Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/November 2006

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



Does this meet our criteria for inclusion? If so, as the name of a recently invented musical instrument, it would not be capitalized. (I removed the dead-end wikipedia link that was placed there.) There seem to be only a very few pertinent google hits. Neologism, perhaps an attempt to gain commercial recognition. —Stephen 23:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Everything related to w:Jason Grant looks highly suspicious to me (self-promotion IMO). Google yields really poor results when searching for "marching pipe organ" or "jay-bay organ" and the vast majority is a copy of the WP article. Read also the second message in this page. — Xavier, 23:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Rfvfailed (already deleted.) --Connel MacKenzie 23:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

sheek kebab[edit]

--Connel MacKenzie 15:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Suggestions: Google it. There are 11,000 entries. Not a vast number but enough, I would have thought.

Go into any British Indian restaurant and look at the menu.

Sorry, but I don't feel like hiking and swimming thousands of miles to see a European menu. Any Americans recognize this spelling, or should it be marked as 'Cheifly British' (or something)? --Connel MacKenzie 05:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As to it being a typo: it is the name used for the food as I described it. I've no idea of its etymology.

  • I'm looking at the takeaway menu of my local tandoori, and there it is. I have seen other spellings though. SemperBlotto 16:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's not exactly the same meal, but on w:Kebab something similar is spelled Seekh kabab (and Shish kebab). — Xavier, 23:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
"tandoori"? You mean 'Tandori', right? --Connel MacKenzie 05:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Survey of 2 Indian/Pakistani restaurant menus (from Maryland, USA) comes up with "tandoori", although one is wishy/washy between "tandoor" and "tandoori" in the same menu. --Jeffqyzt 18:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This particular entry is an example of a problem that will come up again (and probably has in the past). There does not seem to be any perfect solution. I believe that the number and quality of hits from Google would suggest that the entry should stay, but, as others have pointed out, there are several other ways to spell the name of this dish and some of those will also define a different dish, particularly if it is from an alternative cuisine.

If you care to look at the entry for 'papadom' you will see a most egregious example of the extent of the problem. At the moment, if anyone comes here looking for a definition, they have a 1 in 36 chance of finding it. Even I have to go to the index of Indian food to get there as I can't remember which spelling I used for the headword. This is a particularly extreme example but it does indicate the nature of the problem.

I did suggest the inclusion of a tool for situations like this but it was met with only negative response. I still believe that Wiktionary should provide such a tool as it it would be very helpful, especially to non-English speaker, given the rather baroque nature of the language's spelling and is one way of using the fact that Wictionary is an 'on-line' technology to differentiate it from the traditional paper approach. Moglex 09:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Erm, what do you mean? Enter "puppadom" in the search box, press [Go] and you will be prompted to either create the page of go (further down the page) to our entry for papadom. The search works just fine. --Connel MacKenzie 11:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


Not in English, no. --Connel MacKenzie 15:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Not in modern English anyway. Google Books has a few dozen references, mostly back to Elizabethan times and before. (Wouldn't that be Middle English??)

  • The Collected Historical Works of Sir Francis Palgrve.
  • Lectures on Scotch Legal Antiquities / Edmonston and Douglas / 1872.

Marked as archaic
--Dmol 16:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The only books.google.com references I saw indicated it was not English, archaic or otherwise. Are you seeing something different? --Connel MacKenzie 16:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello. According to this page, the Oxford Companion to British History has an entry for outfangthief (and for infangthief as well): "Examples of [legal terms] include infangthief and outfangthief (early medieval jurisdictions)". FWIW, see also page 3 of Jurisdiction as Property: Franchise Jurisdiction from Henry III to James I. — Xavier, 21:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Admin note: I thought we spelled out somewhere that {{archaic}} is for words 50-99 years since last used, {{obsolete}} is for words 100 or older since being used seriously. Is that still acceptable for everyone? If not, shouldn't it go to WT:VOTE? --Connel MacKenzie 05:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

So, shouldn't this be listed as ==Middle English== instead then? --Connel MacKenzie 12:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A little more: My (American) local library's online OED access lists only two hits for outfangthief - neither one from a dictionary; instead, both are from "The Oxford Companion to British History" which describes the term as having become obsolete sometime in the 13th century. Sorry again, that I can't use the direct citation method they provide, without disclosing the city I am now residing in. --Connel MacKenzie 22:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed label to "Middle English". --Connel MacKenzie 06:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Phobia? --Connel MacKenzie 20:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

rfvfailed, deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 06:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

geek hag[edit]

zero. --Connel MacKenzie 21:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

rfvfailed, deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 06:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Scottish, (for harvest feast) perhaps. --Connel MacKenzie 22:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

rfvfailed, deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 06:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 23:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Rubbish. Already deleted from Wikipedia. SemperBlotto 10:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
rfvfailed, deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 06:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 23:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

rfvfailed, deleted. Do not re-add again without three print citations. --Connel MacKenzie 06:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Not in other dictionaries. --Connel MacKenzie 00:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

yes it is copyvio, source is http://www.worldwidewords.org/turnsofphrase/tp-ano1.htm Robert Ullmann 01:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
only 747 google hits, but a lot of real, independent uses among them. And the word dates from at least 1997. Robert Ullmann 01:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
added quotations from the London Times and the Archbishop of Canterbury (in a sermon, no less! sigh, just a speech). Think that is good enough? ;-) Robert Ullmann 01:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
plus Hansard, debate in the House of Commons. That is three unimpeachable print citations, all with the meaning given. Pass? Robert Ullmann 01:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Excellent cleanup and citations, thank you. --Connel MacKenzie 05:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
A bit anorakish, IMO ;-) --Enginear 14:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I quite agree. I've still to do the etymology. Robert Ullmann 15:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Added some cites from Google Books as well, as they push the date of use back a bit. --Jeffqyzt 15:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 05:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

rfvfailed, deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 06:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 05:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I trust that having to read about pipelle suction, sphincter disorders, and urology has cured you of wanting to RFV technical-sounding terms. :-) (But given who first created the entry, somebody might want to paraphrase the definition.) -- Keffy 07:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


In the sense of a spirtual pain? Jonathan Webley 07:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish - deleted SemperBlotto 17:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Tagged long ago but not listed. Apparently a citation from a scanning error (scan-o's don't count.) --Connel MacKenzie 19:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. That's how it spelt in Wikisource. Not all words with ass are verboten. Jonathan Webley 07:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Removing RFV tag. Move this to its talk page in a week? --Connel MacKenzie 18:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

donkey dick[edit]

Only "reference" was to urbandictionary. Other slang dictionaries seem to carry different meanings anyway (none of which would pass WT:CFI here anyhow.) --Connel MacKenzie 21:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Rfvfailed, deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 07:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

step on a rake[edit]

--Dresden2 21:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It’s fine. —Stephen 21:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
No. It needs two more quotations.--Dresden2 21:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it falls under "widespread use" but then, if you'd like to simply stalk my entries adding RFV, Wiktionary will be better for it. I am capable of error: something I think is very common, may not be nearly as common as I thought. --Connel MacKenzie 23:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that "literal" or more "cartoonish"? Probably better as the etymology, unless anyone thinks it's actually possible to do. DAVilla 03:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Many idiomatic entries first describe the literal meaning, to clarify the idiomatic use in a manner that flows nicely. Please fix it how you see fit; I'd think the cartoonish/literal meaning of the words (sum-of-parts, if you will) is a definition in the most basic sense. --Connel MacKenzie 11:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's probably used figuratively but it is apparantly possible and the results can be fatal (A heavy person running steps on a tilted rake and fractures his skull). Moglex 09:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Rfvpassed: in widespread use, kept. --Connel MacKenzie 07:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

scooby snacks[edit]

I've never heard this being used for illegal drugs.--Dresden2 21:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, busy now, I'll add more after the XML dump processing is done. Oddly, I'm finding more citations for marijuana than for shrooms. --Connel MacKenzie 23:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
In the drug subculture (and thus law enforcement as well), "Scooby Snacks" was initially slang for any snack item (such as brownies) that had marijuana in it. The use, looking at web references, is evidently expanding to include other drugs, but that might be just a regional thing. Going back to the original cartoon - and thus the reference - "Scooby's" middle name of "Doobie" was a reference to his favourite drug of choice! SkierRMH 02:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Given the citations (I skipped the numerous "drug dictionaries") I think the definition does need repair. Anyone feel bold? (Cites added, by the way.) --Connel MacKenzie 09:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Rfvpassed. --Connel MacKenzie 07:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


Bad capitalization [fixed DAVilla], not formatted, needs attestation. --Connel MacKenzie 22:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Rfvfailed, deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 07:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to revive this. There were plenty of book hits to pick from, and I took the earliest. Found in a 1991 Usenet thread, the oldest use I know of, from which the Mark Dery quote derives, is a quotation of Mondo 2000 attributed to "Artform International". No idea who that is. DAVilla 16:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Rfvpassed. --Connel MacKenzie 17:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Regional, perhaps? --Connel MacKenzie 07:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It's on the dictionaries: ninnyhammer. Besides, I've met this term just yesterday: "The girl my other side was a ninnyhammer: no bosom. I thought these girls with no bosoms were exploded long ago." It's from Patrick O'Brian's "HMS Surprise". The meaning is somewhat different, though. --Dart evader 07:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
It's in SOED (usage 1592) and was used by Tolkien. Saltmarsh 07:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Rfvpassed, in widespread use. --Connel MacKenzie 07:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


Sense of "a cake" - is this a countable sense, or is it just what the cake is made of, just as the biscuits/cookies are? — Paul G 08:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What does your copy of the OED say? SemperBlotto 10:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Good question. I didn't think to look there, for some reason. The senses are (summarised): "obsolete: preserved ginger; a kind of cake flavoured with ginger; something showy and unsubstantial; type of ironstone; type of tansy; slang: money". The "cake" sense is the one intended by our first sense (as the OED refers to it being cut into gingerbread men and the like) so it looks like the senses are one and the same. In any case, gingerbread is a cake, not a biscuit. Fixing now... — Paul G 17:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
How on earth do you make cookies from a cake? --Connel MacKenzie 23:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Gingerbread cookies (such as gingerbread men and gingerbread houses) are not the same as gingerbread, the cake (at least in the US), and they should have seperate entries. The cake is similar to other cakes; it has a thickness measured in centimeters (or, in the US, inches), it is moist, and it is full of largish airy holes baked in. The cookie material, on the other hand, is dense and flat, having a thickness measured in millimeters. Additionally, while both use ginger as an ingredient for flavoring, they have different flavors. The word refers both to the construction material for the cookies (a gumdrop castle made of gingerbread and icing) where it is uncountable, and also to the cake and servings of the cake (Pass me a piece of gingerbread. or We baked a gingerbread for the potluck luncheon.) There are boxed mixes available for both kinds, but I can't hit shopping sites at the moment to display the difference. --Jeffqyzt 16:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Rfvpassed, in widespread use. --Connel MacKenzie 07:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

raising agent[edit]

Aren't the definitions one and the same, with "leavening" merely being a synonym? — Paul G 08:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Would ->TR but already resolved. DAVilla 03:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Rfvpassed --Connel MacKenzie 07:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Carle Sunday[edit]

Only entry in onelook is in Wiktionary. The article had typos in it, suggesting that the entry might be misnamed. The term Carling Sunday does exist. — Paul G 17:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Rfvfailed, deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 07:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 23:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This has already been subjected to rfv and passed. See Talk:squick. —Stephen 06:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I see. It was passed improperly then, as the citations are supposed to be in the entry. It came up again yesterday; a cursory inspection of the entry showed no attestation! (Still none, besides the talk page.) --Connel MacKenzie 11:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Citations added easily enough. It's used as both a verb and a noun. bd2412 T 03:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, much better. --Connel MacKenzie 20:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Rfvpassed, again. --Connel MacKenzie 07:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


Verb sense. --Connel MacKenzie 23:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There is plenty of support for this, going back decades.

The frightening aspect of behavior such as scapegoating or being scapegoated is sealed over as these authors treat us to a bit of unsubstantiated...
Groupwork With Children and Adolescents / Ralph L. Kolodny, James A. Garland - 1984

he vacillated between being tolerated and scapegoated by Stratum
Cottage Six: The Social System of Delinquent Boys in Residential Treatment / Howard W. Polsky 1962 --Dmol 14:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Cited as spelled. Cynewulf 21:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

RFV passed. DAVilla 15:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


[ pandar#Verb ] Both verb senses for this spelling - from what I can find, a pandar is one who panders - but the verb doesn't attach to this spelling. --Versageek 04:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There are enough Google book hits for the more common meaning of pander, but so few that I would think pandar should be labeled as a misspelling, and so I wouldn't suggest citing it. DAVilla 17:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

RFV failed. DAVilla 15:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Is this at all widespread?

  • No, but it doesn't need to be. SemperBlotto 10:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are no references and I've never heard of it. Or have I misunderstood the criteria for raising an RFV? Moglex 10:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite possibly although I've been aware of the term for years and have never read the newsgroup where it is claimed to have its genesis. It's also simply another part of speech of a word that has passed RFV.

