Last modified on 18 December 2014, at 16:26

Wiktionary:Requests for verification

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for verification

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for verification
add new | history | archives | old index

Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.

Requests for moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.

{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} -

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5

Scope of this request page:

  • In-scope: terms to be attested by providing quotations of their use
  • Out-of-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “brown leaf”



See also:

Overview: Requests for verification is a page for requests for attestation of a term or a sense, leading to deletion of the term or a sense unless an editor proves that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in Criteria for inclusion, usually by providing three citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic AKA sum of parts should be posted to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion.

Adding a request: To add a request for verification AKA attestation, place the template {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new nomination here. Those who would seek attestation after the term or sense is nominated will appreciate your doing at least a cursory check for such attestation before nominating it: Google Books is a good source.

Answering a request by providing an attestation: To attest a disputed term, meaning to prove that the term is actually used and satisfies the requirement of attestation as specified in inclusion criteria, do one of the following:

  • Assert that the term is in clearly widespread use.
  • Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.

In any case, advise on this page that you have placed the citations on the entry page.

Closing a request: After a discussion has sat for more than a month without being "cited", or after a discussion has been "cited" for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed. Closing a discussion normally consists of the following actions:

  • Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
  • Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFV failed or RFV passed, indicating what action was taken.
  • Striking out the discussion header.

(Note: The above is typical. However, in many cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply "RFV failed" or "RFV passed".)

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request may be archived to the entry's talk-page or to WT:RFVA. This consists of removing the discussion from this page, and copying it to the entry's talk-page (using {{rfv-passed}}, {{rfv-failed}}, or {{rfv-archived}}). Historically, it could also include simply commenting on the talk page with a link to the diff of the edit that removed the discussion from this page. Examples of discussions archived at talk pages: Talk:impromptu, Talk:baggs.

Oldest tagged RFVs

November 2013Edit


Rfv-sense for definition "water that does not recede and cannot be diverted". Purportedly given in the Kangxi Dictionary (1716), the definition isn't in the Unihan database (which, in itself, isn't a problem) and almost seems to contradict one or more of the definitions given at (Han Dian dictionary site). It'd be nice to have someone native or near-native in reading Chinese have a look at this definition to see if it's valid. Bumm13 (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly not near-native in reading Chinese, but it looks like this definition is indeed in the Kangxi dictionary: "水不通不可别流" [1]. Mr. Granger (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The Kangxi dictionary cites the very old Yupian dictionary, which gives the same definition. Mr. Granger (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, after working with several sources and translation tools, I finally was able to parse the "cannot be diverted" part (不可别流). The "that does not recede" definition seems a bit odd to me, as the literal translation that I'm getting for that part is "stopped" or "blocked" (不通, a compound word) rather than "recede". Bumm13 (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
That's true in modern Chinese, but in classical Chinese, words are generally monosyllabic, so my guess would be that it should be parsed as two words: 不=not, 通=pass through. (But again, I'm no expert - we need someone who can read classical Chinese.) Mr. Granger (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
[2]: KangXi ZiDian:
(Balancing between literal translation and meaning translation) --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, Wyang has commented on his talk page that "the sense is easily attested". Whether the current wording is a sufficiently fluent wording is another question... - -sche (discuss) 02:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
It would be helpful if someone could provide an example of how this is used.
Is a pond a "坉"? It has nowhere to recede or be diverted to, assuming it is rain-fed rather than fed by a river.
If a river floods and the water doesn't seem likely to recede for several days, and the town has to be evacuated, are the floodwaters "坉" until they do recede?
- -sche (discuss) 06:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

RFV failed: no citations provided here, in the entry, or at the citations page. Keφr 21:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

