to clarify (or even correct) a definition. But other dictionaries are not valid citations for a request for verification.

--Connel MacKenzie 00:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, this request for verification is for the English section only, right? Or is there also a question about the French sense? Rod (A. Smith) 00:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have come across this dozens of times in English texts. Whether or not that makes it an English phrase is part of a whole other argument. Widsith 14:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I feel that the French section is much more disputable than the English section. Possibly an old-fashioned French phrase? The modern French phrase is chacun ses goûts. Lmaltier 12:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Excellent point, in French this is now archaic. Widsith 13:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


Def given is: A yiddish dish consisting of elbow macaroni, ground beef, onions, and cheddar cheese soup and america cheese. Similar to Hamburger Macaroni from Hamburger Helper, but homemade and baked.

No google hits. --Jeffqyzt 20:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Tosh. deleted on sight. SemperBlotto 21:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

good morning[edit]

Noun sense: An exercise performed by bending forward at the waist and then returning to a standing posture. --Connel MacKenzie 20:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A selection of citations. The capitalization is the result of emphasis in books where all exercise names are capitalized. --EncycloPetey 19:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • 1995 — Kurt, Mike, and Brett Brungardt, The Complete Book of Butt and Legs, p.135
    Exercise: Good Mornings
  • 1996 — Edward Connors, Michael J. B. McCormick, Peter Grymkowski, & Tim Kimber, The Gold's Gym Encyclopedia of Bodybuilding, p.185
    This is the reasoning behind including deadlifts, stiff-legged deadlifts, hyperextensions, and good mornings in the leg section.
  • 1998Arnold Scharzenegger, The New Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding, p.354
    Later, to Deadlifts you'll add other back exercises such as Hyperextensions and Good Mornings.
  • 2002Bob Paris, Prime: The Complete Guide to Being Fit, Looking Good, Feeling Great, p.104
    Performed on a special bench, the bending and straightening at the waist is similar to Good Mornings and safer for someone with lower-back problems.


Questionable sense added by anon (and reformatted by me): “# (New England) angry”. Rod (A. Smith) 02:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


Questionable sense: “# (Wiktionary usage; of terms and usage) Still in use, but generally only by older people, and considered unfashionable or superseded, particularly by younger people.” I don't think we use this term and, even if so, wouldn't this sense just belong in Appendix:Glossary? Rod (A. Smith) 04:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

hell yes[edit]

--Connel MacKenzie 04:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


This rfv-sense is to challenge the claim that cmavo has been naturalized into English. Rod (A. Smith) 05:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh #$%@, I hope you kept a log of the IRC conversation from last night. I hereby release my comments of that conversation under the GFDL. --Connel MacKenzie 18:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Not in the OED or any other English dictionary that I have access to (and the next). Mind you, the OED hasn't got an entry for Lojban either. SemperBlotto 21:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I expect we'd have to Find a book in English about Lojban in order to find citations. I found a few things suggesting it's possible, though these aren't durably archived. --EncycloPetey 00:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for looking for cites. Note that the author of the first link above seems aware that cmavo is not English because the text uses a different font for cmavo. Rod (A. Smith) 00:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


As with above, this rfv-sense challenges the claim that gismu is English. Rod (A. Smith) 05:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


There are google books hits, but mainly just citing things the author had heard. Nadando 19:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


The English sense is questionable: “# (slang, derogatory) stupid and/or homosexual. Generally used in conjuction with l33t speak. The term originated on IRC and internet forums in reference to a user who would troll with offensive and homosexual content. Eventually the term became widespread at offline events such as LAN parties.” Rod (A. Smith) 23:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


The usage notes say, “This word is current slang and has no written citations as yet.” Rod (A. Smith) 00:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that's true it doesn't belong in Wiktionary (as yet, if ever). Simple as that. RobbieG 20:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


Is this right? --Connel MacKenzie 03:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Seemingly. The term gets well over a hundred hits on b.g.c., and more than half seem to be in this sense. —RuakhTALK 03:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


Scottish perhaps, but English? --Connel MacKenzie 03:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

leadership-industrial complex[edit]