Anyway, is that actually relevant to the matter in hand?

There is no reference for the 'Sunday-go-to-meeting'. I've never heard of it. Are those suitable criteria for raising an RFV? Moglex 10:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It probably should be tagged as "Chiefly British" or somesuch. --Connel MacKenzie 11:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Somesuch being the operative word. "Chiefly American" on further digging. I think it is a mistake for Americans to assume that just because they've never heard of a word it's British.
Of course, having never heard of the word I thought it was American (or Austrailian). It just doesn't sound British to me,so I can't complain.
Digging around it seems to be in MW but not OED.
In the 1800s and first half of 1900s at least, Sunday-go-to-meeting was a common adjective applied to anyone’s best clothes or shoes. It’s still well-known in the American Midwest if nowhere else. It sounds a bit folksy, but everybody I know knows it. —Stephen 12:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, I am familiar with it, wouldn't question it. At least American; I don't recall hearing it in the Commonwealth. Robert Ullmann 17:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I've heard it in UK, though not recently, and possibly only from people who had spent a year or more in US (Boston & Washington). Google.books shows mainly US use, but at least one UK & one Aus cite. --Enginear 21:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I should, of course, have checked at least MW before raising this, so apologies for wasting everyone's time. Moglex 18:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No, indeed it is an interesting term. I've heard "wear one's Sunday best" thousands of times, but not "Sunday-go-to-meeting" ever. I don't think this has a usage note indicating that it is limited to the rural midwest yet. (Is rural midwest correct?) --Connel MacKenzie 01:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not restricted to the "rural mid-west" -- see my note two posts above. --Enginear 19:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It may be an obscure term, but it's well-known enough to have been satirized: I know it only from the The Chips's song "Rubber Biscuit" (originally performed in 1956, covered in 1978 by The Blues Brothers):

The other day
I had a coool water sandwich
And a Sunday go to meeting bun

scs 03:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

RFV deferred if not withdrawn. DAVilla 16:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I dislike the option of "rfvdeferred" more and more. This I think should be "rfvpassed" as "verified widespread use" with the remaining concerns (like, OMG, I've never heard that in US vs. OMG I've never heard that in UK) handled either in the tea room or requests for cleanup. Right? --Connel MacKenzie 16:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Rfvfailed. --Connel MacKenzie 17:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sperm Retention Headache[edit]

Amusing, but really? Jonathan Webley 20:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Urban dictionary. Nothing in google but references to UD and "is this a word?" Tosh. If someone has any defense at all for these entries, we will re-incarnate them. Robert Ullmann 21:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Rfvfailed. --Connel MacKenzie 17:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


In the sense of five times. Jonathan Webley 21:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Nonsense. Removed. SemperBlotto 08:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
RFV-sense failed. --Connel MacKenzie 17:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


[Scouse:] A stew made from vegetables etc.--Williamsayers79 10:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Added a proper def in the uncapitalised form.--Williamsayers79 12:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


[adjective sense] Slang for fooled - I'm not convinced! is this some kind of twisted joke--Williamsayers79 12:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Deek would probably think so. Moglex 12:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Rfvfailed. --Connel MacKenzie 17:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Had a few other forms of this in the past, no? Just vandalism, or British obscurity? --Connel MacKenzie 19:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

British Obscurity? No, esturian english has fast become the most common form of Englsh in the UK. Surely this justifies its inclusion, to deny it would be an attempt to refuse the evolution of language.

I have to say, I use this term often, and am surprised to see it here, thinking that it was a local expression between me and my friends. —This comment was unsigned.

Apparently, out British contributors disagree. A real definition has replaced yours. --Connel MacKenzie 20:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

RFV was interrupted by early deletion with no comment on evidence for this definition. DAVilla 16:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Verb sense. Moglex 21:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I withdraw this?

I now realise that the verb is quite correct in the intransitive sense but unfortunately that usage is swamped by the noun usage and I thus cannot find the required references via Google books. Moglex 11:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely exists, though strangely, OED2+ doesn't have it. As you say, the infinitive is hard to find since even to abscess is swamped by phrases such as predispose to abscess formation, but there are a few (continuing to abscess finds one). There are thousands of hits for abscessed as an adjective, swamping verb use, and more use of abscessing as a noun than a verb. But I don't think they're too difficult to find. --Enginear 21:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

RFV deferred by withdrawal of nomination. DAVilla 16:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

muff diving[edit]

Deleted, then restored. Let's decide this properly, please. Dvortygirl 08:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's got a quarter million hits on Google. Hard to ignore that. --Dmol 08:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

For a term in such widespread use, I think I'll enjoy finding citations for it. --Connel MacKenzie 08:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Too bad I can't cite secondary sources, like Bum Bags And Fanny Packs: A British-American American-British Dictionary (apologies for thinking it was restricted to the US.) --Connel MacKenzie 08:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Rfvpassed. --Connel MacKenzie 16:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


This is a redirect to the cuneiform sign 𒀭. Do we accept this sort of thing now? SemperBlotto 11:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if we did... as a redirect? Presumably not. Properly identify and keep, assuming it is properly identified. Or, having placed this on RFV, do you refute that as well? DAVilla 07:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
see my comment here. DINGIR is simply the transliteration of the sign 𒀭 (i.e., the allcaps are assyriological convention that the sign (Sumerogram), not the word is intended). It's a matter of convenience, think of it as U+9053 relating to , just that it is very common in the real world to write DINGIR instead of drawing Dingir120.jpg. Since DINGIR and 𒀭 have precisely the same referent, I see no reason not to redirect, although if you are hyper-purist anti-redirectionist, you might want to keep a stub at DINGIR saying "transliteration of 𒀭" (essentially a soft redirect). Dbachmann 16:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Added the image to the page. DAVilla 09:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I have converted it (and LUGAL) to a soft redirect (and linked to Wikipedia). This seems reasonable because some of them might also have unrelated English meanings as acronyms etc. SemperBlotto 17:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


I think this kind of speech sound is actually a fricative, rather than a frictive. Is that right? Shoof 12:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right: fricative is what's intended.
There are actually a few hits on Google Books, but I suspect they're just mistakes. --Ptcamn 17:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
That's a pretty high number of books.google hits. Over a hundred books is more than "a few" to me. What criteria do you use to assert that using b.g.c as a resource is inappropriate here? The simple fact that it doesn't appear in other dictionaries? (Note: I strongly agree this seems to be a common typo - I'd like to refine WT:CFI for situations like this, where the books.google hits give a lot of false positives. So I'm curious how you arrived at your conclusion...which I happen to agree with.) Looking this up in OED online, it simply jumps to "fricative" with no indication that it was spelled wrong. All the others that I checked simply say "no results found." So apparently other dictionaries seem to agree it is an error. How then, do we definitively assert that it is just an obvious error, in light of so many seemingly valid citations? --Connel MacKenzie 18:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I meant for the second definition, the speech sound. The first sense may well be valid.
One way to check whether it is a typo is to see if it's consistent. If there's only one or two examples of "frictive" in a book that otherwise uses "fricative", it's a typo. If "frictive" occurs consistently throughout the book, it's probably intentional and merits conclusion. Runes and Germanic Linguistics has "fricative" on pages 9, 88, and 305, but "frictive" occurs only once on page 101. Conversely, Development and Evolution: Complexity and Change in Biology has "frictive" on pages 107, 136, and 268, while "fricative" doesn't occur at all.
At least some cases of frictive might be hypercorrections: Classical Latin frico "to rub" had an irregular past participle frictus, which regularly would have been fricatus. --Ptcamn 23:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It was either Hippietrail or RichardB? who used to argue that there's no such thing as a misspelling. Indeed we haven't defined it for ourselves, for our purposes. From the definition, how do we judge when the spelling is incorrect? What Ptcamn says above is the closest anyone has come to a clear objective judgement. I personally don't think an inconsistent spelling should count towards an RFV citation. That still leaves the issue of consistent misspellings though. Counting those, RFV might still result in the inclusion of the word. The key point is that it wouldn't say how it should be labeled. Does it make sense to refuse an inconsistent spelling as a typographical error, and at the same time label a perfectly cited definition as a misspelling? DAVilla 07:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

How do we support the conclusion that using books.google.com as a resource is inappropriate here?

  1. "frictive" is clearly a misspelling (since no other dictionary has it, and since as Ptcamn points out, the usage in those books isn't consistent).
  2. We don't list misspellings as "words", except perhaps in the case of extremely widespread misspellings.
  3. Three print citations is proof that a word may be included, not a mandate that a random string of characters must be included.
  4. There's no hard-and-fast rule for how common a misspelling must be before we'll include it, but it's probably more than "three print citations".

QEND. —scs 02:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That does sound reasonable, however, you'll note that it seems to be passing RFV at this point in time. :-) So... --Connel MacKenzie 03:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Where? Show me the link, and I'll vote against it. —scs 03:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Here, above. Voting does not seem to come into play here - finding citations does (which is what Ptcamn did.) --Connel MacKenzie 03:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I was confused because when you said "it seems to be passing RFV at this point in time", I thought you meant "frictive as a synonym for fricative seems to be passing RFV at this point in time", and I just didn't see that at all.
So I'm going to:
call the question

I propose:

  1. Retaining the "of, relating to, or caused by friction" adjective sense.
  2. Deleting the "a class of consonant sounds having a sibilant, hissing, or buzzing quality" (linguistics) noun sense.
  3. Adding
    See also
    Usage note
    Not to be confused with fricative.

Ordinarily I'd just be bold and do this, but since the adequacy of the RFV process has been called into question, I thought I'd wait and see how it plays out here. —scs 04:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I've made those changes. I suggest closing this RfV and retaining frictive in its condensed state. —scs 17:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Using a separating wiki heading here is quite unhelpful! See comments above; such a change does not seem to address all the concerns. --Connel MacKenzie 20:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seemed to, to me. Anyone who still has concerns is welcome to voice them or to make additional changes. —scs 21:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting that we're the first dictionary to have an entry for this word. It still does not have any citations, therefore "closing" this rfv would be premature. --Connel MacKenzie 19:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Citations added. (For the pertaining-to-friction sense, that is. The misspelling-of-fricative sense is gone now.) —scs 21:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, now it looks unambiguously like an 'rfvpassed' so the conversation can return to the beer parlour? --Connel MacKenzie 21:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
(Sorry to be dense again, but: which conversation? —scs 21:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC))
Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Is it really a breakdown? redux (didn't save yesterday, when I ALT-S saved it, for some reason...saved now.) --Connel MacKenzie 18:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Rfvpassed, as an example of the failure of the RFV process. --Connel MacKenzie 18:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Word in the news? (Current version seems like a copyvio from a magazine article or something.) Is it worth cleaning up? --Connel MacKenzie 21:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Rfvfailed, deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 18:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Might exist? --Connel MacKenzie 18:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought I'd heard patsy used in that sense, but I can't find any good cites for this meaning for either word. --Enginear 19:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
There are no supporting hits from Google Books [1], nor from Google Groups [2], nor even from Google Blogs [3]. Most instances are diminuitives for "Padfoot", i.e. the Harry Potter character, in various account names and fanfic entries. There appears to perhaps be a Polish word of that spelling, though. If it's a Kentucky slang, it must not be a frequently recorded one. --Jeffqyzt 20:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Rfvfailed, deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 18:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

foot job[edit]

[footjob] Tagged but not listed. --Connel MacKenzie 07:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely two words, cf hand job, as in [4] or [5] or [6] and perhaps [7]. I can't find any BGC cites for it as a single word, but one of the above cites used "handjob" as well as "foot job", so if one has mutated, perhaps the other will. --Enginear 10:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Added cites as above, tidied, wikified, and moved to foot job to match the cites. --Enginear 16:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Rfvpassed. --Connel MacKenzie 18:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed? --Connel MacKenzie 07:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm Icelandic and I haven't heard this work until now, though it does seem legit? --BiT 15:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, you're Icelandic and I'm not. (Although, I'm still unclear on what about the entry is "legit.") Removing rfv tag. --Connel MacKenzie 16:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

qing mei[edit]

Listed as English? Tagged but not listed here. --Connel MacKenzie 07:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Rfvfailed, deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 21:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


English? --Connel MacKenzie 07:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been used in English discourse since the 1800s, although people still consider it foreign enough to italicize it.
The def needs to be improved though. --Ptcamn 17:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Rfvpassed. --Connel MacKenzie 18:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Czech? More like re-entered English vandalism, that has previously failed RFV, no? --Connel MacKenzie 07:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, there is no entry in the Czech wiktionary [8], not that that proves the matter. A Google books search shows some non-English uses of the word that could possibly be Czech or related. --Jeffqyzt 20:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Rfvfailed, deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 21:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


Is this defined correctly? Specific to a particular region? --Connel MacKenzie 07:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks mostly correct to me, although I think I will rework the "acting in a manner as if having something to hide, or seemingly crooked" part, which is a bit too specific and strikes me as the original definer's reading too much into one particular usage. I might also list bizarre, demented, and/or depraved as additional defining synonyms.
It's definitely a slang term. I'm not aware of it being particular to a certain region.
I know it from the novels of Carl Hiaasen (who is a Floridian, if that says anything); he uses it all the time. —scs 17:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I just checked, and it's in my computer's online copy of the Oxford American Dictionary, with a compatible definition. (The etymology given is "Origin 1950s: of obscure origin".) So it's definitely a word. —scs 04:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

RFV passed. Should some of the senses be marked as new? DAVilla 16:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

test case[edit]

In the sense of an insult? Jonathan Webley 08:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

 Never heard it as an insult

—This comment was unsigned.

