Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/December 2006

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

snurdge[edit]

--Connel MacKenzie 19:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Google Books [1] hits, zero Google Groups [2] hits. No supporting hits from a Google web search either (there are a few hits, but most are user accounts, and the rest, save perhaps the UrbanDict. which I didn't investigate, are all clearly differing uses of various silly or disgusting sorts.) I say we smudge out snurdge. --Jeffqyzt 18:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RFV failed. DAVilla 14:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

materteral[edit]

Entry claims it is in the OED, but of course, in my library's on-line version of the OED, it cannot be found. "Tosh," as my British friends would say. --Connel MacKenzie 08:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed. DAVilla 14:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

boo-ya[edit]

Any takers? (needs formatting) SemperBlotto 08:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he’s trying to describe the gungho grunt favored by the U.S. Marines that means something like right on! I have never seen it written, but I would probably spell it "hooyah". Delete boo-ya. —Stephen 13:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. Kappa 14:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t vote, I give my opinion. —Stephen 15:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not an opinion poll either LOL. Kappa 15:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then ignore it. I wasn’t speaking to you, I was speaking to a colleague. —Stephen 16:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you were just telling Semper to delete it huh? I wonder why you would put the word in bold in that case. Kappa 16:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I always put delete or keep in bold. If you have a problem with that, complain in the Beer Parlour. —Stephen 16:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may be misleading to boldface, but certainly there's nothing wrong with giving an opinion here. You'd have to understand it doesn't carry much more weight than that though, at least so long as the topic remains here, which is fairly likely, but by no means a guarantee. DAVilla 17:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in how much weight it carries. Everyone’s opinion carries a different weight with different people. SemperBlotto’s opinion carries weight with me and I like to return the favor when I have an opinion on something. As for bolding, that’s the way I do it. —Stephen 17:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly true. The way I do it is to suggest that it should have been RFD'd. To say that those are effectively the same I guess would have been a more direct way for me to have addressed Kappa. DAVilla 18:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. In any case, you should continue doing it your way and I shall continue doing it mine. —Stephen 18:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Popularized by w:Ron Stoppable. I hear kids say it regularly now. --Connel MacKenzie 14:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Three citations added. Boo ya! Kappa 15:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yay another place for voting instead of evidence-based discussion. Kappa 04:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like its been cited. RFVpassed. Andrew massyn 16:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bonable[edit]

--Connel MacKenzie 16:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely out there. Found the necessary Usenet references, but it really needs a quote from a movie script or something.
Also a misspelling of bondable. May also be archaic but more likely it was just a few scan-o's I ran across, unviewable.
Also French. DAVilla 16:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Rfvpassed.Andrew massyn 16:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shiddy[edit]

Any takers? Adjective, but part of definition seems to be a verb. SemperBlotto 22:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, deleted already. --Connel MacKenzie 05:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fuckknuckle[edit]

Any takers? (Zero formatting) SemperBlotto 10:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The one Google book and two more for "fuck-knuckle" do not indicate meaning beyond insult. One Google book is some sort of speech action on who the fuck. Two others and one for "fucknuckle" are restricted. DAVilla 17:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some others since then. Cited for fuck-knuckle from three books, and other spellings primarily with Usenet. DAVilla 19:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 16:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy![edit]

In the sense of the single Jeopardy round and the video game. This is somewhat a test of concept, that being of citing the proper name out of context. DAVilla 16:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it may be better to hold off on this one. DAVilla 16:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Decided to just delete the two senses. Came close to deleting the whole thing, but the game could probably be understood out of context. DAVilla 21:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

duckist[edit]

Does this meet our CFI (if it is real)? SemperBlotto 17:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, all six (non-OCR error) hits for "duckism" on Google books are equally good cites for "lame duckism".
This definition appears to be politically motivated and couldn't last long even if it's been around a year already. DAVilla 17:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not cited. Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln[edit]

honest Abe[edit]

Not a widely used generic term as suggested by the definition.

Agreed, not widely used. Almost any name could be used in this fashion to suit an arguement.--Dmol 11:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The full name isn't usually used in this sense - more often you'll see "honest Abe", which refers to Lincoln's reputation as an honest person. "honest Abe" is ingrained in US culture (esp. business names) & folklore. --Versageek 23:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, not sure what I was thinking there - maybe just the occasional reference to someone as "a regular Abraham Lincoln," but I can't find sites to back it up, so it goes. bd2412 T 02:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we kept names used attributively. <shrug> Do we have the entry for honest Abe? Perhaps this should simply be moved there. --Connel MacKenzie 17:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, moved. And see Lincoln, third def. DAVilla 20:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the full name is used, the redirect should probably stay. Thinking more on the topic, I'm pretty sure the desire was to have corresponding entries here rather than Wikipedia for attributed personages. I wonder what happened to that notion. --Connel MacKenzie 20:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I really don't agree with the redirect. Usually Abraham Lincoln doesn't mean Honest Abe. Usually it means w:Abraham Lincoln. DAVilla 09:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to redirect to Wikipedia but that doesn't work. What do you suggest we do with it? DAVilla 09:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My "!vote" is to leave it as a redirect to Honest Abe or Lincoln. I've said in the past that I think we should have all the US Presidents (but that was violently rejected) but the six or seven really famous ones (like this) should obviously be here. Abraham Lincoln is the etymological root of Honest Abe, so even though the attribution is indirect, it is still attribution. --Connel MacKenzie 04:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have left the redirect. Andrew massyn 17:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

little procedural question[edit]

moved to Wiktionary talk:Requests for verification. --Connel MacKenzie 18:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jasm[edit]

Any takers? (Needs format correction) SemperBlotto 19:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

w:Origin of the word jazz DAVilla 19:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 17:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comiconomenclaturist[edit]

Any takers? Needs DePOVification. SemperBlotto 19:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up; added etymology. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited Rfvfailed. I have advised the originator of the word to cite it otherwise it will be deleted. Moving to March Andrew massyn 17:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hu[edit]