--Connel MacKenzie 14:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

0 hits on scholar, news, groups, blogsearch. 1 hit, different sense on b.g.c.. WP article deleted. 106 web hits, but searching "leadership-industrial-complex -leadership-epidemic" gets only 7 hits, ALL but one of which are WP and other on-line references. The one is the same as the B.G.C. book, different sense. This is not real. DCDuring 03:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


Prison sense. —RuakhTALK 16:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


Other dictionaries don't seem to list this. Any takers? --Connel MacKenzie 06:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a huge francophile, but Afrique-> A/africain(e) & Amérique-> A/américain(e) would seem to indicate that Antarctique-> A/antarcticain(e) could be an appropriate extension but currently isn't. Antarctique means both Antarctic and Antarctica. Antarctica is founded in Neo-Latin and as French is a modern Romance language, its example should be instructive. Spanish, another Romance language, has África-> africano/a, América-> americano/a, & Antártic/da-> antártico/a. In the end, English spoken in the Australian Antarctic Territory, Spanish spoken in the Provincia Antártica Chilena, & French spoken in the Territoire des Terres australes et antarctiques françaises all contribute to their respective dictionaries variants of antarctic as the only appropriate adjective and, in the Spanish case, the only noun for its inhabitants. As such, I think Antarctican should only be preserved as a neologism that may yet be used once people are born Antarctically en masse as a noun for those people. BTW, please cf w:Antarctic Treaty System for the PC view of these regions. Thecurran 07:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Cited, noun and adj. DAVilla 09:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The more common, standard, adjective form is Antarctic itself, as in [the] Antarctic treaty (1M googles), Antarctic penguins (27K googles), Antarctic ice (955K googles) etc. As usual, the Doremitzer form is some non-standard oddity. Robert Ullmann 00:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
But one that meets the CFI. bd2412 T 02:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. WT:CFI does not disqualify terms based on grudges. Rod (A. Smith) 02:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
what "grudge"? the only point is that as usual it is a rare(r), non- or less- standard, usually illiterate form ;-). Yes, it meets CFI. So does campi ;-) Robert Ullmann 02:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Not quite; he added a noun sense that seems to be perfectly standard (though I'll grant you "oddity"); it's you who added the non-standard (but CFI-passing) adjective sense. —RuakhTALK 02:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It's just that we describe -ic as an adjective suffix. There are very few -ic nouns outside of non-IUPAC chemical terms, which are being phased out anyway. All I can think of now are mechanic, turmeric, alembic, esoteric, Neolithic, antipruritic, manic, dichromatic, patronymic, and -phobic. All of these terms bar the first two are rare. These are mostly adjective forms and some even have other noun forms like -phobe for -phobic. Because -ic is thoroughly ingrained as adjectival in English, it seems Antarctican would be the natural neologistic noun, but it doesn't have much need to be used yet. Mebbe I'm wrong, & my newbie-ness's showin'. (; Thecurran 06:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
For context, the above comment said this at the time of my post: “[...] I don't understand how it meets the Criteria For Inclusion. I thought that it would be included on the list of protologisms, until there are actually enough people born in Antarctica to merit discussion about them in mainstream media. [...] it seems Antarctican would be a natural protologism, but nobody really uses it yet and it doesn't have a need to be used yet. [...]”
Did you read the entry? The cites span seventy-two years, so it is clearly not a protologism. CFI is not about whether people should use the term but whether they do use the term. Rod (A. Smith) 06:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
English actually has a bunch of nouns in -ic; in addition to those you mention, I can think of a number of fairly common nouns, such as magic, medic, paramedic, public, plastic, mystic, and rhetoric, as well as some somewhat less common nouns like chiropractic, agnostic, and hypocoristic. —RuakhTALK 02:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right. I was way out of line. I refreshed my browser, realized my mistake & rv'd my posting minutes after I put it out. You can check the history. So very sorry. Thecurran 06:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
No, you were not out of line. You're clearly unfamiliar with this process and I should be more patient. This is just one component of a poorly handled situation and I should not have been so short in my response to you. Sorry. Rod (A. Smith) 07:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Not out of line, just no as ingenuous as we'd like to keep the conversation. Rodasmith isn't saying you can't take something back, he was just explaining why he wrote what he did. I often change my edits shortly after posting, maybe too often, but if it changes the meaning substantially then I try to highlight it. On the other hand, you edited it after he had already replied. :? Heh. Use <s>strikethrough</s> or comment ''edit''. DAVilla 03:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed in all senses. —RuakhTALK 02:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

no probs[edit]