Rfvfailed, sense removed. --Connel MacKenzie 18:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


I'm fairly certain that a Warcraft term doesn't necessarily constitute an acceptable entry. (If it does, however, the entry needs to be cleaned up considerably.) Medellia 17:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Rfvfailed. --Connel MacKenzie 19:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Sense 4: A changing of words in the English language to suit one's needs. What? Is this something from across the pond? I can't seem to find anything about this usage on Google. It sounds kind of made up. —Andyluciano 23:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's basically a mini-rant. Removed. --Ptcamn 02:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Probably a reflection of the habit of people on either side of the Atlantic to blame/credit any element of language they don't understand on/to those on the other side. —This comment was unsigned.
Rfvfailed, sense removed. --Connel MacKenzie 16:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Plural of demo? --Connel MacKenzie 06:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Gah, even worse, plural of demos! --Connel MacKenzie 06:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The Greek plural of demos would be demoi, but I'm nearly certain an English demos would be uncountable. Medellia 06:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
My computer program version of the 11th edition of the COED gives it thus, which confirmed the existence of the plural form that I had been instinctively using for months. I understand if this isn’t seen as valid verification due unto being an argumentum ad verecundiam, and am therefore willing to look for citations of usage in the next few days — just not right now. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 09:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, why not, if medias is a word. DAVilla 16:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
No, no; demoi is the plural of demos in the sense of “the masses”, not a double plural of demo. I have clarified the entry at demoi to avoid such confusion in future. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Now I see. Perhaps I should have RFV'd the political science definition (I looked for something like it, but missed it when I tagged this one.) I'll remove the RFV tag now. Please use a gloss, not a definition number. The definition numbers are not fixed (and the definition ordering could conceivably be swapped by a well-meaning contributor.) --Connel MacKenzie 18:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Aah yes, I didn’t think about that. OK, I’ll use a gloss in future. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Rfv deferred. --Connel MacKenzie 19:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Is this a protologism, or just spamvertising? Needs formatting anyway - and is it Xinternet, XInternet, X-Internet or X Internet? SemperBlotto 11:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam zapped. --Connel MacKenzie 17:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Another example of WT:RFV not working right? There seem to be plenty of web examples of this very-natural construction. But it is a nonce-usage and not published, so it does not meet WT:CFI, right? --Connel MacKenzie 17:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, it has a Wikipedia entry - so I assumed it was OK. SemperBlotto 17:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify, my argument is that it should be here, but the current vagaries of our CFI fall short. Thank you for removing the tag and cleaning up the entry itself. --Connel MacKenzie 17:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
      Not presently tagged, without objection, so I'd consider this closed. DAVilla 08:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I’ve never seen this word, but I can understand it. It’s a portmanteau of bullshit and bushido. —Stephen 17:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has an aricle on it. Which begins: Bullshido is a derogatory term used by some English speaking martial arts aficionados to describe fraudulent, deceptive, or inept martial arts teaching. It is a portmanteau of bushido, the samurai code of honor, and bullshit. Bullshido is considered to be the antithesis of bushido, and is generally applied to martial arts schools where their instructors publish pseudoscientific claims or unverifiable assertions concerning their lineage or training methods, or emphasize blatant commercialism over substance in teaching, training, personal conduct, or business dealings. (Searching wikipedia has 97 hits but be aware there is a website bullshido.com that may cause false hits.)

—This unsigned comment was added by RJFJR (talkcontribs) at 10:37, November 16, 2006.

dune coon[edit]

Supposed to be a slang term for an Arab. Protologism? —Stephen 02:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's used in the film "Three Kings." 03:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Rfvfailed, deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 16:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

bunny hug[edit]

Tagged but not listed by Connel MacKenzie 15 November 2006

I added a reference to the Oxford Dictionary. Is that a well-known enough source for you? --Arctic.gnome 03:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
For me? :-) Well, that does seem to meet CFI, much to my chagrin. BTW, what is "Saskatchewanian"? Or or pertaining to someone from Saskatchewan? "rfv" tag removed. --Connel MacKenzie 08:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


I can find 1 (one) relevant google, so perhaps it should even be nuked at once... \Mike 10:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 00:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

ta ta[edit]

I'm probably not abreast of nursery English, but I didn't notice this usage (A breast) when I was citing the interjection six months ago. --Enginear 12:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it once, slang. Do a google search for the plural "ta tas" to filter out a lot of the interjections. RJFJR 16:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Vandal contrib removed, can be readded (with citations) if needed. --Connel MacKenzie 03:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Rfv deferred. Deleted sense. --Connel MacKenzie 19:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


A ,protologism or has anybody else encountered across this word? Jonathan Webley 13:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have heard it several tines in Glasgow and the Borders of Scotland

  • Zero Google hits. Not even a protologism yet. Deleted. SemperBlotto 14:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


Nonsense. --Connel MacKenzie 20:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If "leet" wasn't part of the English language (it is), it would simply require changing the language heading, not verification. Clearly in widespread use: keep. (Definitely needs some cleanup though.) --Ptcamn 22:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. "leet" is specifically not considered part of the English language, especially not on en.wiktionary.org. Confer WT:CFI and its talk page.
  2. If it were in such widespread use as you claim, there would be books published using the term. But there aren't. The only two books that get hits are obvious scanning errors! (Nice of google to display the image...the "match" can quickly be identified as law32/ not 'lawlz'.)
--Connel MacKenzie 00:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I see some discussion of leet, but nothing that suggests it's a whole nother language. What's its ISO code?
2's criteria is biased towards the lects that books are published in, but there is more to the English language than those. --Ptcamn 04:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
To say that leet is not considered a language is very different from claiming that it's not part of the English language. The CFI says "Any word may be rendered in leet style, but only a few (e.g., pr0n) see general use." On the talk page, user dmh explains that "we do include a few leet-isms like w00t and pr0n exactly because they have been used in plain English text with no other leet-isms around." So I'm not sure what we're supposed to "confer" here. Anyway, this whole conversation is slightly misguided. "Leet is not the same as netslang. Nobody has nor should have been been rejecting things such as IMHO, meatspace, LOL, interweb" according to Muke Tever. DAVilla 06:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not recall that Muke ever did gain consensus for his point of view on that topic. I do recall his viewpoint being vehemently opposed. "No leet!" has been a mantra here for years. --Connel MacKenzie 18:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
So rfvfailed, deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 05:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Philosophy sense. Twaddle? SemperBlotto 22:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but—you see—this word has always existed, and always will exist. Hegel strikes again! Robert Ullmann 22:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, on the other hand, this word should have only one sense, um ... by definition ... sigh, I suppose it is just so that "monovalence" should be polyvalent. Ontology, you know. Perhaps even ontological monovalence. Robert Ullmann 22:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's a few.
Margaret Archer, Andrew Collier, Critical Realism: Essential Readings (1998) p. xxii
  • The mystical shell of Hegelian dialectics is ontological monovalence, manifest inter alia in the absence of the concept of determinate absence...
Justin Cruickshank, Critical Realism: the difference it makes (2003) p. 34
  • Yet, if the critique of Dialectic is to be follow-ed then these positive aspects of Hegel are swallowed up by his monovalence.
Douglas A. Foster, The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement: Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (2005) p. 627
  • The Movement's profound embrace of “Common Sense” philosophy, with its conviction of the monovalence of truth, led to the assumption that all properly thinking people think alike...
bd2412 T 22:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. So it's twaddle, but genuine twaddle. I shall remove the rfv-sense. SemperBlotto 22:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Rfvpassed. --Connel MacKenzie 19:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


b.g.c. hits don't show this meaning used in English. --Connel MacKenzie 00:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Rfvfailed, deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 19:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

morning glory[edit]

In the sense of daybreak tumescence. Jonathan Webley 12:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I found an entry in h2g2, I expect it would appear in published works as well. [DrX] 14:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of having the thought police on my doorstep I put morning glory and erection into Google and got 17,800 responses. Assuming that only a minority of these refer to trellis - the definition to be verified is probably well founded. Saltmarsh 14:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I've certainly encountered it as an erection. They are quite common in South Africa. Andrew massyn 19:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I think I've found a published reference, just need to verify it in the library. Found it on Google book search but restricted viewing. [DrX] 03:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The book is a dictionary of British slang, and suggests that "morning glory" is rhyming slang for cory, which is another slang term for penis. Applying Occam's razor, I suggest that this is an incorrect derivation - it's far simpler than that. Sometimes you wake up in the morning with a glorious erection. It's just a play on words using the name of a well-known flower. (Well-known to some, anyway.) [DrX] 06:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Oasis' song... Jamiroquai's song... w:Morning glory (disambiguation) lists this meaning, but my, searching for this meaning hits an incredible amount of noise. --Connel MacKenzie 10:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard it used to mean anything other than an early morning erection. --Dmol 13:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest, is ipomoea a seperate species to convulvulus or are they the same, because ipomoeas are also commonly known as morning glories. Andrew massyn 10:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

In answer to my question, see below. I therefore propose changing the first definition from Convulvulus to Ipomoea. Andrew massyn 19:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The definition refers to the Convolvulaceae family which includes several genera, including Convolvulus and Ipomoea. Without being an expert in horticulture, my reading tends to indicate that Morning Glory can refer to any of these genera. As such, the definition should stand. [DrX] 09:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Though one variety of Convolvulus hederaceus in the first edition (1753) of Linnaeus's Species Plantarum was assumed to correspond to Ipomoea nil, in the second edition (1763), the academic name of Convolvulus nil L. to Ipomoea nil was first recorded, as was that of Convolvulus purpureus L. to Ipomoea purpurea. Linnaeus mentioned Ipomoea nil's habitat was North America. As the Convolvulus of Linnaeus was recognized to have considerably heterogeneous species by later taxonomic studies, the genus Calystegia was newly proposed and some species included in Convolvulus were moved to Ipomoea or to the new Calystegia. Roth moved Convolvulus nil L. and Convolvulus purpureus L. into genus Ipomoea in 1797. Thus the name of the morning glory became Ipomoea nil (L.) Roth. [9]

Rfvpassed, widespread use. --Connel MacKenzie 19:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


My copy of the text 'cited' was pilfered many years ago, so I can't check to see if this was a typo, or what. Interesting that the entry and talk page seem swapped? --Connel MacKenzie 10:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up some, needs more work ... especially the definition. —Stephen 18:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Page 248 of the paperback edition of Lord Foul's Bane (from local library) does not have this word. Anyone have the hardcover handy? A few more sentences of context might help...actually, one complete sentence would be better than what is (made up?) entered there now. --Connel MacKenzie 17:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
On page 306. Perhaps I'll get a chance to finish rereading it now. RFV removed. --Connel MacKenzie 23:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Rfvpassed, by the way. --Connel MacKenzie 16:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)



--Connel MacKenzie 06:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Did it for one sense, rfv'd the other. DAVilla 08:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
So, relist (do you think it is plausible) or rfv failed? --Connel MacKenzie 17:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
IMO that sense already relisted as of prev. post, and looks like it will fail in a few days. I haven't found the use even on Google. DAVilla 17:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it was given an extra month already. :-) So we should mark it rfv failed and move on. --Connel MacKenzie 17:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
How long is a month? I guess it's been a lunar month already. DAVilla 18:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
An extra lunar month, you mean. --Connel MacKenzie 17:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The term has RFV passed. It has RFV failed for the sense of "A compulsive user of handheld computer like Blackberry" DAVilla 18:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"addictive"? Not very dictionary-ish. --Connel MacKenzie 17:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
How would you make the connection to crack? DAVilla 21:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It would be referring to the drug crack's addictive qualities. sewnmouthsecret 18:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Judica Sunday[edit]

Same as Carle Sunday - does this exist? — Paul G 09:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article for Passion Sunday mentions it, in relation to Psalm 42 (43), indicating an "old calendar." Not sure what to do with the entry, though. This lists a bunch of secondary sources, but I don't feel like digging past them for the direct quotes, at the moment. --Connel MacKenzie 17:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. 19:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC) I have added {{neologism}}, but certainly a word this old couldn't be a neologism? DAVilla 18:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


I cleaned up this entry, but am unsure whether it even exists (furthermore, I guessed the language (Hindi), on the grounds that she is a Hindu goddess). From the limited research that I have conducted, it looks plausible, but may be more commonly spelt Dhanalakshmi. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?q=Dhanalaxmi&as_brr=0&hl=en has about 35. Seems plausible in this spelling, to me. --Connel MacKenzie 17:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added the only Google book quote that makes any use, for the wrong def. (name of the goddess), though I'm not sure what language I'm supposed to be citing in. DAVilla 19:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I’ve just thought: as Hindi isn’t written in the Roman alphabet, and as Dhanalaxmi is a proper noun, allegedly referring unto a dialect spoken in Southern India, in all probability, this is an English word, albeït a chiefly Indian one. I shall change the language accordingly. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I have looked for "Dhanalaxmi language" and "Dhanalaxmi dialect" on Google. The only references I find are to ourselves. Have deleted the definition relating to dialect and left her as a Hindi Goddess. Rfv removed. Andrew massyn 18:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


rino or RINO? Noun or acronym? SemperBlotto 22:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  1. RINO is definitely an acronym; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only
SkierRMH 02:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Google says maybe. --Connel MacKenzie 17:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
A newspaper search would have been nice, but anyways there's a sea of Usenet posts. Now cited. DAVilla 19:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 19:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


Reasonable number of google hits, but all (from a random sample plus first and last) are to a blog of that name.