January 2014Edit


Appears unattested. google books:"gaplapper", google groups:"gaplapper", gaplapper at OneLook Dictionary Search, google books:"gaplappers", google groups:"gaplappers", gaplappers at OneLook Dictionary Search (courtesy of {{attest-search}}. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been cited. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think "gap-lappers" should count toward citing "gaplapper". --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

shark finEdit

Rfv-sense "To remove the fin from a shark, usually for use in cooking." The more correct form is "to fin a/the shark(s)". The gerund "shark finning" and the agent noun "shark finner" definitely exist and are not being RFVed. --WikiTiki89 06:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Very common pattern of noun-verb conversion. Nothing guarantees that the process will lead to shark fin#Verb. You would think that such a verb could not be used intransitively and that the object would always be a shark. Something like "The fishermen sharkfin makos when ever they find them in their nets" might exist in the wild, but "The fishermen fin makos when ever they find them in their nets" seems more likely. DCDuring TALK 13:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I suppose there could be uses such as "He shark fins all day," but I haven't found any. --WikiTiki89 18:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Found one:
    • 2008, Paul J. Mila, Fireworks, AuthorHouse, page 42:
      “Yes, perhaps long-liners or poachers illegally shark finning. []
Ungoliant (falai) 14:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I had accepted that we need to attest to the present-tense or 'infinitive' forms, I don't think that is really true. If manner adverbs, like illegally in Ungoliant's example, modify a form of shark fin or there is a true past or passive, that would seem to be sufficient evidence that it is used as a true verb. DCDuring TALK 14:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Here’s another:
    • 2009, Fredric Archer, The New Shark Troller’s Bible, page 188:
      Once again, at the end of the day, everywhere you looked you could see at least one shark finning on the surface.
This one is ambiguous; it could be a verb ( [] at least one [of them] shark finning on the surface.), referring to finners mentioned in a previous sentence, or it could be a noun ( [] at least one [instance of] shark finning on the surface.). — Ungoliant (falai) 15:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    • 1919, William Merriam Rouse, Peter the Devil in The Green Book Magazine, volume 22, Story-Press Association, page 22:
      [] and the nondescript few who wandered more or less aimlessly about the fifty-mile white beach that was Manaia, shark-finning, boiling bêche-de-mer, hunting hawk's-bill turtle.
Uses a hyphen. There you go: three cites, but two with issues. I’ll leave it to whoever closes the RFV to decide whether this term is verified.
If it passes, it definitely needs to be labelled rare. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I would still feel more comfortable if we could attest the infinite, simple present, or past tense forms. --WikiTiki89 16:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The Archer cite does not seem to be the same meaning, or even the same POS. It is a subject-verb use rather than an attributive noun-verb use. The shark is displaying his fin above the water, not chopping off his own fin with his pearly whites. SpinningSpark 18:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
You're right, it's talking about a shark that is "finning" (fin#Verb definition #2). --WikiTiki89 18:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


RFV for the plural suffix (from the homographic French). Bd2412 closed the suffix's RFD discussion with "Moved to RfV" (see Talk:-x#Deletion discussion), but it was never sent here. I bring this here for that procedural reason. Regarding the suffix's attestation, I think binioux, Citations:cointreaux, Citations:maraboux, and Miniconjoux are enough to verify the independent use of -x in English. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure they're English. The first quote for binioux is instructive: "...the bagpipes or binioux as they are known in France". The writer is obviously under the impression that binioux is the correct plural in French, and is using it as a French word. Being bad at speaking French doesn't change your French into English, it's just bad French. It would be like creating an English entry for buenas días because some people who don't speak Spanish very well think día is feminine. It looks to me like most, if not all, of these quotes are of people attempting to use the French plural for a French word, but getting it wrong (except for cointreaux, which apparently is the correct plural in French- see fr:cointreaux). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
To quote myself, mut. mut., in #-oth above (my post timestamped: 01:15, 18 January 2014), "I think that use of a plural-marking suffix in contexts that would be incorrect in the source language is a sign of its morphemity — it shows that the user of the suffix is thinking ‘[-x] marks a plural’, and not just that there are a bunch of listemes where the singular happens to end in [-u] and the plural meanwhile happens to end in [-ux]." Of course, uses of cointreaux in English do nothing to establish the morphemity of -x, since that plural could simply have been borrowed directly from French (rather than having been constructed independently in English). BTW, if *buenas días is attested in English, then yes, it should have some kind of entry (compare baristo). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It's kind of ambiguous. On one hand, it's productive use in English by English speakers. But on the other, those same speakers consciously intend to form a plural in a non-English way. Is it English if English speakers try to purposely apply French grammar to French words that are used in English? It's really not different from Latin or Greek plurals. —CodeCat 00:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