Someone has added a long, badly formatted article about "hu, epicene pronoun meaning he or she; a clipping from human." Is anything of this worthwhile? —Stephen 02:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No proposed epicene pronoun has ever been adopted, except for their and workarounds such as "he/she". If found to be valid, "hu" needs to read "a proposed epicene pronoun...". "A clipping from human" would need to be moved to the etymology. Doing this now... — Paul G 17:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see the crapload that was dumped on hu have a look at the history. Unable to verify LA Times article. Hu and Hume are common last names. "Huself" gets all of 2 blog hits. Blog hits. There's a bunch of promotional trash on Usenet and, aside from anonymity, a couple of legitimate hits as an eye dialect, perhaps, for herself: still not enough even to squeeze by CFI. Not exactly what you'd expect for a pronoun! DAVilla 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still, what do you make of John Dane's Narrative, "A DECLARATION OF REMARKABELL PROUEDNESSES IN THE CORSE OF MY LIFE" (1682)? See the The New-England Historical and Genealogical Register (1854), page 150:
Allthough I thout my fatther was two Strict, I thout Soloman said, be not holy ouer mutch, and daued was a man after gods oun harte, and he was a danser: but yet I went my Journey, and was from him half a yere before he hard whare I was. I first settled in barcumsted, and thare Rought on a shobord that had bene improud what waie. On a nyte, when most folke was a bead, a mayd cam into the shopbord and sat with me, and we Jested togetther; but at the last she cared it so, and put huself in sutch a poster, as that I made as If I had sum speshall ocashon abrod and wend out; for I fared, If I had not, I should haue cumitted foley with hur. But I ofen thout that it was the prayers of my parents that preuaild with god to kepe me. I then gaue my self mutch to dansing and staying out and heatting myself and lying in haymowes, the pepell being a bed whare I abod that I lost my culler and neuer Recuferd it a gaine.
Wow! DAVilla 20:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they all exist, then perhaps hu, alongside e, et, mon, na, ne, po, se, and tey (all of which the original spiel mentioned, but which are all missing from Wiktionary) should be included in a category such as [[Category:Proposed English epicene pronouns]], as I am, as well as, I am sure, many others are, interested in the respective merits of the many prospective epicene pronouns on offer. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To WT:LOP & Deleted. Andrew massyn 17:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nipponism[edit]

See Talk:nipponism. --Connel MacKenzie 05:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to Nipponism. Andrew massyn 17:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kyke[edit]

Checking b.g.c. indicates this is probably a Middle English word meaning "to gaze upon" but I recall this as a noun, as a pejorative ethnic slur, spelled kike. If simply deleting the vandalism entry, don't forget talk:kyke. --Connel MacKenzie 06:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Duh. Edited. --Connel MacKenzie 06:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Middle English sounds reasonable, since the Modern German word is gucken (guck! = look!). —Stephen 07:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikaans has the work "kyk" meaning to look. However the above word is not cited and accordingly fails rfv. Andrew massyn 17:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

discussion from kyke talk page below: n. simply the worst word ever. To be "kyked" by someone is one of the greatest insults. To "kyke somebody, simply cross your ring finger with your pinkie, and your middle finger with you index finger. Next bend your crossed fingers and stick your thumb between them.

Retrieved from "http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:kyke"

beer gut[edit]

While I (perhaps unwisely) salvaged this contributor's other two contribs, I don't think there is much hope for this one. --Connel MacKenzie 07:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dirka[edit]

Any takers? (needs cleanup) SemperBlotto 08:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a South Park neologism. See w:Dirka dirka. —Stephen 07:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artcle is uncited and the references arn't references. Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 17:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is reproduced below for archival purposes. Andrew massyn 17:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A slang term for those of Arab or Muslim descent, connoting things Muslim, Arabic, or Middle Eastern, or those related to terrorists or terrorism.

References

Loosly originating in the 2004 film Team America: World Police, Arabic is given as a guttural combination of the words "dirka", "jihad", "sherpa", "bakala", "Mohammed" and "Allah". Also, this term has been prolifically used by American Forces currently engaged in “The Global War on Terror”. Example: “I’ve got to go pick up the dirkas this morning” its use could be associated as having a negative connentation, but it is moreso used as a broad and general term. You may on ocassion overhear this term while travling to the locales of Kuwait, Iraq, and altough somewhat misleading Afghanistan, due to its significant and prodominantly nonarab population. The term “dirka, dirka” is also a widly used term, and bears the same vague definition thou used as an interj. And not commonly used as an noun.

Dutch[edit]

adjective sense number 3

  1. {{slang}} Of poor or inferior quality, not true or real.

Slang term for inferior quality?--Williamsayers79 11:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. DAVilla 18:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

chavving[edit]

Google search shows some currency - but enough? Zero Google book hits. bd2412 T 16:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 17:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


ferroequinology[edit]

The single b.g.c. hit is for a (joke) secondary reference. --Connel MacKenzie 17:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned at w:Railfan, FWIW. —scs 17:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No idea how you cite stuff here, but it does appear in a Google book search (much to my surprise): The Aldrich Dictionary of Phobias and Other Word Families. The term is mainly used within the worldwide railway enthusiast community, and therefore is unlikely to appear much in 'official tomes'. A Google search lists 600+ hits. -- EdJogg 13:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other dictionaries are not acceptable sources for RFV, unless they give citations (as the OED does), especially dictionaries that just collect together words without consideration of whether they are used or have ever been used. — Paul G 18:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This word doesn't appear in OED 1st, Webster's New Universal, MW 10th Collegiate, or any other dictionary I have at hand, but it has definitely been in use, perhaps in wide-spread use, within the community of railrans and model railroad fans, for at least thirty years. Cryptonymius 07:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This word is in common usage within the railfan and model railroad community. There is a Flickr group using that name ("This is a gathering place for all art related to railroading all over the world!") and a number of railfan photo essay and model railroad websites use it ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8] are all listed on the first two pages of Google hits). I'm sure I've seen it used in the model railroad press before, but it's not a term that is indexed at The Model Train Magazine Index yet. 69.129.196.234 12:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC) (User:Slambo on en.Wikipedia)[reply]