Urban dictionary. I'm beginning to think that entries that appear in UD should be automatically disqualified unless they come with print citations already. Robert Ullmann 01:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, yes! Any mention of UD needs to be more than merely a red flag - it should be grounds for immediate deletion, IMHO. --Connel MacKenzie
There seems to be one print citation listed on b.g.c. now, after two months. Delete? --Connel MacKenzie 17:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Has an interesting history actually. Debunked the etymology with an earlier citation. DAVilla 21:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The citations show "techno gypsy"; "techno-gypsy" and "technogypsy".

There is no durable archiving. RFVfailed. Andrew massyn 19:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

More accurately, only one durably-archived b.g.c. cite, too little to pass RFV. --Enginear 20:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The anonymous Usenet post is also a great cite, as it constitutes use more definitively than the other Usenet stuff, but then I guess it's not provably independent. Would be nice to move this to a Citations: namespace. DAVilla 23:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

English Def for archive purposes:


techno- (related to technology) + gypsy (nomadic person)



  1. A technologically inclined person living a transient lifestyle.
    • 1996 May 18, Malcolm Price, “architect needed”, alt.architecture, Usenet
      I would be interested to hear about this job, so I have therefore included my resume....
      1994 / Partner in ARKishop Architects / established in April 1994 ...
      June - “Techno-Gypsy Two” / October - “Techno-Gypsy Three”
    • 1997 April 20, Andrew “Disturbance” Ragland, “Ork Back Online - News at 8”, alt.gothic, Usenet, signature
      ork about to become a technogypsy
    • 1999 June, Peter J. Denning (editor), Talking Back to the Machine: Computers and Human Aspiration, page 136, Springer
      So are you a jet setter logging frequent-flyer miles, or are you just a technogypsy? Can you tell the difference anymore?
    • 2002 October 21, intentionally anonymous, “COMP.DATABASES.MS-ACCESS FAQ [v 0.10] [20021021]”, comp.databases.ms-access, Usenet
      This legion of comic-book reading, miniature pickup driving, khaki wearing, "Most Valuable Professionals" are bestowed a moniker that befits only that special sort, the home-based, unemployable self-employed urban techno gypsy.
    • 2005 November 12, raku loren [sic.], “a techno gypsy?”, Rivers of Life at rakuloren.blogspot.com [10]
      traveling into the 17th and 18th centuries with 21st century equipment and communication potential is a mind bend but an opportunity to live as a techno gypsy for a few adventures dances in my head even when i turn out the lights at night.


  • 1998 November 19, Holly “TechnoGypsy” Montgomery, “Well... I think I've got a few things to say.”, alt.zines, Usenet


Moglex 21:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

While b.g.c. lists almost 800 hits, they all seem to be mis-scannings of "afford" or "afford-able", etc., or hits for the acronym AFFOR, or Scottish legal texts. --Connel MacKenzie 18:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily Scottish, but very old texts. Is this in the OED? DAVilla 23:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Not in OED2+ with that meaning (they have one quote using it in the sense of before: "1399 Rich. Redeless IV. 72 They bente on a bonet, and bare a topte saile Affor the wynde ffresshely, to make a good ffare.") NB: If it were a Scots word, it wouldn't be in the OED. --Enginear 20:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Wonderful. I saw that quote in another book but couldn't find any source information whatsoever.
I've dug up what I could. There should be enough material for a translation of "before" (but which meaning?), and evidence towards the corruption of afford. The definitions that are there now I'm not sure about, but see the reference. Seems to be describing an English word, but is this Latin? DAVilla 19:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I assume you know that your 1904 cite is merely a phonetic transcription of a sloppy rendering of the chorus to the 1892 Harry Dacre song Daisy Bell, which from memory goes "Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer, do!/I'm half crazy, all for the love of you./It won't be a stylish marriage: I can't afford a carriage/But you'll look sweet upon the seat of a bicycle built for two. Without a fuller context, I can't be sure whether the version you cite represents English usage, or the usage of someone who is attempting to sing (or transcribe) a song in a language they don't understand. --Enginear 22:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't aware of that. Presumably "true" rather than "do" in this version, plus other differences. The author may be documenting the migration of those lyrics to India, and if she were using some sort of phonetic transcription then the quotation should be scrapped. Difficult to tell in a limited book view. DAVilla 21:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The only real sense cited is "before". Before is also the only context I know it in. If anyone can provide credible cites for any of the other meanings please put them in. I have ammended it as such and put the disputed meanings on the talk page. Andrew massyn 07:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

black eye[edit]

Plausible, but unheard of, on this side of the pond. --Connel MacKenzie 20:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've not heard it over here either, but to be fair, I'm not part of the designer coffee crowd. --Enginear 13:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems to be a spinoff of red eye; not a lot of print citations, but can be found in coffee shop menus. Wikipedia has the following: w:Black_Eye_(drink) and w:Espresso#Naming variations. Searches on "black eye" + coffee + espresso turn up these: [11],[12], [13], [14], [15], and one where there is only one shot of espresso [16].
I'd say this one is in a kind of grey area between particular coffee establishments' names for drinks, and a general term for this drink; I'm not enough of a hardcore coffee shop patron to know which side of the line this falls on. --Jeffqyzt 15:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it is safe to discount the Wikipedia entries, as they likely were entered by the same person. Wikipedia references are not Wiktionary citations; we'd do well to find actual uses of this, or remove it. The fact that it is plausible for a coffee shop menu does not mean that actually is. And yes, it would need to be from three different coffee shops to satisfy the 'independence' criteria, i.e. not three separate Starbucks. --Connel MacKenzie 19:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
So, rfv failed? --Connel MacKenzie 18:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
No objection from me, as no one produced any better cites. --Jeffqyzt 21:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, this hasn't caught on just yet. DAVilla 22:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed for "a cup of coffee with two shots of espresso" , moved to WT:LOP. DAVilla 22:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


Listed as English - b.g.c hits seem to indicate a French word, instead. --Connel MacKenzie 21:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely French - meaning reconciling, accommodating, understanding or convenient. Never heard it in English. SemperBlotto 22:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It's in the OED, marked as rare. --Ptcamn 20:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The North American OED online lists it only in "The Concise Oxford-Hachette French Dictionary (French-English) in Bilingual Dictionaries)" but not as an English word. RFV failed? --Connel MacKenzie 18:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Apparently Latin as well. The trouble and annoyance of restricting Google books to English aside, it wasn't too difficult to cite. DAVilla 23:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


Seems to be a Vietnamese surname, but not this? --Connel MacKenzie 22:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm this meaning, (slang)good,cool. I was going to add it myself. Sorry, having problems creating account for contact. I will add my details when I achieve this.

RFV failed? --Connel MacKenzie 18:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, this one was tough. I've removed the sense of "cool" since it appears to be a Usenet joke, and any instances of use on Usenet (which usually aren't too indicative of meaning by the way) would only count as a single independent source.
I've barely confirmed the drug, and I blame search engines for not allowing better cites. The Australian newspapers I've looked up don't allow boolean searches, and on Google books results can be narrowed down with extra search terms but then the quotations can't pulled without some effort, which due to the common use of Nang as a name makes the search futile.
The original RFV applied to the entire page. I've relisted red-head as RFV-sense, but I have no objections to its removal. DAVilla 01:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I searched for "nang poofters" "nang cunts" and "nang ozzies" and came up with nothing. If it is a derogatory adjective meaning red haired, I would have expected at least one citation supporting from the above searches. Failed the red haired sense. Andrew massyn 07:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


The Nicaraguan slang sense of blonde, fair-skinned person, added by an anon -- can anybody verify it? Beobach972 16:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I’ve heard chele in Central American Spanish, meaning white-haired man, and chela is a regular feminine of this. So I suppose it’s possible that it means blonde as well, since blonde isn’t a native color but strikes one as a shade of white. —Stephen 04:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
RFV failed, then? --Connel MacKenzie 18:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd defer to Spanish Wiktionary, but they don't even have chela in the sense of beer. DAVilla 01:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that cerveza? Or should I change my Babel template from es=0 to es=-1? --Connel MacKenzie 03:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Meaning verified. The RAE has chelo (fem chela) as a "Mexican" word meaning "fair-haired and blue-eyed" (though of course the RAE says it in Spanish. There is also a popular Peurto Rican singer who goes by the stage name Chelo, from the same word. --EncycloPetey 02:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

And so it isn't beer? I'll have to follow suit with Connel then. (Seriously, I wouldn't know.) DAVilla 05:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Aaah. I was too tired editing last night and that definition accidentally ended up on the masculine page by mistake. It should be feminine; I'll fix that. --EncycloPetey 16:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


Not in any other dictionary (gee, I guess they've never heard of it?) and all the handful of b.g.c. hits seem to refer to "the Japanese word for..." So, all you interpid researchers, let's see some durably archived print citations, shall we? --Connel MacKenzie 06:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to end up wikipedia's resident expert on porn, but this term is commonly used. See [17] for Amazon.com listing, lower down the page there are 5 or 6 print cites quoted. --Dmol 10:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Those look like ones found on the b.g.c. search. At any rate, they seem to fail the use/mention distinction, or qualify it as a Japanese term, or provide the definition in parenthesis immediately afterwards. So, is it some elusive, mystical qualifier in other dictionaries that filters nonsense like this out, or what? Why should no 'real' dictionaries have this term? --Connel MacKenzie 10:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that, is really squicky. Moglex 11:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps then, we should have more severe CFI requirements for "squicky" terms (such as squicky itself?) A ten-year span (seemingly, the dictionary publishing de-facto standard) would be an improvement. --Connel MacKenzie 07:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd happily sacrifice 'squicky' for a more rigorous inclusion standard even though it is a vaguely useful word. (For anything potentially squelchy that makes you feel sickly. I think, though, that there are other, more common, words that gain extremely widespread usage in a much shorter time span than ten years, particularly those that are technology related. I suppose in the end words such as those (e.g. microwave, CD, ipod) could go to a vote if anyone even bothered to rfv them. Moglex 09:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

People used dictionaries to find out the meaning of words, not to wait 10 years for the inclusion. The absense of a word in a print dictionary should not imply that it does not exist. (Try playing Scrabble with a fanatic and you'll see what I mean). Wikipedia has 300,000 words, about ten times the number in your average print dictionarly. But we are getting away from the topic at hand, and maybe all this should be moved to the Tea Room.--Dmol 12:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Still zero valid citations. And it would be the beer parlour to discuss the dictionary-publishing standard of ten years, not the tea room. --Connel MacKenzie 06:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean zero valid citations?.

  • Everything You Know About Sex Is Wrong: The Disinformation Guide to the Extremes of Human Sexuality (and everything in between) by Russ Kick (Paperback - Oct 1, 2005)
Excerpt - page 98: "... of "cum shot" compilations and bukkake porn, in which many men ..."
  • Incredible Orgasms (52 Brilliant Ideas S.) by Marcelle Perks (Paperback - Mar 31, 2006)
Excerpt - page 225: "... go to extremes and practise bukkake ( ..."