balneum is commonly a heterogenous noun and has balneae -ārum, f. as its plural (though an entirely neuter second declension usage appeared later). No source to which I have access shows legitimate singular first declension usage i.e. balneam. Endithon (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that if at some point the singular's declension was extended analogically to the plural, the reverse process could conceivably have happened as well. —CodeCat 18:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure, it's plausible that balneae would have back-formed a singular balnea, but is it attested? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
This seems to be well attested, but I'd appreciate it if a Latin-speaker could double check these citations:
  • 1877, Hints for Hospital Nurses, arranged by Rachel Williams, and Alice Fisher, page 168:
    Balneam tepidam. — Warm bath.
  • 1892, Ungarische Revue, page 648:
    So z. B. Rechnungsb. der Stadt Kronstadt. I. Bd. S. 253: Item pro uno vase walachali ad balneam stubam inferiorem pro lexivio []
  • 1899, Scottish Medical and Surgical Journal, volume 5, page 149:
    His orders were dictated to his clerk in sonorous Latin. "Descendat in balneam tepidam, hora somni."
- -sche (discuss) 02:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Assuming that the RFV requester is allowed to comment, apologies if not, I have no access to the sources quoted so just comment on them as given. The first (Williams & Fisher), being a little out of context, appears to be indirect, possibly an aid to translation of some other source/quotation? If it was a direct definition then I'd assume that it would be in the nominative (balnea tepida). The second (Ungarische Revue) contains three other words (lexivio [presumed abl.], stubam [acc.] and walachali [presumed abl.]) I cannot find in classical latin so I'd have to guess at the meaning. The third is easily understandable to a latin speaker so the medical angle might prove fruitful. Endithon (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course you're allowed to comment! --WikiTiki89 19:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Here are some more citations:
  • c. 720s, Gregory, an epistle to Serenus, quoted in 1839 in A Manual of Christian Antiquities, page 782:
    Sic homo, qui alium ardenter videre desiderat, aut sponsam amans videre conatur, si contigerit eam ad balneam aut ad ecclesiam ire, []
- -sche (discuss) 20:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
For more citations, peruse google books:"balneam". - -sche (discuss) 20:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
These citations should probably go to balnea, as they're just inflected forms of the 1st declension singular form. If we could find citations of balnea and balneae as singular forms, they would also count. They are harder to cite though because they are identical to plural forms of balneum. —CodeCat 20:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
What does "Aug. per." mean in balneum? Can we exp. such amb. abs., please? - -sche (discuss) 20:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Augustan period. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In the case of several of the citations provided above, e.g. the 1899 "balne(V)m tepidam" cite and the 720s "ad balne(V)m aut ad ecclesiam" cite, I can find several ‘editions’ — several works quoting the same Latin texts — and some use "balneam" while others use "balneum". - -sche (discuss) 07:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    In other words, I'm not sure it's possible to distinguish "erroneous use of [the form] balneam as a singular where balneum is the standard form" from "erroneous use of [the spelling] balneam where balneum is the standard form". I would mark this term as RFV-passed and tag it as nonstandard (placing the tag, as per usual practice, in the lemma entry, which in this case is balnea). - -sche (discuss) 17:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
    I have done what I suggested. (So, RFv-passed/kept.) - -sche (discuss) 03:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

February 2014Edit


"type of hot spicy soup commonly eaten as a street food in China."

According to Wikipedia malatang is:

  1. skewers of various ingredients cooked in hot broth, a popular street food in Beijing
  2. Sichuanese stew similar to hot pot

The questions are: 1) is it also a soup? 2) is Wikipedia correct? --Hekaheka (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It has both meanings, see Nciku. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
According to your link malatang is cooked in soup (=broth, I would think) but that does not make it a soup. That would indicate that our current definition is wrong, and the two Wikipedia definitions are correct. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

RFV passed [3] --Hekaheka (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC).