There are a few hits for ferroequinologist, a construction that can not exist unless there is a ferroequinology for someone to be an -ist of. See:
Trains (1954) p. 20:
And because you care, you've automatically classified yourself as a railfan (alias railroad enthusiast, train-watcher, ferroequinologist).
I'd say we should count these towards the verification of the word from which they are derived. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 15:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

manumation[edit]

--Connel MacKenzie 18:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. A pretty new neologism, business speak, that doesn't seem to be diffusing too rapidly. The origin appears to be an unpublished paper which is nonetheless referenced by other papers and a couple of books. At least two include the word manumation but were not listed because they are not independent. Not sure if the Usenet quote fits the same definition. DAVilla 20:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The usenet quote is from someone who meant manumition ... ;-) Removed. Robert Ullmann 15:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see this word going anywhere. I mean, who uses it? Both blog hits [9] [10] are for different meanings, one semi-automation, the other de-automation. But who am I to judge? DAVilla 18:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it should be lopped ;-) (as a more serious possibility than usual) Robert Ullmann 20:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added a cite:

  • 2005, Maria A. Wimmer, Electronic Government: 4th International Conference, EGOV 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark, page 5
    In contrast, the "manumation" of processes through traditional MIS never facilitated such rapid change in strategy and structure.

Seems to pass CFI at this point. Maybe it's picked up steam in the four months since the last comment on this unclosed RfV. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rfvpassed. Though personally I think it should go to Rfd, someone else can refer it if they want. Andrew massyn 15:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ruricolist[edit]

--Connel MacKenzie 07:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Even OED2+ lists it as rare, with no cites and a ref to another dict in 1730. 2 independent b.g.c. hits showing usage, and about 7 dictionaries. Nothing on Gutenberg. One non-durable usage hit from Metacrawler, and 41 dictionaries. That's very few hits for such a long timespan. Not my cup of tea. --Enginear 19:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although three months were provided beyond the one month normally allowed for the discovery of instances of use, no verification could be found that this word exists. RFVfailed. -- Beobach972 01:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tit[edit]

Oddly, the meaning for a mamary gland was marked "obsolete"! Two other senses were listed "a fool" and "a nipple." Since they might be regional variants, I'm listing them for verification, instead just removing. --Connel MacKenzie 18:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Side question: why is there even any doubt about this course of action? There are more words and real usages in discourse and dialect than are dreamt of in any of our orthographies. —scs 16:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Wasn't the conclusion from the previous discussions about a "multi-level Wiktionary" that rather than try and delineate entries correctly, cruft should instead meet the [delete] button? What better, more formal method of ensuring no valid sense is lost, than "rfv" do we have? --Connel MacKenzie 06:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(In answer to your first question: I don't know. To the second: yes, rfv is a pretty good method, which is why I congratulate you for using it, instead of just removing. —scs 17:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
In the UK, tit is often used as a friendly way of saying someone has done something stupid, rather like twit, and the phrase "I'm feeling a right tit" has been used by comedians as a double entendre. (To my surprise, this sense is cited in OED2+ since 1947.)
If anyone wants a cite for this sense, there's always Graham Chapman's line from the Argument Clinic: "Shut your festering gob, you tit -- your type really makes me puke!" —scs 16:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is the original sense of tit = teat, ie nipple, not the whole mamary, which is obsolete except in some UK dialects (I can't place where off hand, possibly SW England).
I don't believe that, so I've done a quick check on blogs to avoid the clutter of the web. While usually people mean the whole mammary, there are some examples showing very specifically the meaning of a teat, for instance indicating dark color (from Everett, Washington) [11] being one of the less graphic. So I don't believe that it's obsolete. DAVilla 09:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People from England never change their residence? People in America don't ever imitate (as a nonce) British mannerisms and speech patterns? And livejournal? Are you comparing that to published texts? Waitasec, that isn't the meaning used there AT ALL. Bah, at the moment, I can't shake a sudden vision of a million monkeys playing with typewriters...all generating fine Shakespearean texts. --Connel MacKenzie 06:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And for mammals other than humans, without the special adipose adaptation that we favor so much, the teat (and by extension the tit) is really always only the nipple, no? —scs 16:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've only heard those called teats, actually. --Connel MacKenzie 06:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've only ever heard them called that, too, but since I can't hear spelling, I've always wondered which one the speaker might have had in mind. —scs 17:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But with >800,000 b.g.c. hits, mostly about birds of one type or another, citing the rarer senses will get on my tits. --Enginear 21:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

coon[edit]

Verb senses. --Connel MacKenzie 18:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are all sorts of book hits for inflected forms, more than six hundred before 1970! DAVilla 07:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please add the citations to the article page. Moving to December. Andrew massyn 07:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a synonym for the word "really", or the sequence of words " a lot of"


your guys's[edit]