There are 3 other examples on the same page, and that is from a standard bookseller, not a pornographer. Over six million hits on Google, and 53,000 Google images. --Dmol 11:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I mean simply what I wrote; there are no valid citations (in the entry!) The citations you provided above seem to fail the use/mention distinction, by the way. --Connel MacKenzie 19:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Therefore, RFV failed, right? --Connel MacKenzie 19:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
RE: the use/mention, just because there's mention in the cite, doesn't mean that they are not also evidence of use. Our WT:CFI#Conveying meaning specifically lists an example that has both use and mention as valid. The two cites above would seem to be valid by the same reasoning (although they should be expanded to include more of the use; the cites as quoted focus on the mention. ) --Jeffqyzt 21:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, these do not fail use/mention. In fact they are excellent in that they are use but also clearly define the term. DAVilla 22:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I added cites at the article. --Jeffqyzt 12:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Unable to view two of the cites, but I'll take your word for it. RFV passed. DAVilla 01:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. I was able to see one citation. The other was in italics, then in quotes. All this time and only one verified citation. Enough is enough. Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 23:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Italics indicates that the word is borrowed, but it is still used in the context of an English sentence, much as the many Latin terms that have entered common usage. And what exactly is wrong with having a word in quotes? One of the original Pawley criteria claims that: "Where there is a written tradition these may provide clues to perceived status as a unit.... Quotation marks may...indicate unitary status: he was considered a ‘bad boy’. Orally, some speakers use so-called or a preceding pause to mark an equivalent to quote marks." In the case of multiple-word terms, quotation marks are a positive indication. Likewise for single words, quotation marks are a sign that a term has entered the awareness of an individual but has unknown reach and may not be understood. Writers are not lexicographers and we can't expect them to do research to determine if the term has entered the language. That's our job. Editors don't do research either beyond looking the term up in a dictionary. And where do the terms in a dictionary come from? Quotation marks or not, the term that a writer has chosen to use is read, and criteria such as three independent instances (or others depending on how fartsy) indicate that it isn't a fluke. That's all we're trying to determine here, that it's used independently in three different instances, not that the people who used it considered it to be a word in common use when they wrote. DAVilla 16:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
After discussion, this has been reinstated using quotes that are hopefully less controversial (in terms of our citation policy.) --Jeffqyzt 15:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


Jonathan Webley 12:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Rfvfailed, deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 19:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a test:

Template:process DAVilla 20:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


This sounds like it's specific to a single game or game manufacturer. Has it actually spread into usage, or is this one deletable? --EncycloPetey 01:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

DragonFable particularly. Already deleted, no objections here. DAVilla 07:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Rfvfailed, deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 19:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Clarification: Is it permissible to count an entry as having failed verification if it didn't complete the process? In other words, even though it existed for only a handful of days and the original contributor probably never had the chance to see the RFV notice, are sysops nonetheless instructed to delete it on sight? Or would you consider this as having been redirected through some other process, such as WT:TOSH? DAVilla 20:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand your desire to have this clarified. In either case, the term should not be re-added without citations, right? (Moreso perhaps, if it was deleted out of hand.) I do not have desire to see the process further obfuscated. If a completely different entry with a real definition were added, one could make the argument that the previous RFV was for a different word. But wouldn't we want to require citations, even in that case? --Connel MacKenzie 21:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
An admin who finds his deletions being countered, whether from a stream of sources or from one confident and determined contributor, should be questioning the decision to delete rather than growing in his determination to squash the term he independently bunked. The principle authority for deletions, and multiple deletions in particular, is that which originates from an objective standard decided by the community, to the extent empowered. That standard includes speedy reversals of clear garbage, with reactive rather than prescriptive review, and this process to bring verification requests before that community and, perhaps more importantly, to the attention of the contributor(s) so they might know that decisions are not arbitrary. The perception of fairness can do more to win over a contributor than any hostility.
This process requires that the page exist with notice for a month, and while deleting potentially legitimate terms may not have had consequences in the past, and with such short resources may continue to go unchallenged for some time, that does not equate to community support. Granted, I do believe that an overwhelming majority of sysop decisions are made not only in good faith but correctly. I do not mean to be rebellious in my views. My objections are made purely on a matter of principal. If this term had only been allowed to go through the process then it would probably be no less dead by now than it currently is. In fact, it would be more dead: it wouldn't be turning in its grave. And frankly sneevil graves don't make good test beds because they rather stink. But that's not the point.
Subjective determinations of fitness are necessary and yes, most likely even correct in this case. However, we should strive for objective determinations when our reasoning is brought into doubt. And furthermore we should be reaching out to new contributors, or at least communicating with them more directly, which is something a blacklist of entries doesn't accomplish very well. Now I'd think it unlikely that this term would be resubmitted only because it appears to be so isolated. But if it were, then I would wonder if there were something we'd missed, and I would want the procedures to reflect that self-doubt. DAVilla 23:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to WT:BP? --Connel MacKenzie 21:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    Sure, this and the conversation above it. DAVilla 22:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


I've always heard that malu in Sicilian is the same as malu in Sardo, but now I cannot find proof. If someone could find something definitive either way, I would really appreciate it. Medellia 23:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As no verification since the request in November, provisionally deleted the Sicilian entry. Andrew massyn 07:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


Books.google, google, and onelook all turn up squat. - [The]DaveRoss 17:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If it were ever written at all, it would be whateth. —Stephen 18:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
May I say that this entry represents poor English, which should not be encouraged? It's not a real word; if you're speaking English you should say "On which day of November is ...?" [No signature] 06:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. DAVilla 08:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. But, what good is it putting blog links in? Is that supposed to convey an added sense of illiteracy? Those are not durably archived, (not guaranteed to be working links to that exact text one year from now) so why are they there? --Connel MacKenzie 17:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Follow the link for the last quotation, Jane Wilson, read the first paragraph and anything else you care to, and then come back here and tell me she's illiterate. DAVilla 17:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I dont think it passes RFV. To WT:LOP and deleted. Andrew massyn 13:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you're going to make me dig through all the scanos at Google books, aren't you? Very well (sigh). Revived and further cited. DAVilla 03:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


In the sense of a change in one's state of consciousness. Jonathan Webley 20:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

How's this?-- 21:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. DAVilla 21:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 06:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm that this is a standard onomatopeic intejection, usage goes something like;
That Scarlet Johansen, 'phwoar!

Also, some quotes from Google books;
2005 "She's a bit of all right, hey?" He rolls his eyes. Pouts up his lips. Makes wavy motions with his hands. "Phwoar! Hey? Phwoar! Bet you both fancy her, hey? - M. E. Allen Gotta Get Some Bish Bash Bosh Page 149
2002 The first time I ever saw Alex I thought, Phwoar, I'd like to get into his pants. And he looked at me and thought exactly the same thing: It was a true - Jenny Colgan Amanda's Wedding Page 16

--Williamsayers79 08:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This is very common in the British tabloid press. --Dmol 08:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

<TIC>Which is an even better reason for banishing it than an appearance in urban dictionary</TIC>. Moglex 09:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree the tabloids are total kak but you can't just bannish this word because you don't like it! There are cites and it is in common use.--Williamsayers79 15:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
'<TIC>' means 'Tongue In Cheek'. I wasn't seriously suggesting that words should be banned just because they're in the Sun. Moglex 16:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Appologies for my curt reply, my internet jargon is pish since I have reclusive tendencies and only understand English and Geordie ;-) --Williamsayers79 12:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd have thought it was nonsense, but: Kersti Börjars, Kate Burridge, Introducing English Grammar (2001) p. 45: Interjections include items like rats!, phwoar!, yuck! and shhh!, and are quite peripheral to the language.[18]. So, there you have it... bd2412 T 19:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 13:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Given that the English form is contrived, is this really a Spanish word? Jonathan Webley 14:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, it's listed in both the Spanish Wikipedia and Spanish Wiktionary... —scs 00:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't speak Spanish, but a quick look for hip... + Spanish shows that all the entries relate to the Wiki project in general. Rfv failed until reasonably cited in Spanish. The longest word in Spanish is the Spanish word for "very unconstitutional". Apparrently the longest word ever is over one thousand letters, and relates to a specific piece of DNA. I am not going to enter it. ): Andrew massyn 08:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


Is this baby-talk? I don't have the COED handy, but other dictionaries redirect to attend immediately. The concepts that might be conveyed by this, are covered by the existing English words attendee and attendant. --Connel MacKenzie 16:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The OED has it as a person who attends upon someone i.e. an attendant. Webster 1913 has "One who, or that which, attends." SemperBlotto 16:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
So what should it be labelled as then? Archaic? Non-standard (for attendee)? Should this just move to tea room? --Connel MacKenzie 17:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think not just for attendee. My OED2 CD edition has an example in the sense of 'attendant'. "2. He who (or that which) attends or waits upon, esp. to render service; a ministrant, attendant." Moglex 17:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I was suggessting marking the other as non-standard. --Connel MacKenzie 18:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, OED2(CD) as meaning (1) would certainly allow the sense of 'attendee', and the same piece of plastic suggests that 'attendee' is: originally and mainly US. Having said that, although I rarely hear the word 'attendee', I virtually never hear 'attender'. Rather a tricky one. Moglex 19:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Should have been called on clearly widespread use, but I had a little fun with cites, and found some more def.'s in the process. RFV passed. DAVilla 22:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion from RFV for attender[edit]

P.S. I am surprised at how different our on-line versions of the OED are. This American library version also redirects directly to their entries for attend. --Connel MacKenzie 17:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's just a matter of sites aimed at different audiences. I suspect the Oxford Resources Online version, which I believe is the one your library subscribes to, is aimed at the general public, while the Oxford English Dictionary site is aimed at academics. So the interfaces vary in line with their preconceptions of what their target audiences want. Much as the discussions we have here re "Multi-level..." Pressurise your library to get the better one! --Enginear 20:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you mean "pressure" your library, not "pressurize" ;) --EncycloPetey 00:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It was one of those moments when I just can't recall the word I want (which was of course "press"), and opted for the slang alternative (I didn't realise it was only UK slang though, and had forgotten the US use of "pressure", so this has been an informative error!) :-) --Enginear 15:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there is blanket subscription for all public libraries in North America, in some form or another. I don't think any of the libraries here chose which edition they were given.
There seem to be a number of different packages they offer, and although most English (not UK) libraries have recently subscribed to the top (I assume) package (which has both front ends included) some have an intermediate package (see [19]) and a few either have the same as yours or perhaps none at all. There might be a single agreement which gives all US libraries Oxford Reference Online, but I suspect individual libraries can upgrade if they are pushed hard enough to do so, just as in England. --Enginear 15:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
OTOH, the entries so far that have appeared in OEDsite as opposed to (what did you call it? ORO?) ORO, do seem to be nonsense. OEDsite is the one they claim is authoritative? Sheesh. And you suggest that is the better one? Egads, no thank you!
Better for academic purposes, eg inspecting dates of cites of different meanings in an obscure spelling, or for searching the full text to find words used in definitions or cites but not themselves defined headwords; definitely worse for ordinary purposes, hence the different front ends. --Enginear 15:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a very good reinforcement of why {{nosecondary}} is so important. Allowing people to say "oh, it's in the OED2" is completely unverifiable and often nonsensical. I can go to my library and find citations in regular books, but offhand I don't recall what version of the OED occupied the entire shelf dedicated to "That British Dictionary." I can only guess at whether or not this term will be found in that version.
Early this year, Eclecticology made a unilateral proclamation that en.wiktionary.org would allow direct citations of other dictionaries (i.e. OED) in the interest of making better progress, in lieu of three regular citations (since the coverage of the basic vocabulary of the English language was still quite incomplete, back then.) But he did so, only at the request of Primetime (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks) (Long term abuse, w:User talk:Primetime) in an effort to mitigate a single, specific dispute. When Primetime was later revealed as a simple criminal, hell bent on inserting copyvios, the bad decision was never formally refuted or rolled back.
We should not make exemptions to our CFI on behalf of the OED. The rationale for such an exemption, according to Primetime, was that the OED had those citations available. But if we were to make those same citations, we would be on even shakier ground with regard to copyright violation.
With en.wiktionary.org now well over 1/4 of a million entries, I can't see any reason to allow such an exemption to persist. As much as I complain about our CFI/RFV being too permissive, it is undeniably ours. To rely on someone else's criteria is wrong, anti-Wiki and dangerous. --Connel MacKenzie 06:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I would not wholly agree with that. The OED is arguably (but only to a really, really, argumentative person) the greatest work of lexicographical scholarship in existance. The fact the a word exists there should be considered persuasive precedent (I'll add an entry in a moment) for inclusion here. Effectively it should shift the burden of proof from the word's defenders to its detractors. OED2 is not infallible, but it should take some very solid evidence to show that it's wrong. Moglex 12:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The difficulty is that you can never prove that there are insufficient cites available to meet our CFI, only that they have not yet been found and entered, so the burden of proof of adequate and appropriate actual usage must remain with a word's defenders. The presence of a word in a reputable small dictionary is persuasive that it is (or has been) used by at least a few people in the sense shown. The presence of a word in the full OED merely implies that at least one person has used or an earlier dictionary has defined the word with that spelling and meaning. Many of these words will therefore not meet our normal CFI.
So I agree with Connel that presence in the full OED should not imply that a word has met our CFI (and indeed, it is no longer mentioned on our CFI page). However, the cites in OED do give useful clues, eg likely dates, when searching for our own cites. Also, the relative number of cites gives a clue re whether an archaic word is likely to meet our CFI (for words still in use we can usually find more cites easily, but finding on-line-accessible cites for a word or meaning not used since 1900 is difficult, and I usually only manage 1 or 2 for every 3 in OED2). (BTW, since I have not seen it mentioned before, I have found that BGC gives more cites overall if you search for several time spans in succession, rather than just searching without date limitation.) --Enginear 15:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Cool! I did not know that worked that way. --Connel MacKenzie 16:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I think my main reason for wanting it to remain is to handle a problem that AFAIK has not occured yet, namely some mischief maker with (slightly) above average wit who starts to RFV every word that is entered (or even every word that has ever been entered and does not meet RFV criteria). At the moment it is possible to dismiss RFV's for words such as 'centralise'/'centralize' (or even 'dog') as being in OED (or MW), but if that route is removed, what would you do? Insist that every single word in the wiktionary is subject to RFV criteria - every part of speech for every root? Of course, I may be trying to solve a problem that will never exist, or there may be other, better, solutions. Moglex 16:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. We should (in theory) have citations for every word we have here. The antics of Wonderfool aside, we seriously should (eventually) have citations for everything and not be shooting blindly. To be more reasonable though, as far as dismissing disruptive nominations, yes, we have the "clearly widespread use" to allay those nominations. We also have sysops that can block a user if they persist with that sort of disruptive behavior. If that same person were to add citations (instead of nominating) for every word "clearly in widespread use" I think their contributions would be greatly appreciated. --Connel MacKenzie 16:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 18:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. I'd checked it before posting it, of course. DAVilla 22:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Not to proud of this though, even if it's not globvious. The word originated with the show. DAVilla 18:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Upon consideration, this should be RFV failed. Not all of the quotations are durably archived, and honestly it doesn't even really feel like it's entered common use in any circles. DAVilla 00:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
To WT:LOP & Deleted. Andrew massyn 14:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Def =