"S"? --Connel MacKenzie 15:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is in widespread use. Will get some cites.--Dmol 15:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Two book cites now added.--Dmol 07:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I added one more to round out the three required citations. Rod (A. Smith) 15:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, now a cited entry for no prob. DCDuring 01:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

all together[edit]

Google News archive search for "he was all together" yields no results with this sense. Bgc yields three. Of these, the last (from Congress) is a transcription of spoken words, so I don't know if it counts; the second (Memoirs of a Dutch Mudsill) has "all-together" with the hyphen at the end of a line, so who knows what's meant?; and the first (Samadhi) seems to be quoting another source but gives no citation.—msh210 19:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

chotskie [edit]

--Connel MacKenzie 20:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I have heard this as Yiddish /tʃatʃkə/. I don't know how it's spelled in Yiddish, but in English I've seen it7 as tchotchke if I recall correctly. I have never seen this spelling, not that that means anything.—msh210 20:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
There two synonyms צאַצקע (tsatske) and טשאַטשקע (tshatshke), both meaning trinket, toy, bauble. —Stephen 02:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The RfVd definition says it is a commercial "gift" of little value. Assuming that chotskie is an alternate spelling of "tshatshke", I didn't think the "commercial gift" aspect will stand up to verification. 2 Groups hits WOULD support this (by accident), but the sole g.b.c. hit is German (snippet only). I'm guessing it's a proper name. No Scholar, News, Blog hits. DCDuring 01:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
All of the other 3 alternate spellings of tchotchke get at least 9 g.b.c. hits, some from dictionaries. I think that this one will not be missed. DCDuring 01:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Failed rfv. Striken. Deleted. DCDuring TALK 15:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 05:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly believe this word is comes from the propagation of a neologistic misspelling of mimsy from All mimsy were the borogroves... in w:Lewis Carroll's w:the Jabberwocky. I studied a fair bit of general relativity and quantum mechanics. I love the way neologisms there take poetical words out of context to explain difficult subject matter foreign to everyday experience in way that just seems to fit. I find the example of quark from ...A quantum quark for muster mark... in w:James Joyce's w:Finnegan's Wake an excellent example of how such a nonce word can become a legitimite entry in any dictionary and the standard term for those important sub-nucleonic particles. Mimsy feels right. I'd still like to see how it started getting used and that it actually gets spelled correctly. Thecurran 06:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —RuakhTALK 17:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


Questionable sense: “# (Santa Clara, California) (slang): winning against a national champion by the opponent rolling tails ten or more straight times.” Rod (A. Smith) 06:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No, perfect sense. Indeed, while many other examples could be cited, this is the penultimate Wiki difinitive example of a donk, or donking, and should be herewith considered verified. —This unsigned comment was added by PokeDad (talkcontribs).

erm, I'm sorry, but I don't understand either what that comment means, or how it relates to the definition quoted by Rod? Thryduulf 09:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense deleted. —RuakhTALK 17:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


Word invented by a company of the same name. Protologism? Caps? (biopharmaceutical, biopharmaceutics and biopharmacology are fine however) SemperBlotto 13:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

delete with prejudice! --Williamsayers79 14:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I’ve seen pharmaca used before, although rarely (plural of pharmacon from Greek φάρμακο). See, e.g., w:Arndt-Schulz rule. —Stephen 14:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as spam (see external links!) --Connel MacKenzie 15:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


What is the correct spelling? --Connel MacKenzie 23:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is at w:dua, although it uses that spelling only on two other occasions (once in a quote), preferring the spelling "du'a" (w:du'a redirects to w:dua).
b.g.c searches favour dua islam (1327) over du'a islam/du'a' islam (677 - Google does not differentiate between the two forms. The results page snippets seem about even). The latter b.g.c hits also find the less common spelling "du-a".
b.g.c searches for dua arabic (671) and du'a arabic/du'a' arabic (654, distributed approximately evenly) are about even.
based on these, I'd venture that there is no "correct" spelling but three common spellings ("dua", "du'a" and "du'a'") and one uncommon spelling ("d-ua"). Thryduulf 00:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The first apostrophe is for the letter ʿayn (ع‎), and the second is the hamza or glottal stop (ء‎). In one popular convention, they are written this way: "du‘a’" or "duʿa’". —Stephen 23:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