This inane entry hasn't been deleted yet? Elementary schoolchildren are taught that possessives do not add an "s" if the final letter is already an "s". The English language has no rules at all, anymore? This is the poster-child of descriptivists gone over the edge. --Connel MacKenzie 19:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion, for context, in which it is already asserted that the entry wouldn't fail CFI, already having three cites, one from a well-known work—and I just added two more, from Google Books. I thought words weren't to be deleted for prescriptivist reasons.
Thanks for that archive link. Re-reading all that is there, it is clear that the only supportive arguments put forth for retaining the entry were based on bad comparisons (e.g. "you're guys's" vs. "your guys's" - when both are inherently incorrect!) The conclusion from the majority then was that the entry was painfully misleading most (not including me) wanted it deleted. Since it won't ever describe the incorrect construction (as nearly every 6-12 year old is taught in elementary school) it should not remain here. --Connel MacKenzie 06:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should definitely stay, descriptive of usage. Why do you say it "won't ever describe ..."? It says it is non-standard, and I can see nothing stopping you from adding a longer usage note pointing why, and what the standard form is? Robert Ullmann 15:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but Muke is suggesting removing (again) the indication that it is non-standard. Why he wants to mislead our readers, I do not understand. Compare: correct vs. incorrect. This is in widspread use? One typo that got past only one publisher only once indicates widespread use? --Connel MacKenzie 17:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See, now you've gone and upset me, and I posted a google search link that yields misleading results. Instead, working around that limitation: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] etc. --Connel MacKenzie 17:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The old discussion reminded me of another thing—the assertion that it is "non-standard" in colloquial speech is unreferenced. So again: any evidence that this is not the normal possessive of the colloquial phrase "you guys", or are some prescriptivists just making things up? —Muke Tever 02:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every author of every English "grammar and spelling" book is "just making things up?" --Connel MacKenzie 06:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't know of many "grammar and spelling" books of colloquial English—only literary English, which is a different standard altogether. —Muke Tever 01:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Elementary school aged children learn "literary English"? Oh please. If that were true, there wouldn't be any objection from you at all, would there? --Connel MacKenzie 05:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they learn "literary English", unless you're being silly and taking literary in a different sense than I intend (i.e., as opposed to colloquial aka conversational English). Now, ESL learners might get some colloquial English instruction, like how to understand the deviations from the literary standard that everyday speakers prefer, but a kid in elementary school learns that by himself; school is where people are drilled with all sorts of silly rules from what is seen to be the literary standard, like not ending sentences with prepositions, avoiding "hopefully", and writing just an apostrophe even when they say "'s". —Muke Tever 11:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Am I reading this right? You are basing your conclusion that "all rules regarding English are wrong," because you don't want to describe spelling and pronunciation separately? --Connel MacKenzie 04:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't conclude that "all rules regarding English are wrong." What I intend to say is that there are rules of actual English grammar, and there are rules for the artificial dialect considered "educated" or "formal speech". Yes, in that one magic register that is so reverenced, "your guys's" is an abomination both in speech and in writing. But this isn't a dictionary of formal speech; indeed, lacking a regulating body to say what is and is not English, there's not really an NPOV way to make it one—though we can refer to sources which have taken on the responsibility of saying what is the upper register and what isn't (and these themselves will differ among themselves as to details) and let the user of the dictionary whether he wants to use Strunk & White English, Cambridge English, U or non-U English, Hawaiian English, colloquial English, or whatever. But I still maintain that, until you can cite a source describing the standards of colloquial English in regards to the issues in question (marking possession on both "you" and "guys", writing 's on a possessive plural instead of the bare apostrophe, pronouncing an 's on a possessive plural, and the use of 'you guys' at all in such a construction), it is inaccurate to also refer to it as non-standard. We already know it doesn't belong to the upper register of English by the mere marking of it as "colloquial". Its being a non-standard form of colloquial English remains to be shown. —Muke Tever 17:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is this "non-standard collquial" thing you are talking about? Do you not understand why there is a comma? The term is non-standard. The term is perhaps colloquial. What is your objection to having two accurate tags? How many more references you want, by the way? --Connel MacKenzie 17:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Colloquial" is a standard. It is not the upper register of English (i.e. the standard your English teachers grade you against), it is a different standard. I have not yet seen one reference put forth saying "your guys's" deviates from this standard (as opposed to the acrolect's standard). —Muke Tever 02:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poppycock. What standards authority dictates the exact limits of "colloquial"? Calling something "colloquial" in this context is inaccurate anyhow. Now that you've stated that there is such a thing as "standard colloquial" I know you're just making stuff up. --Connel MacKenzie 18:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What standards authority dictates the exact limits of "non-standard"? Calling something "non-standard" in this context is inaccurate anyhow. And I don't understand what's so unusual about asserting the existence of words, language, etc., used in spoken communication (and informal written communication that reflects this usage) falling within the range acceptable to them (which is not the range acceptable to formal written communication or speech reflecting same). —Muke Tever 03:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading this section, it sppears you are the only one objecting to the obviously correct "non-standard" tag. The most important feature of an entry at this spelling is that it must indicate that it is incorrect. Of secondary importance, is to show the possible acceptance of it under only certain informal conditions. You (only?) wish the Wiktionary entry to say that the spelling is always valid at all times, which clearly is not the case. --Connel MacKenzie 04:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the spelling (indeed, the whole word) is not valid at all times: only in colloquial use. And it is already marked as colloquial. "Non-standard", in the sense of 'standard' it intends (my disagreeing with that use being a separate matter) is true but redundant. —Muke Tever 00:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The English language does have rules, but that was never one of them. Plenty of words ending in "s" add another "s" in the possessive. Outside of plurals, only a select few weird names (e.g. Jesus) do not add an "s", in such cases a variant with the extra "s" also exists. --Ptcamn 04:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Never. Following the first hit from a web search: http://www.meredith.edu/grammar/plural.htm. --Connel MacKenzie 06:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Note: "grammar possessive plural" + [I'm feeling lucky!]. --Connel MacKenzie 17:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Well, hardly ever."
There is, of course (and thankfully!) no one official "standard" for the English language; we have no equivalent of l'Académie. So just because you can point at that page at meredith.edu does not mean it's The Truth. Me, I disagree with several of its prescriptions: they don't match what I was taught, I don't use them, and I'm not going to switch to them just 'cause it says so. —scs 17:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a call for verification with references, or a race to the bottom? I said it was the first reference (the "I'm feeling lucky!" button) but there are thousands more that follow, with very similar prescriptions...evidently that one is "the best" in google's reviewer's opinion. --Connel MacKenzie 01:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's neither a race to the bottom, nor a call for references. I don't disbelieve the existence of your reference, it's just that I don't personally agree with it. More on this below. —scs 04:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The diagram is [[you]r [guys]]'s. Your link doesn't say anything about adding 's to phrases; a parallel example would be: the boy : the boy she likes :: the boy's book : X, where X would normally be ‘the boy she likes’s book’—in colloquial speech, at any rate. (I think 'literary' English would omit the construction altogether, and take something foreign to colloquial English, e.g. ‘the book of the boy she likes’.) —Muke Tever 01:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just say (as you and I discussed in IRC) "the boy she likes' book"? If a literary construct were sought, of course, the sentence would simply be recast, as "the book of the boy she likes." I don't understand why you think it necessary to add the extra (incorrect) "s"...no matter how you analyze it. --Connel MacKenzie 05:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because people don't talk that way. I put up a poll in my LiveJournal (with a different example—since plurals are the quibble—using "king of spades" instead of "boy she likes"). So far (10 responses, including mine) the trend is that most people understand the rule for writing that you write "the king of spades' hat", or avoid it and say "the hat of the king of spades" but half the people actually say "the king of spades's hat". Also most people so far who would use a form of "you guys" in the possessive preferred "you guys's", with apostrophe, while denying it to the literary standard altogether. —Muke Tever 11:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The site Connel linked lists "Dr. Seuss'" as an example of a word ending in -s that doesn't add an s, yet Seuss's gets 1,090 Google Books hits. --Ptcamn 10:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language says:
To form the possessive of singular nouns (common or proper) ending in s or the sound of s, add an apostrophe and as s in most cases: the bus’s signal light, Francis’s promotion;
But if the addition of an s would produce an awkward or unpleasant sound or visual effect, add only an apostrophe: Socrates’ concepts, for goodness’ sake, for old times’ sake.
In some cases, either form is acceptable: Mr. Jones’s or Mr. Jones’ employees; Keats’s or Keats’ poetry.
To form the possessive of plural nouns (common or proper) ending in s, add only an apostrophe: farmers’ problems, judges’ opinions, students’ views, two weeks’ vacation.
The Random House goes into greater detail and other cases, but these are the pertinent ones for the case of guys’s vs. guys’ (it only permits guys’) as well as Dr. Seuss, where either is permitted. —Stephen 11:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What edition are you looking at there, on what page? Have they redacted that version yet? --Connel MacKenzie 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It’s the unabridged edition, copyright 1967, page 1897 under APOSTROPHE (’). —Stephen 05:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"if the addition of an s would produce an awkward or unpleasant sound or visual effect" is a terrible copout. It amounts to saying "You always add an s, except where you don't." --Ptcamn 12:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that one is poorly worded: all other references I've seen disallow that trailing "s" without exception. --Connel MacKenzie 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean you have references that recommend writing "the bus’ signal light" and "Francis’ promotion"? —Stephen 05:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such as the ones I linked, above? All! --Connel MacKenzie 21:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect we're counting pinhead-dancing angels at this point, but FWIW: the rule I learned is not that you don't add 's to form the possessive of words already ending in s. The rule I learned is that you don't add 's to form the possessive of plurals already ending in s. Strunk and White go on about this at some length, emphasizing that for singular words ending in s, you just always automatically add 's, and get yourself in far less trouble, and spend much less time fretting over potential exceptions. (Their example concerned the removal of the young Prince Charles's tonsils.) —scs 17:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reference, please. They must be writing about pronunciation not spelling, but without context, it is rather hard to check on your claim. --Connel MacKenzie 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strunk and White, The Elements of Programming Style, N-1th edition, my copy isn't handy so I can't give you the page number.
Yes, they were talking about spelling, not pronunciation.
I don't know why you find this so hard to accept. The rules of English are not standardized. That means that some rules are different in different books. That means that one authority may say that "Charles's tonsils" is correct, and another may say that "Charles' tonsils" is correct. This does not mean that one authority is "right" and one authority is "wrong" -- they're both "right" (whatever that means). I am not, therefore, insisting that you use the same set of rules I do -- merely that you extend me the same courtesy, and not insist that I use yours.