Adjective pukatronic

  1. Disgusting; horrid.
    • 2001 January, Matt Groening, “Parasites Lost”, Futurama, season 3, episode 4
      Amy: Worms!? Ew! Pukatronic!
    • 2002 July 30, “mathieu78”, “she's pretty”, alt.support.shyness, Usenet
      I can only imagine the little defective shit's malformed body ...Pukatronic.
    • 2006 June 28, Svart Jugend, “News And Rants”, Oscillator, at oscillatorzine.blogspot.com [20]
      Spin was shitty, but turn the suck factor to pukatronic?
    • 2006 July 17, Alexander (from Sotra), “I am a hobo(and the thing that sounds like hobo)”, Millionyearoldcarbon, at jesusisawoman.blogspot.com [21]
      And this one woman found larva in her pillow. Pukatronic.


Neologism for Foreign Policy? Not in any other dictionary. --Connel MacKenzie 22:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Exopolitics was nominated in 2005 by the American Dialect Society as word or phrase of the year. It was nominated by the chair of the Society who defined Exopolitics as "the art of dealing with space aliens." Details at: http://www.americandialect.org/Words_of_the_Year_2005_Preview.pdf —This comment was unsigned.
Done. DAVilla 19:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Removed rfvtag and left neologism tag. Talk to talk page.


It looks like a lot of b.g.c hits to me, but what do I know. This neologism was questioned - so it should probably have valid citations added as a precaution? --Connel MacKenzie 22:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Three citations added. —scs 00:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I've heard it used many times by chemists personally, though I don't know that I could easily add more citations. --EncycloPetey 00:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
What's more important is if it's only used by chemists, or if it can be used in other areas as well, apparently statistics? DAVilla 06:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you all! Well done, rfd tag removed. --Connel MacKenzie 16:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The term is used in many Science arenas such as Chemistry, Pharmacy etc. where specific and quantifiable amounts of material need to be measured out prior as part of preparation for work (testing) to be carried out on it.--Williamsayers79 21:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RFV passed DAVilla 16:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

hot stove[edit]

Any takers? SemperBlotto 08:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Move to RFC and enter a real definition for the kitchenette appliance, I think. Any baseball buffs around? --Connel MacKenzie 19:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
hot stove is a term used be baseball fans during the offseason. The term can be seen here used on MLB.com Wiki Kong 06:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added the kitchen appliance def, and re-tagged the RFV. It is hard to call this "widespread use" - so, is the MLB reference adequate? For our CFI, we should have three citations, right? --Connel MacKenzie 17:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Is the stress different? DAVilla

I've added a couple of cites... sewnmouthsecret 19:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Finished them. Is it purely baseball though? DAVilla 16:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
In the absence of any other sports, lets assume that it is for baseball only. Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 08:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

the man[edit]

Any takers? Bad title? Meaning too restricted (you're the man!) ? SemperBlotto 08:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The definition is too restricted, and should mean working for any sort of big impersonal employer, as in "working for the man". In that sense it could be considered wide-spread and has been around for a long time.
I think you're the man might deserve its own entry?.--Dmol 08:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of that. There is one web site with some rabid fans that persist in reentering YTMND which clearly is not used outside of that context of that one website and some ancillary blogs. Many would say that it isn't dictionary material even if it were used widely. The purpose of their reentering it, apparently was promotional.
On the other hand, the entry for the man should exist here, perhaps capitalized, as a clearly widespread use to refer to any impersonal government or corporate entity, figuratively.
--Connel MacKenzie 17:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree, the definition is too restricted, but it's used in several phrases. The man gets you down. Clearly widespread? DAVilla 08:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely means much more than just the government. In fact, I don't remember hearing it used to mean that specificaly. It's also used as an abbreviation for 'the best man for the job':

If you want your widgets fettled, he's the man.

'the top man in the field'

For black holes, Stephen Hawking's the man.

also, of course 'your man' is used in those instances. Moglex 11:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes. That (separate) meaning is also common. --Connel MacKenzie 17:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

RFV passed for refined def. Clearly widespread use. DAVilla 16:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Look its not 'the man' but 'da man'. For example in the classic sentence "She's da man" How often in slang do people use proper English. —This unsigned comment was added by Ruler of the Universe (talkcontribs) 04:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC).


Second sense. --Connel MacKenzie 19:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Only source given is Wikipedia? --Connel MacKenzie 01:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Found two others. DAVilla 19:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Bloody Hell! Do we actually need a word for this concept? Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 08:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


Does this have independent print citations? --Connel MacKenzie 21:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Rfvfailed, deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
To quote the ever-succinct DAVilla verifying Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#bitchwad, done.--Halliburton Shill 18:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Hang on! I am not convinced that the cites show all, or even any, of the senses listed. In particular, a mix of mild and bitter beers is definately NOT a "narf". It is a half and half, or in Cockney and many other dialects, an 'arf an' 'arf. A half pint of any beer is of course referred to as a half or an 'arf, but that isn't even one of the definitions and in any case a narf is purely a (far from common) misspelling of an 'arf. --Enginear 19:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. There is no entry under arf for your claimed meaning, and no 'arf entry. I already have printed references on the article page for the "half and half" sense. w:Pinky and the Brain was a television show, produced by Steven Spielberg, that ran for multiple seasons and has at least a few follow up DVDs. I guess it would be fair to call it a nonce word until there's use of it in literature outside normal fan-space. As for everyday usage, here's 2 quickies:
Fine, there isn't yet an entry for 'arf. If no one else writes it, I may get there myself eventually, but it's not a priority for me. Meanwhile, here is one cite for 'arf meaning half a pint and several for 'arf an' 'arf meaning half and half.
Reread your cites in context, and you will find that none of them support any of the meanings you give. In the "Drifting About" cite, narf has the meaning and a half, with the preceeding numeral assumed. The link to the cite from "The Globe" is actually a b.g.c. hit list which does not even contain the work you claim. Without any further context, the quote appears to use narf-narf as a misspelling of 'arf an' 'arf meaning half and half. In the "Little Warrior", Amateur Gentleman" and "BBC" cites, a narf is a misspelled an 'arf, meaning a half.
In the "World Encyclopedia of Beer" cite, which is in any case mention rather than use, and so does not help meet CFI, narfer narfer narf is a misspelled an 'arf of 'arf an 'arf, ie a half pint of half and half. Incidentally, I am somewhat dubious of the book's claim that this is an "East London" usage (assuming they are referring to London, England). Most pubs in East London serve bitter and lager, but not mild. Also, most cockneys drink pints, not halves. If it were used, it would be as a joke.
So I repeat, none of the "cites" support any of the claimed definitions, even as misspellings.
If you want to add a definition of a narf as what I call a misspelling of an 'arf, meaning a half, then you do have three cites supporting it. However, at present, misspellings do not meet CFI unless they are very common, so that is unlikely to be accepted either. --Enginear 20:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Misspelling, no. Simply repeating it over 'n over again doesn't make it so. Looks like 1 word (narf) and an alternate pronunciation for essentially the same meaning ('arf). 'arf, which I have started for you, gets used a lot for half as a literary device for a heavy brit accent. Cf., half-and-half.
OTOH, narf seems to get used more currently, especially in reference to pints. On usenet, 16 "narf"s vs. 9 "an arf"s. I added to the definition of narf and corrected the Globe link so you can see it's not simply a hit list.--Halliburton Shill 16:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm now convinced that the majority of writers don't share my POV on how the dialect pronunciation should be spelled, but you may need to convince others. (I have considerable misgivings about the policy on misspellings anyway, so I'm easy to convince.) And thanks for starting 'arf.
So there are now three cites for narf meaning half. But there are still no cites (and I believe no usage, certainly not in London) of narf meaning A half each of two beers, such as porter and ale or mild and bitter. Frequently used with pint. Possible contraction of arf-and-arf. That is an accurate definition of half and half or arf-and-arf, but that is never contracted to arf or narf, not least because the latter are used to denote half a pint.
(BTW, thirty years ago on the Lizard (SW Cornwall) half and half or rather arrfanarrf was a mix of bitter with scrumpy cider, but I've no idea if the usage was more widespread or whether it lasted. The drink was memorable because it had to be left for a couple of minutes while a load of sediment was precipitated, after which the remainder could be drunk with no ill effects -- unlike any attempt to drink the two brews consecutively, which is very ill-advised.)
Which of the Interjection meanings do you believe is supported by the other cites? --Enginear 22:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The 2 Pinky and the Brain cites at the end of the quotation list both support the 1st meaning (though the song use could be viewed as both). The medical student blog above is the 2nd meaning. Some quotes on IMDB that appear to all match the first meaning. As usenet appears to be an accepted source, and there's no shortage of it being used there, I'll add some more citations that support 2. For now, somebody using it in alt.religion.scientology.
Also note I added a link to beer encyclopedia citation on Amazon.--Halliburton Shill 05:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that is is a contraction of an half and half. It is a corruption of a corruption. How far do we go? Rfvfailed. Andrew massyn 08:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


This word turns up no entries at:

And no useful entries on Google or Google Books. Does anyone have any proper cites for it. Otherwise it should be deleted. --Williamsayers79 11:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Reference added (OED online), Citation added via Google Book Search. SemperBlotto 11:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it would be redundant to point out that the OED version available through my library returns "populate" as the most likely entry, "copulate" after that, but gives no indication that vapulate might exist as a "real" word... I do see a b.g.c. hit for "The English Dictionarie of 1623" [sic]. The current entry is not marked obsolete yet. --Connel MacKenzie 17:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Rfvpassed. --Connel MacKenzie 01:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


It's been here for a while, but unlike its brother (dickwad), it has no Google book hits. Jonathan Webley 13:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Not surprising. They are fairly well known, however. They seem to be related to sorry wad (U.S. Civil War through the mid 1900’s), which was popularly held to refer to genetically low-grade semen delivered by Civil-War soldiers to the helpless farmgirls they encountered, and hence to their illegitimate children. By the 1900’s, sorry wad had become a term of endearment for small children. —Stephen 03:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Civil war! No more "age" jokes for me - they're all yours now!
In all seriousness though, did it have the South Park meaning back then? --Connel MacKenzie 01:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. DAVilla 20:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to pee on your parade, but the cites don't verify the meaning. Any pejorative could be substituted and the citations would make sense. Proper cites please. Moving to March Andrew massyn 08:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


The three lone b.g.c. hits fail use/mention distinction. --Connel MacKenzie 17:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

rfvfailed, deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 01:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Revived and cited. DAVilla 23:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
So, do these cites allow the entry to pass CFI? --EncycloPetey 01:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Harmless. Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 09:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 17:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Rfvfailed, deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 01:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

amn't, willn't, mayn't[edit]

Nonexistent contractions. Ligo 23:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

These are all very real, just archaic/dialectal. --Ptcamn 03:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
If they aren't labelled as such, then the request for deletion is perfectly understandable. It should remain until they are labelled (with cites, of course.) --Connel MacKenzie 19:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Amn't is very common here. (South-west Ireland) --Dmol 07:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

They all seem citable on b.g.c. Amn't seems to be used for lots of acronyms, etc, but there are still plenty of cites of real use. In OED2+ willn't is noted as obsolete or dialect, amn't is not mentioned at all, but is used in 3 quotes, at least two of which are Irish, and mayn't is mentioned (with quotes from both US & UK) and without any suggestion that it may be regional or obsolete. --Enginear 21:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I've added literary citations to mayn't. --EncycloPetey 23:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Rfvpassed. --Connel MacKenzie 01:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

y'allselves and youseselves[edit]

Huh? Ligo 23:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I was surprised to find a few cites for these. But I wonder whether native speakers of y'all- and youse-using dialects ever used these forms, or whether the authors weren't simply imitating them inaccurately. --Ptcamn 04:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Do we/should we allow Eye Dialects? I'd guess no, offhand. --Connel MacKenzie 19:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems like it: gonna, kinda, wanna. DAVilla 21:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Those are not examples of an author trying to reflect a rare dialect, those are common slang. --Connel MacKenzie 05:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my response wasn't to these rare dialectical terms y'allselves and youseselves, which I haven't heard. It was directly to your question. At the time I checked, kinda and wanna were listed as good examples on the Wikipedia article you linked. Of the three, now only gonna remains. However, dat is another immediate example, and it too exists here, although it's strangely incorrect. DAVilla 15:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally dont think they meet any standard for inclusion. Moving conversation to RFD. Andrew massyn 11:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


Only b.g.c. hit is a secondary reference - a joke dictionary of "Insulting English." Also quite a few derived/related terms. --Connel MacKenzie 19:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Not in OED2+. --Enginear 21:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Rfvfailed, deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 01:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

space docking[edit]

Silly (improbable) sexual meaning. Three print citations spanning a year, not nonce uses, not urbandictionary copyvios or secondary sources. --Connel MacKenzie 05:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The meaning given is not silly, it is way past that, it is (words fail) crude. It is a real term; though more often just "docking". (and has nought to do with feces). No, I'm not getting involved. Robert Ullmann 20:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
This is not words-fail crude, it's beyond even that. DAVilla 20:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

On Usenet, found a non-independent reference to Ambassadors of Sex. The only other reference I've found gives another form of coprophilia explaining the etymology of the term. "As with the literal namesake, very accurate control and near-perfect alignment of the two orifices is required for successful penetrative space docking.... While it is often assumed that space docking and other outrageous sexual maneuvers, such as the donkey punch, existed only in fiction, graphic video footage of space docking is available on the Internet." No thanks.