Any takers? --Connel MacKenzie 01:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you never had the joy of eating a snickerdoodle? It's one of my favorite cookies, and I see it's already been cited. --EncycloPetey 14:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the citations. No, I don't think I've ever has one. --Connel MacKenzie 01:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
You might get the chance to try the ones sold by Pepperidge Farm. They're awful. Find someone who can make them from scratch. --EncycloPetey 02:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


This word does not appear valid under the intend of CFI because the quoted Usenet posts make it clear that the author means "Mac"+"tard". The following copied from Talk:Mactard:

From [9]:

Lyle is a fucktard.
>b. problems with formatting (I run Mac, QFAC PC and there were
>formatting problems in the conversion that I had to make corrections on
>after I got back into town and sent her the corrections).
Lyle is also a Mactard who should have learned his lesson from the
last book.

The problem with that quotation is that no reader would ever be confused about that "Mactard" means, because the words "fucktard" and "Mac" appear shortly before an insult using the word "Mactard".

From [10]:

>> Why would they go after KaZaA users when people are posting whole CDs
>> on the usenet?
> Because any 'tard can manage to download stuff off of Kazaa.
Except us Mactards.

As with the previous quote, the word 'tard appears shortly before "Mactard" in a context about choice of software placeforms.

From [11]:

BTW, you Mactards keep claiming Mac is a Unix (which it isn't), so....when
will you Unix guys settle on one "distro"? I mean, that's what you and
Oxtard are telling us Linux guys to do isn't it? So, when will you guys do

Here, the word "Mac" is used in the same insulting sentence as "Mactard". No reader would wonder what "Mactard" means.

I believe the quotations should be removed and this entry deleted because all readers who encounter "Mactard" will understand from the context that it means "Mac tard". Rod (A. Smith) 21:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

How is that compatible with the aim to include "all words in all languages"? The quotes verify that this is a word and so should be included. Thryduulf 22:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "all words in all languages" is a great slogan, but it is vague enough that it cannot weed out the billions of infrequent typos, nonce words, and protologisms that would overwhelm our project. So, for practical purposes, WT:CFI refines that catch phrase with a general rule: "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means." More specific criteria further elaborate on the general rule, but the spirit includes weeding out words like ipodnerd, which has 103 Google hits, but need not have an entry because few if any people would come across the word and wonder what it means. Rod (A. Smith) 23:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's a fair rule, given that Dutchman survived RFD. Anyways, "Mactard" looks like a surname, doesn't it? Plus, that's what context labels are for. DAVilla 22:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. Now that you mention it, "Mactard" does look like a surname, so perhaps people who run across it would wonder what it means. Rod (A. Smith) 04:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