Of course, the strict descriptivist would say that there are no rules of the English language, except the invisible ones that are wired into the brains of native English speakers. So if there are significant groups of people who have decided that the possessive of "Charles" sounds like /charlziz/ and the possessive of "you guys" sounds like /yur guiziz/, and if significant numbers of them start reflecting their pronunciations in their spellings as "Charles's" and "your guys's", you can't really say that "your guys's" is r-o-n-g-WRONG; it's just dialect, perhaps nonstandard. But this is language evolution in action, so after a while what was wrong and then nonstandard and then dialect may become perfectly acceptably correct. (One can watch this in action today, as "their" becomes increasingly acceptable as a third-person singular possessive.)
Me, I think pronunciation does provide a useful clue about spelling of possessives. It's easy to remember that "my parents' house" is correct, because that's the way I pronounce it. And it's equally easy for me to remember that "Charles's" is correct (for me, and for Strunk & White), because that's how I pronounce it. I suppose the double sibilant at the end sounds awkward, but saying "Prince Charles tonsils" (where I've left out the apostrophe, 'cause you can't hear it) sounds wrong. (It sounds like a brand of tonsils, or something, along the lines of Prince Albert tobacco.)
Finally, I can easily imagine a bunch of teenaged girls saying /yur guiziz/ (where the second word is homonymous with the real word guises, so the pronunciation can't be that awkward). Heck, I can even imagine saying /yur guiziz/ myself. So the spelling "your guys's" does not look glaringly wrong to me.
This is all much ado about nothing, of course, because I don't care whether your guys's stays or goes. The prescriptivism vs. descriptivism debate is an old one, and I probably shouldn't belabor the point (while adding nothing new in the process) now. My main point is just that I don't understand how you can say things like "it is always an incorrect spelling", when the very fact that we're having the discussion proves that it might not be. —scs 04:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then, since the conclusion in the earlier discussion was to not have a multi-level Wiktionary, this obviously should be deleted. Right?
The {{non-standard}} label was removed without making the absurd assertions above, let alone supporting them with references. It is not Wiktionary's role to advance the decline of language, despite what our resident "descriptivist" contingent things. Descriptivism is not to simply repeat every random key sequence that appears on the internet, by making a back-formation description of it. English has rules. Your assertion that it does not is beyond silly.
The fact that we are having this discussion proves that Wiktionary has lots of ridiculous entries. It does not prove that the spelling is "proper." It is a monstrous disservice to our readers (especially English language learners) to suggest that this can be spelled this way. Plurals ending in sibilants have only an apostrophe added, not "'s". It is usually pronounced with two /z/s at the end, making it a fairly common spelling error for very young children in elementary school. --Connel MacKenzie 04:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all (in response to your edit history summary), yes, by all means do keep a cool head here. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was trying to (or if I said anything that did) get your goat -- really, this is just an abstract intellectual discussion, nothing to get exercised about.
Second, I think you misunderstood several things I said. I do not condone the removal of the {nonstandard} tag for this entry. I did not assert that English has no rules -- I said that a strict descriptivist would, and even that statement was qualified. And I did not attempt to prove that the contested spelling is "proper" -- my intent was only to suggest that it might not be wholly improper. (And I hope that doesn't sound like a hair-splittingly quibbling difference.) —scs 05:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muke, are you on a campaign to invalidate all of WT:RFV as a process? You don't believe hundreds and thousands of books on grammar, usually written by groups of PhD linguists (as opposed to individuals,) especially reduced to elementary school levels? But you respect your own website more? And that is a reason to throw out w:WP:NOR entirely? --Connel MacKenzie 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Invalidate RFV? Read Template:nosecondary and substitute "dictionary" with "grammar guide". The inclusion rules are for what people use, and there are enough cites to meet RFV already on the page. There's nothing that prevents you from citing every guide to colloquial English grammar ever written on the page that condemns the form. We've already had similar discussions on words like alot; this is not a new kind of situation. (Actually some of the points on Talk:alot that haven't been brought up here are valid in this instance too.)
As for the poll I put on my blog, it wasn't to support the RFV. It only had two purposes: to see how often "your guys's" would be preferred (never, it turns out, which would make it a really bad source for me to cite anyway) and to show that people do add 's to plurals in colloquial English. A bonus side effect was that it showed that most of them know that the rules they use in writing are different from the rules they use in speaking—in fact, even the three people who said "king of spades's hat" was more correct in writing (which is not according to the usual formal-English rule) said in speech they would actually say "king of spades' hat" (which is correct according to the usual formal-English rule). —Muke Tever 17:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muke, are you trying to describe how "your guys'" is pronounced? If so, then a note within the pronunciation section (along with a separate audio file) would be the way to go. But we should not have an entry at your guys's because it is always an incorrect spelling. If we are to have an entry there, it must be painfully clear that it cannot be spelled that way. --Connel MacKenzie 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst it may indeed be futile and perhaps meaningless to declare something categorically incorrect, it is worth stating whether or not a word is consistent with the rules of English grammar. Extreme descriptivists decry such prescriptivism; however, even just labelling the entire diverse mass of this variegated language as “English” is prescriptive, after all, what objectively distinguishes a language from a dialect? Perhaps imposing one set of rules upon “English” is “trying to put it in a box”, but without doing so, “English” — the somewhat artificial construct that it is — would cease (or perhaps, in some strict sense, already has ceased) to be something which can be considered a single language. That’s fine for those of you who would like to see English go the way of Vulgar Latin; however, if that is to be the way Wiktionary is run, it cannot justifiably refer unto but one “English”.
Conversely, because of there being no one set of agreed rules for English, we’ll just have to pick the most functional; that is, as in the spirit of Wiktionary:General American English with maximal distinctions, by prescribing those features of English that allow the most distinctions, and the most precise, specific meaning to be conveyed. Such an approach, for example, would disallow the use of me when my ought to be used, as it blurs a distinction, both when considering the words in isolation, and when used in certain grammatical constructs.
Specifically unto this case: yes, we should include this entry, as any dictionary ought to contain the entirety of a language, erroneous elements and all; however, a dictionary ought also to tag such entries as incorrect, and include a usage note explaining why. A dictionary can do a lot more to improve a language’s writers’ use of their language by including an entry and tagging it as incorrect than it ever can by simply omitting it. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 05:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very well said. I agree. I am actually offended that the "non-standard" tag was removed, which ultimately is what brought this to an RFV and continues to evoke my suggestion that it should be deleted. That said, however, the entry should be at the correct spelling, your guys', not the obviously incorrect one. --Connel MacKenzie 16:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Howzabout we just put the "nonstandard" tag back? —scs 20:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second Connel’s suggestion that we replace the current entry with “Misspelling of your guys’”, and then tag that one as non-standard. (Non-standard for you guys’, which would, in turn, be non-standard for your...) Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 03:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree that this is a misspelling, from my POV its the correct spelling of an incorrect construction. If one was following the "rules" one wouldn't say /gaizis/ one would say /gaiz/ - if the rules are being ignored then the spelling should reflect the pronunciation. Kappa 11:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, tag it as “Misconstruction, intended to mean your guys’” instead. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need a reference to mark stuff as "mis-" anything. Further, as it meets CFI you can't "replace the current entry" with it, because the rules say it merits an entry (even if that entry were to be full of grammarians cited decrying it; cf. alot). —Muke Tever 02:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But in English, pronunciation does not always accurately reflect pronunciation! The complaints I hear from Europeans learning English usually have that aspect of English as their primary complaint about the language. Is your POV that en.wiktionary should act as a reformer of all English spelling? By whose authority? --Connel MacKenzie 17:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really, honestly believe the rules governing use of 's vs. bare apostrophe are purely orthographic and have no basis in recommended pronunciation? If so, why do many grammar guides (such as the Random House guide above) refer to sound or reasons of euphony as guidelines in whether to use 's or not in the dubious situations? —Muke Tever 02:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What portion of English words are pronounced exactly as spelled? Your one reference suggests that the pronunciation may affect spelling in that situation, but yes, I do disagree with their suggestion...particularly since all the others I've found (refer again to the many links above) disagree. --Connel MacKenzie 18:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Rosenfelder's sample of 5000 English words shows about 59% pronounced exactly as spelled; 85% with a few less-easy-to-automate elements (vowel length or pronouncing s as /z/) excluded. (And "the worst offenders in the language are already included in the sample; a larger vocabulary would include a higher percentage of well-behaved spellings.") [21] Of the many links posted in this discussion, I found none indicating that a bare apostrophe is intended to be pronounced as 's in any circumstance—that appears to be an idiosyncracy of yours. —Muke Tever 03:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then why has every person except you suggested replacing the "non-standard" tag? --Connel MacKenzie 04:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I need to warn you guys (no pun intended) that you probably should rarely listen to a word Connel MacKenzie has to say in these things. Connel clearly wants this dictionary to be only how he thinks it should be. He just deletes things at random for example, because they don't agree with his opinion about how this dictionary should be. "boss's", "bus's" etc. are perfectly fine spellings despite what Connel says. To say there not is plain silly. Shoof 14:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wish to engage in personal attacks? Is that why you have crap-loaded Wiktionary with dozens of illiterate entries? Every grammar text I see disagrees with you. --Connel MacKenzie 19:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting him. His line of argument (as far as I understand it) is that all possessives are formed with an “’s”, except for plurals ending in an “-s” (however, I would like clarification of his view of how to form possessives of words pluralised as per crisis; namely, “is” → “es”). Therefore, he would also view “boss’s” and “bus’s” as correct (just not “bosses’s” or “buses’s”). Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 10:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This entry ought to be deleted. We do not, as far as I can see, have entries for the possessive forms of any other words, under the assumption, I assume, that people know how to form possessives (be it by using the correct rules or not). Yes, the notable exception is the genitive forms of the pronouns, of which your guys’s is one; however, we already have an entry for your, and guys may be inflected for the possessive whichsoever way the inflector desires. As such, this entry is unnecessary. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 10:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deleting this definition on the grounds that wiktionary does not list possessives. We don't even have the proper possessive form of you guys why do we have the improper one? This normally isn't my kind of thing but when I was browsing the RFV's "your guys's" caught my attention. Randy6767 20:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not blank entries. A sysop will delete it when consensus has been reached. --Connel MacKenzie 20:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry about that, things work a little differently on wikipedia Randy6767 01:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an RFD tag hereunto; see here. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rice-queen[edit]