One cite short. RFV failed. EDIT: Appears I spoke too soon. DAVilla 20:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont think it meets criteria for inclusion. To RFD Andrew massyn 12:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


Senses 4 and 5. --Connel MacKenzie 07:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember my doctor using aura in the fourth sense when discussing migraines, so I think that that one is genuine (as, most likely, is the fifth). Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 07:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I believe both are correct. —Stephen 07:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


Not in other dictionaries, too much noise from web searches...Is the definition given correct? --Connel MacKenzie 08:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Trick to the search is to search for naija and nigeria, but then be aware of "false drops", pages that appear to confirm it becasue of the way you set the search, for example the raw hit count is useless.

Definition is correct. Robert Ullmann 15:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Aside on searching: one of the very few errors that ever appeared in the NYT Crossword happened because a fact checker used Google to check whether a basketball arena was on a particular city in Kentucky (or Tennessee). She got a lot of hits, and assumed it had been confirmed. Trouble was it was in another city in the same state, but (of course!) lots of pages mentioned the other team and city together with the arena name ... Robert Ullmann 15:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
NYT July 15, 2001, Clue was "Louisville landmark", RUPP ARENA. But Rupp Arena is in Lexington, KY ;-) Robert Ullmann 15:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Rfvpassed by the way. --Connel MacKenzie 01:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


Says it is an English noun. I don't believe it. SemperBlotto 08:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Nor me. Not in OED2+ and top 100 b.g.c. hits appear to all be for the town where the Christian Council was held (except one which is a personal name). --Enginear 21:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Nor is the supposed Latin origin correct. Deleted. --EncycloPetey 22:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


And if correct, is it titjob, tit-job or tit job? And what about the cosmetic procedure? Jonathan Webley 12:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably all three. --Ptcamn 13:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
In American English, tit job. As an adjective it would be hyphenated, of course, but I can’t think of any example of that usage. —Stephen 15:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I can only see book cites (for both meanings) as two words, or a few hyphenated, none for titjob. --Enginear 21:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
In American English, it is a tit fuck. --Connel MacKenzie 05:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Erm, also titty fuck; I believe titty fucking is the prevalent form. --Connel MacKenzie 17:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh, heh, this reminds me of the Catherine Tate sketch about swear words - two women in an office are discussing what people think is the rudest swear word, and one suggests "tit wank". The second says that it isn't a single word, and the first says that she thinks it might be hyphenated.
The word titty-fucking would have to be hyphenated (as it is "fucking of titties". — Paul G 09:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll say tit job, based on the authoritative work done by Paul G for the boob job entry.--Halliburton Shill 10:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Google books gets nothing relevant for titjob; get's about 75 hits for tit job, the bulk of which clearly refer to breast enhancement surgery, but a handful of which reference sex with breasts. Regular google search gets hundreds of billions of hits. No, not really, but seems like it. bd2412 T 23:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, since nobody's cited it since November. Rfvfailed and deleted. Andrew massyn 12:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


See Talk:anti-Polonism. --Connel MacKenzie 05:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

bitching —This comment was unsigned.

This pseudo-word does not appear in any English dictionary. Why? Because it simply doesn't exist. Just look at the synonyms: Polophobia. This word seems to concat Poland and phobia, but accordingly would mean fear for Poles and not "hatred towards". Don't you think there's a difference?

[anonymous response] For uses of the word in literature see http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&q=anti-polonism&btnG=Search+all+books

This is frankly hilarious. I could not first believe my own eyes.


Except for Americanism - an ideological construct coined in the USA (hence anti-Americanism), in all other instances the ending -ism indicates a condition, a disease or ideology. Hence we have imperialism, communism, tribalism, sexism, dwarfism, cretinism, etc. For the word anti-Polonism to exist (no English dictionary is aware of its existence), there must then be an ideology, condition or disease that can be termed polonism. Reading some Wikipedia pages and communicating with nationals of a certain country convinced me that the grave disease that can be classified as polonism indeed exists. Luckily it is not contagious and the circle of sufferers is limited to members of one specific group. Perhaps the disease is passed genetically but the exact manner in which it is transferred is yet unknown to the science (in fact even the word is unknown). If you let the logic of word formation run freely, then anti-Polonism must be a body of science should be tasked with treatment and hopefully with eventual eradication of polonism.

Rfvfailed, deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 01:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


Seems to be very recent; most references are to Mark Shuttleworth, who apparently uses this as his IRC handle. Anyone care to look at this? Robert Ullmann 14:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

In context, it is quite funny. Perhaps move to WT:-)? --Connel MacKenzie 17:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
moved and deleed. --EncycloPetey 01:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

artificial horizon[edit]

The meaning given is: "(Aviation) An instrument that displays attitude of aircraft in all three dimensions (pitch, roll, and yaw)."

Not on any aircraft I've ever flown!

Pitch and roll are all that are displayed.

But I thought I'd put it here in case someone's invented a new, composite, instrument of which I'm unaware. Moglex 18:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it's roll and pitch only. "yaw" in relation to what?? The horizon is (nominally) the same where ever in the world you are. Yaw would imply some sort of directional setting.--Dmol 19:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Pitch is up and down and yaw is latteral movement. Roll surely implies a far greater movement than a yaw? —This unsigned comment was added by Andrew massyn (talkcontribs) 22:15, 26 November 2006.
  • Cleaned up. —scs 03:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


English? Non. --Connel MacKenzie 19:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

An interesting point. In England, at least, we tend to refer to a French castle or 'country house' as a 'châteaux' (rather than a castle) which would give us the rather amusing entry:


  1. (UK) Castle.
Moglex 19:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Connel, are you disputing the â or the -eaux?
(Moglex, are you thinking of châteaux or château?) —scs 03:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The second definition here gives the +x plural and both the spellings with and without a circumflex. It is not given at my link, but you will certainly find châteaux used in English (albeït more rarely than chateaux). Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 03:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't really disputing it. (and the plural would certainly be less used although there have been several articles about the Englsih buying up châteaux as second homes. I just thought it was in interesting point that since in the UK we use château/châteaux (but only ever to refer to French buildings), you could end up with the quirk of a French word marked as an English word with UK regional usage. Albeit with the correct translation. Moglex 08:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, yes. I understand that. My comment was directed towards Connel. Sorry for the confusion arising from mine incorrect indentation of my comment. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 11:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
My comment was incorrectly indented as well, it was replying to scs and should have been at the same level as yours (is). Oh for a properly hierarchical structure like a good USENET reader.
(heard on the cross-channel ferry) Ladies and gentlemen, the buffet is now open. Mesdames et messieurs, le snack-bar est ouvert. Um... Robert Ullmann 14:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this sufficient verification? Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think so -- Connel, what does the nominator think? (I'll note that the -eaux plural, and the alternative â spelling, appear in two out of the two dictionaries I just checked: American Heritage and Oxford American. And I also notice that neither of them list the alternative, ilfrencherate -eaus plural we've got.) —scs 21:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
When I checked:
...I saw chateaus as the "normal" English word. Words with diacritics are usually in italics, indicating that they aren't English. Although I blink when I see "chateaux", the spell-checker I'm using today does not. Given the number of questions raised above, this should probably be moved to the tea room?
Good idea. Done. —scs 16:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, print citations added to the various entries would help explain how each variant is used, so it probably does belong here still. (For the en.wiktionary.org reader, not just for me!) Additionally, the other forms should be added to RFV, for all the same reasons. Particularly worrisome is that chateau is the word in English, but the various plurals are pointing to the French spelling. --Connel MacKenzie 21:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
What we're trying to say is that in many people's usage (including [22], not sure why you said it said otherwise), the French plural spelling is the English plural spelling, so there's nothing particularly worrisome here at all. See also w:English plural#Irregular plurals from other languages.
Evidently AHD swapped the order of their chateaux/chateaus recommendation between editions. —scs 22:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I do have to take issue with the form châteaus which someone entered today. Using an anglicized plural, while retaining the accented â, makes no sense, and I can't imagine any writer (anglophile or francophile) doing it. I would suggest removing the page châteaus unless decent citations are advanced, and also removing the note "May also be spelled with the diacritical châteaus" at chateaus. —scs 16:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't find your note here when I clicked the link within the template (there was, and is, no == châteaux == heading on this RFV page) so I removed the RFV after adding citations. I was rather surprised at how many very prestigious citations were available. They all seemed to be American sources though, so my lingering question remains: do European flavors of English prefer to borrow the plural also, while Americans snatch a word then add regular "pluralization" to it?
I think each remaining form needs three citations. Otherwise we'll continue going in circles about this. If they happen to show that one is preferred in a region, perhaps we should let the readers draw their own conclusions? --Connel MacKenzie 17:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the RFV sense due unto Cynewulf’s citation. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 08:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I added one citation to châteaux -- I'd rather see more than just one that I came across at random. Cynewulf 10:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
As you have added a second citation, and as I have added one as well, then this word is by now well and truly verified. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 10:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

quick match[edit]

I was going to add the citation, and suddenly thought do we want to teach people how to make this? I guess not. Andrew massyn 22:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not? If someone wants to make black powder there are a lot of better references. And they aren't going to look up "quick match" are they? And that cat is long out of the bag. Now if you added a reference to a technical document describing its use in nuclear weapons triggers to krytron I'd say we might have that sort of issue ;-) Robert Ullmann 13:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that the meaning of the term is disputed. Was the entry meant to be put to a verification request? I've removed the tag. DAVilla 16:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


only a handfull of google hits, mostly forums & blogs. --Versageek 01:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Had been deleted the same day. Revived and cited today. DAVilla 17:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What a disgusting word. Rfvpassed. Andrew massyn 12:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


handful of google hits for this meaning, mostly blogs/forums.. --Versageek 02:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


I'm not sure that this is actually English, the definitions all seem to be fictional or from computer games, cites and quotations from more extensive and reliable sources please.--Williamsayers79 20:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it mean "to command"? (c.f. imperare) --Ptcamn 23:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Cleaned up. —Stephen 03:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Handled as RFC by Stephen. DAVilla 16:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


I can't recall the rap song this refers to, at the moment. But a nonce does not meet CFI, right? --Connel MacKenzie 21:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"hood rat" gets more google book hits [23]. Kappa 08:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
more likely to be hood rat though I have not heard the term. Rfvfailed as no citations. Also the plural. Andrew massyn 12:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

comeback album[edit]

I can't think of any way in which this isn't just a sum of parts. Sure, it is a common combination. Robert Ullmann 07:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A comeback is rude retort. I don't think S-O-P fits as an argument here. On the other hand, I don't think the entry given is a stellar example of the sort of entry we should have on en.wiktionary.org. If this were on WT:RFD, I'd say weak keep, but oddly, this is on RFV? Cites for this should be pretty easy; I'll see what bubbles up. --Connel MacKenzie 18:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Feels like a collocation to me. Should there be entries for things like comeback single, comeback movie or comeback campaign? Kappa 02:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, comeback as "rude retort" is evidence that "comeback album" (comeback as return to prominence) is not SOP. (yes, this should have been RfD as procedure) But withdrawn/struck, on the tennis player principle ;-) Citations would still be nice. Robert Ullmann 20:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Could you summarize the tennis player test into a concise phrasing? I've been very much conflicted over whether to keep "last year" or not. The best place to reply is Wiktionary talk:Criteria for inclusion#Multi-word entries, sums of their parts and translations. DAVilla 20:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 19:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