This is the second time through for this word. Like "Mactard", this word appears always to be used in contexts that make it clear to the reader that it means "Win" + "tard". Each quotation whose context ensures that readers will know what it means should be removed. Rod (A. Smith) 21:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This comment makes no sense at all. Eclecticology 01:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I think everyone else reading understand what I meant, but for your benefit, I'll try to explain more clearly. The basic principle of CFI is to include a term if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means. All the readers who run across the given quotations for "wintard" and "Mactard" will know what those terms mean because of the context. So, nobody is likely to "run across the term and want to know what it means." Is that any more clear, or is it just that you don't agree with what I'm saying? (And yes, you may point out that the basic principle of CFI does not stipulate conditions for exclusion, but only conditions for inclusion.) Rod (A. Smith) 04:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all good quotations should never be removed, and as to your point, it looks like we'd need to not only verify but create in the first place Win = “Windows (operating system)”.
However, per verification, it looks like we're a quotation short. The blog is a joke that unfortunately doesn't show the same use, and regardless it and Urban Dictionary are not durably archived. I'm unable to find any other Usenet quotations that would be considered independent, and anyways it's preferable to have at least one in print. No Google book hits, no Amazon.com hits (aside from a scan-o), none of the three computing journals in this list, althout if the list were expanded we might find what's needed. DAVilla 22:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Whether a separate entry is needed for Win- (not Win) is a debatable point. As we are dealing here with a word that is a portmanteau or blend it is not unusual that such a formation should only use part of a word.
People seem to forget the basic principle of CFI: "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means." Having 3400 Google hits is more than enough to establish that the word is in widespread use without going into a lot of contortions about what constitutes a valid citation, and without having to rely on the non-existent criterion that something must be durably archived, except perhaps in relation to audio-visual material that are not a part of this discussion. Eclecticology 01:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Who are you, and how did you get Eclecticology's password? --Connel MacKenzie 01:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess that wasn't as funny as it was intended. I would not use the term "inclusionist" to describe the Ec I remember. And never in a million years, would that same person make the argument that web search results counted for anything. --Connel MacKenzie 02:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
That is, first of all, an extremely bold accusation, and secondly entirely hypocritical, considering that 21:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC) you wrote, "I'm surprised the 1st [criterion] hasn't been questioned yet. I've always considered 1,000,000 google hits to be a decent indication for that. Perhaps that is too low a number?" I don't mind that you've gone both ways on this, but why in such absolute terms?
While they do not count toward RFV, web searches do count for something: they keep an entry from being deleted outright. However, there is no magic number, as it entirely depends on the search string and how techy or dated a word is. Slang from as late as the 70's is sometimes very difficult to verify. DAVilla 03:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think a sum-of-parts argument is valid against a compound word. It remains to be seen if sufficient citations can be dug up for this term. (Rightly, that would be the proponent's responsibility.) --Connel MacKenzie 02:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
That's reasonable. Objection withdrawn. Rod (A. Smith) 04:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Why delete? It exists. I had no idea what it meant. Widsith 14:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Visviva has now found the third cite. DAVilla 18:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. Thanks, all. —RuakhTALK 17:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

douche bag[edit]

Non-vulgar sense. Does it mean that at all? (Also, is the vulgar, pejorative sense US only?) --Connel MacKenzie 23:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

re the non-vulgar sense - I can't see any b.g.c hits that mean that. However I am just about to add the sense "a bag for holding the water or fluid used in douching" (wording from Wikipedia) as this is how almost all the b.g.c hits use the term.
re the vulgar sense - I suspect it is just US only - I cannot recall ever hearing it from non-Americans. I'll not mark it so yet as there are others here more familiar with contemporary UK slang usages than me. Thryduulf 00:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks; I've made a correction as per your observation. Also of note: the Wikipedia article specifically lists the French meaning "shower" as a false-friend. --Connel MacKenzie 18:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Don't we have a template for false friends floating around somewhere? --Connel MacKenzie 16:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I have certainly heard this used in the UK, but it might be chiefly US. Most US slang seems to get imitated in the UK thanks to television, music, the Internet and, of course, Hollywood. RobbieG 20:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


Sense of "a toilet's water tank/toilet seat" (marked as "localism or slang"). Thryduulf 16:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like definition 1...but even a plummer would call it the toilet's hopper, right? --Connel MacKenzie 16:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


Whoop-de-do(o) certainly exists (see onelook.com); is this what is meant here? — Paul G 16:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A word with the sound "woopiedoo" (/ˈʍʊp.iː.ˌduː/) certainly exists in UK English, although I don't know how it is written. The pronunciation is quite likely derived from just omitting the first "d" from "whoop-de-doo", but whether this is just a pronunciation or is a separate word I don't know. The pronunciation with the "d" (/ˈʍʊp.ˌdiː.ˌduː/) does exist in UK English as well, but I can't remember the last time I heard it other than with heavy sarcasm. Thryduulf 02:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I use it in speech in both a positive and negative sense but I have never written it down so I can't advise on spelling. Thorskegga 09:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


Hip-hop sense. Nothing evident on b.g.c. or Usenet. -- Visviva 17:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


And if this is real, can anyone flesh out the etymology? —RuakhTALK 04:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems real; etymology fleshed out, although I suspect the proper root of ambono- is somewhere in koine or medieval Greek (where presumably the "screen" sense was acquired) rather than Attic. -- Visviva 13:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you! :-D —RuakhTALK 15:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Request withdrawn.RuakhTALK 15:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)