Google suggests this may be valid, about as common as a resturant name? --Connel MacKenzie 21:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google shows that there are a number of these commonly used in gay circles. Some of which are rather racist. Examples are: curry queen (man liking South Asian men), dinge queen (white man liking black men), potato queen (Asian man liking Caucasian men), rice queen (man liking East Asian men), salami queen (man liking Italian men), snow queen (black man likely white men). See here and here for more.
I don't see any need for the hyphen, by the way. — Paul G 09:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a geninue gay slang term. It would be homophobic to not include it

OK, Mr/Ms Unsigned Comment, would you like to add it for us and provide legitimate citations? — Paul G 09:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the above here from below, since it seemed to be related to this word.
In any case, I'll add a cite from GLAAD. -- SatyrTN 01:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, not a single durably archived source then? Seems to me that even if it were a nonce, it would have seen some published use. Wiktionary is not a grandstand for promoting your made up terms (and hence, your a POV.) --Connel MacKenzie 21:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC) (edited) 23:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoah - hold up there, Connel! First of all, this isn't a made up term. It's been used for at least ten years within the gay community and beyond. Secondly, it is published - if you'll read the page here, you'll notice a book on Amazon as well as a media guide published by a widely respected source - GLAAD. Thirdly, the tone of your comments above is highly offensive and provocative. Please remain civil. -- SatyrTN 22:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, hold up there StyrTN! I'm talking about the entry not meeting WT:CFI. This seems like a typical attempt at promotion that Wiktionary sees far too often. All words in the English language were "made up" as some point in history; I was only suggesting that it was made up too recently for it to merit a Wiktionary entry. The single book suggests that the term would fail our independence criteria. The secondary sources are not valid as citations at all (nor would I consider any of those to be reliable authorities on language.) 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 23:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha - sorry - I over-reacted. The comment just sounded a little attacky... My bad. In any case, wouldn't a media guide be considered a reliable authority on language? If I recall, I saw rice-queen in at least two or three media guides. -- SatyrTN 22:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that this word may not be used commonly in everyday American life. But it is regularly used in gay communities and in the United Kingdom. This dictionary resource is valued by ALL English speaking nations. I urge you to consider Rice-queen for entry and do not let conservative republic politics sway your decision. Please consider and discuss — This unsigned comment was added by 80.229.0.55 (talk).