  • Unstruck. I don't see attesting quotations. As a minimum, the text of the quotations should be pasted to this RFV discussions, IMHO. As the very bare poor man's minimum, three links to quotations meeting WT:ATTEST should be provided. Since the nominated entry is an English one, that means "use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year". --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


The math sense. Note that google:"antirational field" and google:"antirational" turn up nothing relevant. I therefore suspect that this is not a term used in math but a word invented for the context (see the quotation in the entry) and not used anywhere else.​—msh210 (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to RFV a sense that has no definition. I think it should be speedied. --WikiTiki89 17:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
A definition can be found in the sole attesting quotation. This should not be speedied. Even if there were no definition, a RFV would still be meaningful, asking this question: are there CFI-enough CFI-fit quotations for a technical mathematical sense of "antirational"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually when I made that comment I didn't realize there was already one citation. --WikiTiki89 18:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
There's another cite (snippet only for me), but note that the definition is different from the one in the cite in the entry! I'm guessing this one, too, was used ad hoc.​—msh210 (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I think it might not be independent from the other citation, either. The citation currently in the entry is attributed to Masayoshi Nagata, and the book you just linked to says "Our definition differs slightly from the one given by Nagata [11]." —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
@Mr. Granger: I don't think that necessarily disqualifies it from being independent (if the authors were not actually collaborating on it, which is most likely not the case since the definitions are different). Everyone who uses a word has to have read or heard it somewhere and by your logic, that would every word in every language unciteable. However, since the definitions are different, we can't count them together for three citations anyway. --WikiTiki89 06:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I've added three cites to the citation page. They are clearly the same sense; at least two of the authors give a citation to Nagata. I think the citation found by msh210 is also valid; slight differences in definitions do occur with mathematics authors but this is clearly much the same concept and should be counted as the same sense as far as dictionary entries go. It is rather similar to the inconsistency over whether zero is included in \scriptstyle \mathbb N. SpinningSpark 20:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think there is something ridiculous about trying to include advanced mathematical terms here. If they really need TeX-work to be properly readable (I just added a bunch of nowrap's to the in-article quotation) they should probably be a WP article and then just a vague definition here with a link. If no one can bother to write a WP article on the topic or put it to use, it's probably not really worth having here.
  • I have no idea how to interpret CFI "independence" in the mathematical context.
  • I'm not, for example, going to add the mathematical notions of "mouse", nor associated terms "premouse", "real mouse", "weasel", and so on. And Spark is correct, minor variations in mathematical terminology is entirely normal. The idea of splitting Wiktionary senses down to mathematically distinct senses is absolutely ludicrous. We have four mathematical senses of curve, which is frankly three senses too many, but if you believe in splitting based on exact mathematical definitions, then there should probably be about 100 distinct senses listed. graph correctly has two mathematical senses, but it too can probably support 100 distinct senses.
  • The basic source of confusion on this point is that "definition" in mathematics is a technical term with a very precise meaning, but it is not the same as "definition" in lexicography. See my earlier comments on Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#group_action. Choor monster (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Failed; removed.​—msh210 (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