'deleted. The three "cites" included two non-archival blogs and an anonymous posting on a messageboard. --EncycloPetey 01:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


--Connel MacKenzie 19:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OED2+ has rare words emetia and emesis with the suggested meaning. Strangely, two medical dictionaries (the only two b.g.c. hits for dysemesia) seem to define it the same way, with the dys- having little effect. The 9 metacrawler.com hits are all either dictionaries or referring to an eponymous rock band. So doesn't seem to meet CFI. --Enginear 21:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I think emetia rather than "emesia" is the correct spelling (root = eme-, emet-), meaning vomiting; hence, dysemetia should mean "abnormal vomiting". The spelling dysemesia is probably due to a misunderstanding of emesis, which is made of eme- + -sis (not "emes-" + "-is"). Delete. —Stephen 16:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
If we keep it (which I don't recommend, either), we'll have to make it clear whether the term is supposed to refer to the act (emesis), or the effluent (vomitus). The current definition ("vomit; barf; puke; regurgitate") is an unclear mixture (and "regurgitate" isn't even a noun). —scs 16:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Could we place it under Derived Terms under Emesis? Any recommendations you have, I will gladly make the changes to save you the trouble. I'm trying to learn all the ropes, is all. If it makes a difference I have seen this word listed in medical dictionaries, which is why I feel it would be beneficial to include it. sewnmouthsecret 16:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that dysemesia is not correctly formed. It is derived from a hypothetical εμεσεως, but there is no such word. The Greek word is έμετος, and that makes emesis, emetic, emetia. If dysemesia is actually in use, then of course it should be included even though it is badly formed. In this case, we need to see some actual cites to support its existence. —Stephen 17:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand. I will try to find cites for it. Do the cites have to be online, or simply verifiable (such as in a book)? sewnmouthsecret 18:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Citations do not have to be online, but should be something that can at least be found in a local library, so that it can be verified and reviewed. --Connel MacKenzie 18:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea. I personally think its harmless and could remain, However, to RFD. Andrew massyn 12:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Brown’s Gas[edit]

Brown’s Gas Brown’sches Gas

Wasser (H2O) kennt neben Eis, fluessigem Wasser und Dampf noch einen 4. Zustand. Das haben Physiker jetzt entdeckt.

"Bei bestimmten Experimenten mit Wasserstoff(-Plasma) kann die bekannte Physik die Resultate nicht mehr erklaeren" sagt ein Professor fuer Plasma-Physik der TU Eindhoven in Holland. Es erscheinen Energiemengen, deren Herkunft ungeklaert ist. Der Amerikaner Yull Mills behauptet, die Loesung zu haben: die Energie steckt in der Elektronenhuelle der Wasserstoffatome und wird ohne Absicht teilweise freigesetzt, je 27.2 eV bei jedem Kleinereignis.

Mit der gezielten Freisetzung beschaeftigen sich Leute, die mit Brown's Gas experimentieren. Sie haben gefunden, das im Wasser Energie steckt. Ohne das erklaeren zu koennen, versuchen sie, die gewonnenen Energiemengen zu steigern.


Dass H2 und O (Knallgas) in einer Explosion zu Wasser werden, ist bekannt. Doch Brown’sches Gas, das eine gelbbraune Farbe hat und wahrscheinlich aus O und H und H besteht, explodiert nicht, sondern es implodiert, wenn es mit einem Funken gezündet wird. Auch bei der Implosion kommt viel Energie frei. Wer kann das erklaeren?

Die Physik von Wasserstoff und Wasser muss neu geschrieben werden. Danach sieht es aus!

P.M. Brown

Brown's gas, which is a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gasses obtained through electrolysis of water, is debunked pseudoscience. It was claimed that the energy produced by combusting Brown’s gas is greater than the energy required to electrolyze it from water (a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics). This article has already been deleted from Wikipedia. —Stephen 20:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
That's strange. Why did Wikipedia delete it? I thought they were big on pseudoscience. And anyways, how was it debunked, and by whom? They don't think that's important? DAVilla 03:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems the closing admin at wikipedia didn't think the article was adequately sourced and debunk-oriented (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brown's gas (2nd nomination)). This [[24] has a discussion of the idea and links to a debunking. Kappa 05:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems to be a poorly established pseudo-science - however, even if not 'pedia-worthy, it does appears to be a phrase in use for which someone may seek a dictionary definition. bd2412 T 16:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There was never any content to nominate for RFV. Nomination rejected. It appears that a real definition would not be subject to an RFV anyways. DAVilla 16:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Sense: A summary or synopsis.

Sense entered long ago, disputed. Dispute resolution was to label it as UK, then later UK/commonwealth. Now that we have the RFV process, citations, please. --Connel MacKenzie 00:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • There's some here: [25]. Kappa 01:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I added one cite that I knew of. Finding good ones will be tricky (due to the necessity of filtering out all the hits for resume the verb and resumé the CV), but Kappa's idea is a good one. (BTW, the right resolution to the dispute, I think, may be to label the usage obscure or archaic.) —scs 03:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • And three more. (It wasn't so hard, after all. And the usage is not as archaic as I thought.) —scs 04:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • So after some digging, it stays. OK. Should it be marked as "rare" or "uncommon" or do you think the current listing is accurate? --Connel MacKenzie 22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • It's hard to say. I don't think we have firm policy on when to use tags like those, nor can we. I wouldn't argue too strongly against labeling it "rare", although I would ask that we make sure we understand exactly what the label would be intended to accomplish. —scs 23:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, do you agree that that meaning (in the US) is very rare, compared to the understood meaning of "CV"? Or does that need to backed up numerically somehow? --Connel MacKenzie 16:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
            • I agree that it is rare. Not sure about "very rare". (I'm not trying to be contentious. If the question is whether to leave the contested sense 2 as-is, or to tag it with "(rare)" or some such, I don't much care either way, except to again wonder what tagging it as "(rare)" actually accomplishes.) —scs 16:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
              • Good point. Does (rare) mean that a particular meaning is rare compared with the other meanings of the word or does it mean that the word is rarely used to denote the thing described in a definition line tagged (rare)? Ncik 14:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
                • In this case, it means both. The tag is used for either (usually the former) from what I've seen. --Connel MacKenzie 17:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
              • Tagging it {{rare}} indicates to English learners that they probably don't want to use the term with this meaning. It indicates that you shouldn't use the term with that meaning outside that limited context. --Connel MacKenzie 17:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
                • See, this is why I'm leery of tags like "rare". Using words like "shouldn't use" strikes me as prescriptivism, and that's something I believe we shouldn't engage in. (But with that said, I'd be fine with a Usage Note, perhaps along the lines of "The doubly-accented spelling résumé, and the usage synonymous with summary, are both rare and can be considered affected.") —scs 16:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
                  • I did qualify it (the "shouldn't") pretty narrowly, didn't I? I'll add your sentence above as a usage note then. --Connel MacKenzie 06:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
rfvpassed, note added, rfv tag removed. --Connel MacKenzie 06:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
rfv re-asserted. Entry has been POV edited in direct conflict with all of the above discusson. Since I need a wikibreak, I would like to simply rollback the latest edit and get another "Request for de-sysopping" but that would probably result in leaving the Wiktionary entry broken. --Connel MacKenzie 00:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm amazed that no other sysop has taken action on this. He has had numerous warnings regarding his habit of ignoring discussions, and has previously exerted his incorrect POV in this content dispute. His refusal to participate is no reason for his incorrect POV to have any mention on this entry. --Connel MacKenzie 18:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Over a month with no support for his nonsense. Restored correct version. --Connel MacKenzie 10:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


Not in other on-line dictionaries, not too many b.g.c. hits - the preponderance of them seem to be specific to psychiatry? Is the definition given wrong, (even after my edit) or too narrow? Or is it not a word? --Connel MacKenzie 04:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • It does seem to have some specialized use. I have changed the definition from that of a verb to that of a noun. SemperBlotto 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Citations please. I have moved the discussion to March. Andrew massyn 12:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


Any takers? Needs formatting. SemperBlotto 10:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I often spell/misspell it this way. --Connel MacKenzie 18:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Ugh. I'd forgotten what a mess -- er, kludge -- this situation is. "Kluge" is not just an alternative spelling of "kludge"; it's the correct, original spelling of kludge! (And though it is indeed based on a German word, as User: speculates in the skeletal entry at kluge, it's a word for "clever", not "dumb"!) See the Jargon File's careful explanation at http://catb.org/jargon//html/K/kluge.html; there is also some discussion at w:Kludge.
I'll see what I can do to fix up kludge and kluge to reflect all this. —scs 23:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. kluge is completely rewritten, with a new Usage Note shared with kludge. —scs 00:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


Allegedly a politically correct term for a homeless person? bd2412 T 16:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • But is it English or French? SemperBlotto 16:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It's in the French language Wikipedia ([26]). bd2412 T 18:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • French, official government term. Cited/referenced. Robert Ullmann 09:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm satisfied - RfV struck. bd2412 T 01:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

not a no one[edit]

Any takers? Google hits seem to be of the form "not a no one" - the opposite of the definition. SemperBlotto 17:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If it were marked with what dialect it is intended for, I might be inclined to include it (or at least search for some cites) as a set phrase in that dialect. But it isn't. --Connel MacKenzie 18:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the creator of the entry made a mistake for not a one. --Ptcamn 19:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I misheard, apparently, a Futurama scene with Truman ("a single consipracy nutter no one will believe") and misinterpreted a couple of those Google results, including this ambiguous one. Wasn't trying to invent anything here, just thought it wasn't too common and had been left out. DAVilla 21:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


Move to WT:LOP? --Connel MacKenzie 19:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Zero Google hits - not even a protologism yet - deleted. SemperBlotto 20:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll forward that irate e-mail to you. --Connel MacKenzie 22:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Received. We'll just have to wait for those print citations. Unless WT:CFI doesn't apply in this instance? SemperBlotto 09:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


Wrong capitalization, too. --Connel MacKenzie 19:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Zero supporting hits from Google Books and Google Groups searches (it is, however, apparently used in the lyrics of a song by Eminem, where it's meaning is unclear, possibly a misspelling for blow.) Blow away bloah, please. --Jeffqyzt 21:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
deleted --EncycloPetey 01:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


English? Initial glance at b.g.c. suggests otherwise. --Connel MacKenzie 22:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Crossover word, in increasing usage, esp. in the American Southwest where there's a strong Spanish influence. It's used with some frequency (though I can't remember whether in italics or not) in the novella The Peace War, by Vernor Vinge. My (WASP) parents use "Jefe" as a nickname for their (WASP) son-in-law Jeff. (But I can't provide cites for any of this just now.) —scs 23:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, borrowed. [27] DAVilla 15:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Ugh. Any way to strip out the proper noun and italicized entries from that search query? The first one looks like it may be a borrowing, but a cursory glance at the others turns up nothing. --Connel MacKenzie 16:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm sorry that only a fraction of them are worth anything. Narrowing it down well takes many more terms and doesn't give that much better of results. Write Google about the capitals (and punctuation too is a pain or impossible). I guess I've just gotten kinda good at screening them with my eyes. But what do you mean by "the others"? There are 3480 hits! Your cursory glance must have been on the first page only, and no, there may not be exactly what you want there, certainly not three. With a minor tweak in the search [28] there's just one that's adequate, if you would want to settle for adequate given such a large quantity of hits. Still, what's seen immediately isn't that far from what you're asking, and there are a couple of completely legitimate citations in only the first few pages. (Yes, I've looked. Actually adding them to the page takes some time.) I'm used to making a lot out of nothing, and seeing these results I think, "Gold!" ... so much so that it really seems like a waste of time finishing the process. I mean, look at how big this page is. Maybe you haven't run across jefe, but having heard it as a borrowed word in English, I'm not really worried about the future of this entry. DAVilla 17:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I would not call this "clearly widespread use" by any stretch of the imagination. One could say that all activities on en.wiktionary.org are a "waste of time", but yes, there is value to finishing the process, particularly because it is hard now. As b.g.c. adds more texts, finding non-italicized entries will only become harder. --Connel MacKenzie 18:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, okay... you're right it's not obvious, so no sense not doing it. DAVilla 18:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
A good three hours later, I see the other dictionaries already have these definitions. Why didn't we look there first? Well, I hope you enjoy the cites. None italicized or quoted, and even divided by meaning now, with the second a quite a bit harder to reference. Maybe that distinction makes it worthwhile. RFV passed for Christ's sake. DAVilla 22:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Also wrong capitalization, also lists only UD as a "reference." --Connel MacKenzie 23:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed the unreference. DAVilla 12:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
RfV fails; deleted --EncycloPetey 01:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Inter rater reliability[edit]

Deleted. See discussion. 09:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Business Practices Officer[edit]

Deleted. See discussion. 09:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Virtual Researcher[edit]

Deleted. See discussion. 09:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Virtual Proofreader[edit]

Deleted. See discussion. 09:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Virtual Assistant[edit]

Deleted. See discussion. 09:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)