Don't worry, while there may be conservative republicans lurking (;-), we don't let politics or various bigotries affect what we do. I've heard rice queen myself a few times; don't recall ever wondering what it meant (obvious). (Oh, and not that recent; the one occasion I remember would be ~1994) I would think it would not have a hyphen? Certainly used in speech. cf size queen. The synonym offered makes little sense, that would be someone who is Asian. Robert Ullmann 19:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me present two opposing points. The con being that rice-queen is an invented term by a minority of the white gay population and is considered terribly offensive here in the U.S. and internationally based off of scholar reports and studies especially those focusing on racism in the GLBT community. Simply go to the Wikipedia entry on Rice-queen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rice_queen where I have detailed these studies. The pro? Rice queen is a term equated to nigger, faggot, dyke, red-neck, slut, bitch, whore, and chink because all of them could be considered "endearing" and yet heinous in different circumstances. Also the one common thread is that white influence has propagated all these terms throughout history and "rice queen" is simply another invention of this influence. Consider, the term already has severely racial connotations and assumptions (ie: rice as in all Asians eat rice). In my opinion, I am fine either way but I would question your morals and ethics in this entire process. Davumaya 23:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop right there. We are perfectly willing to discuss whether a term is racist/perjorative/etc. and have plenty of such words, properly tagged. The discussion is about the content of the wikt. However, your last comment is a direct personal attack on the participant(s), and is in no way acceptable here. Robert Ullmann 23:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps æquivalent unto using hamburger queen to mean a gay man attracted unto Americans? Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 23:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it have been so hard to look at b.g.c? I get 130+ hits, with three good ones on the first page. Case closed. I know everyone's doing this in their own spare time, but in the time it took to write all the newbie-hostile "bring us the cites and then we'll talk" above, one could easily check b.g.c, say "Oh look, there are lots of valid cites" and maybe even paste a couple of them in. The result, one more quality entry in Wiktionary.

I would want to move this to rice queen, as I don't see the hyphen used anywhere. -dmh 19:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This word was during Decmember, in this time I have been impressed with the depth of the discussion. I'm glad we have reached a crux of the matter and thus agresed with the definition.

I think its bloody stupid. Rfvpassed. Only just. Redirected to rice queen. Andrew massyn 16:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sugar shack[edit]

Any takers? (needs formatting) SemperBlotto 08:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely a term, my dad does his own maple syrup. Also, here is a cite, if it helps: [22]

I have heard it before in Upstate New York, although I haven't seen it written down anywhere. Passing it as it is harmless. Andrew massyn 16:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

toxology[edit]

Previously tagged, not listed. DAVilla 16:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be used approx 1% as much as toxicology, certainly b.g.c. citeable with that meaning. Does it have a valid etymology from Greek, or is it only a misspelling? The OED2+ does not have that meaning, but has it as a nonce-word for the study of archery (maybe something to to with poisoned arrows?). A quick scan of b.g.c. shows only mention, but no use, for this meaning. --Enginear 18:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a misspelling (but not listed as such!) --Connel MacKenzie 21:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not cited Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 16:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fushimi Castle[edit]

Previously tagged, not listed. DAVilla 16:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was listed somewhere around here and discuss twice already. —Stephen 17:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found the discussion in RFC, copied below. DAVilla 07:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A reference may be found at w:Fushimi Castle. —Stephen 19:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want this? Significant enough for an English entry? I'd just toss it. Entries for (e.g) Fushimijō seem reasonable, it is important in Japanese. Robert Ullmann 13:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has particular translations in different languages, such as Hebrew טירת פושימי (tirat Fushimi), and Chinese 伏见城 (Fújiàn chéng). Keep. —Stephen 14:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, formatted as a proper entry. RfC tag removed. Robert Ullmann 18:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I don't think so - this is an encyclopedic entry. Wikipedia will have translations. Pardon my use of the thin-edge-of-the-wedge argument, but allowing this opens the way for allowing the name of every man-made structure in the world. Adding rfv tag. — Paul G 15:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think there are encyclopedic words, only encyclopedic definitions. Any translations that Wikipedia will have will lack transliterations, gender and other information, and in general the sort of etymological info that we often provide. I occasionally hear of the thin-edge/slippery-slope argument, but I’ve never seen any real evidence that it actually occurs. Many of the entries on Wiktionary also have entries on Wikipedia. Rather than a reason for exclusion, I would consider its existence on Wikipedia as reason for inclusion. In any case, I don’t believe our Fushimi Castle will be interpreted by anyone as an invitation to list his grandpa’s barn, nor even any alarming overload of structure names. —Stephen 01:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One proposed set of criteria for inclusion would require that Fushimi Castle either:

  1. Is used out of context, where it is assumed that the specific place can be understood without introduction. See Double Jeopardy above for examples of out-of-context quotations, (possibly generic for this word,) as well as the quotations at Einstein (not counting the first) and Rockefeller, the latter bordering on figurative use.
  2. Has standard, or common and non-trivial, translations into many other languages, especially on the other side of the world. Taipei is an example of a spelling that has survived newer transliteration schemes. If "Fushimi" is just the modern transliteration of the Japanese, then I don't think it would meet this criterion, assuming it is likewise called a castle in Japanese.

The page could be moved to Fushimi if the sole word:

  1. Stands for Fushimi Castle in the general context, although there may be many other places with the name Fushimi.
  2. Is used attributively.

Stephen, I know that you don't consider words to be encyclopedic, but Wiktionary doesn't have a "notable" criterion, so finding additional ways to include it would help to broaden acceptance among contributors. It seems like the (proposed) translation criterion is the strongest. Would you characterize the Hebrew and Chinese as being standard, and not just recently, or of being non-trivial as derived from the Japanese (assuming they are common)? DAVilla 08:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fushimi is not the same as Fushimi Castle, just as Empire State is not the same as Empire State Building. Both the Japanese and Chinese are standard and any other combination of characters that would have the same pronunciation would be unacceptable. The Hebrew is also standard (at least as standard as the English). I know that there are also standard translations in Korean and other Asian languages, but I don’t know what they are yet. —Stephen 17:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this entry is any different from w:New York City Hall. It's a castle, in Fushimi. The Japanese is 伏見 Fushimi plus 城 castle. The romanization is one standard modern scheme (the other being Fusimi). As Stephen says, the other translations are equally sum-of-parts (e.g. замок castle; Fújiàn chéng is the Chinese reading for 伏見城). Sure, we can have an entry for Fushimi, but would that entry list any castles located there and whether they burned down at one point? Cynewulf 16:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we've got Buckingham Palace and the White House. both of these are used attributively though. A spokesman for the White House said.... or Buckingham Palace has not commented...I haven't heard Fushumi Castle used in this sense. Based on Stephen's comments above, and the fact that it is not used attributively, rfvfailed. Sadly.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification_archive/December_2006&oldid=53744727"