How has that failed when three cites have been provided? SpinningSpark 05:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
You might not like it, and you might still think it should be deleted, but you can't possibly say that it has failed verification. SpinningSpark 14:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
He may have neglected to look at the citations page, or was just being picky about the spelling. I also found this which can be added as a third citation of the hyphenated spelling and then the entry can be recreated at anti-rational. --WikiTiki89 15:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'ver restored the entry. We can speculate forever over what msh210 does not like about the cites. They really need to place a rationale here so that we have the opportunity of finding better cites, it is pointless trying to double guess. It strikes me as more a case of "I don't like it" than an actual failure to verify. SpinningSpark 17:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I reverted you. Out of only five citations that we have gathered, three are hyphenated. So if you want to recreate, do so at the hyphenated entry. --WikiTiki89 17:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The two snippet citations, one from Mathematics of the USSR: Izvestija, one from Chinese Journal of Mathematics citation are close to useless. It is totally unclear what is going on. Are these papers, for example, just summarizing something of Nagata, or contributing a footnote, so to speak, or are they actually something independent? I can't doublecheck the articles, since I have no clue who the authors are or what the titles are. I can't physically browse them either, since today's modern libraries have 99% of their journals in storage somewhere. Choor monster (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I haven't checked, but a little thinking revealed that the second snippet is from the following paper: MR0732868 (85j:12009) Kang, Ming Chang ; Roan, Shi-Shyr . A note on cancellation problem. Chinese J. Math. 11 (1983), no. 4, 61--67. According to MR, it's a new proof of the 1967 theorem of Nagata, so the odds are high they are repeating Nagata with some variation. Whether this is "independent" by our standards, I have no idea. (Curiously enough, Nagata has a paper in the same journal, same year, but it is obviously not the snippet.)
    • For the record, Nagata introduced the term (with a hyphen) in this 1967 paper, free download. Choor monster (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    • And I have now found the first snippet: MR0439970 (55 #12851) Vlèduc, S. G. The coefficient ring in a semigroup ring. (Russian) Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 40 (1976), no. 5, 955–968, 1199. English translation: Math. USSR-Izv. 10 (1976), no. 5, 899–911. This paper definitely seems to be independent of Nagata, the reference was apparently provided as a courtesy. Choor monster (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

April 2014Edit


RFV for the sense "newspaper" of the Latin ephēmeris. That sense isn't listed in Lewis & Short. Gaffiot has the sense "mémorial journalier", which translates to "daily memorial", which I don't fully understand, but which I interpret to mean "diary"; in any case, I'm pretty sure it doesn't support the "newspaper" sense. Niermeyer doesn't have an entry for ephēmeris. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Cited by Mr. Granger (talkcontribs). — Ungoliant (falai) 14:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Whilst I laud Mr. Granger's addition of that citation, in it he chose to translate ephemeridem with "journal", not "newspaper", and, given w:La Civiltà Cattolica, he was right to do so. I'm afraid that the challenged sense remains uncited. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not quite sure what sense my citation belongs under, actually. La Civiltà Cattolica is not exactly a newspaper (sense 2), but it's certainly not a diary (sense 1) either. Maybe the "newspaper" sense should be changed to "periodical" to accommodate the citation. (Incidentally, I don't want to take undue credit - the translation isn't mine, but rather comes from the book itself.) —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@Mr. Granger: I've moved your citation under the new sense "a journal, periodical" and elaborated its bibliographical information to better indicate where the original text and its translation come from ([4]). I haven't merged the disputed sense into the new sense, because I believe they are too dissimilar to be treated as one sense. Be that as it may, I note that there is a logical development of senses: day-book → newspaper → periodical. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I just happened upon Ephemeris: Nuntii Latini universi [Ephemeris: Latin news of the whole world], the website of an on-line Latin-language newspaper founded by Stanisław Tekieli in June 2004. The date line ("Saturni die 24 mensis Maii 2014"; Anglice: "on Saturday the 24th of the month of May [in] 2014") suggests that it is a daily newspaper. If that is the case, then the use of ephēmeris (deriving as it does from the Ancient Greek ἐφήμερος (ephḗmeros, daily)) to mean "a daily newspaper" is a semantic development parallel with the English word daily, which the OED (2nd ed., 1989) records (under “daily, a. (n.)” B.1) in the sense "A daily newspaper." (with nine supporting quotations, 1823–1965). However, in this use it would appear that Ephemeris is a proper noun, being the name of one specific newspaper, rather than a common noun, being used to mean "a (daily) newspaper" generally. @Mr. Granger, Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: What do you make of this evidence? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this newspaper also published in paper? If not, I’d discount this use an non-durable. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I doubt it. However, it has almost certainly been discussed by name in Contemporary Latin publications which themselves are durably archived, as it already has been in an English context. What I'm wondering is, would such citations count toward attesting the sense of ephēmeris currently being challenged, or would they be taken as supporting the Latin proper noun Ephēmeris, or as citing both? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I lean towards excluding it. If I remember correctly, we’ve had an English RFV where the name of a band was not considered a valid cite. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
small note: journal#Old_French a daily. Also, we may want to accept that digital media are now the standard for publication. Paper, if it happens, is secondary and ephemeral. - Amgine/ t·e 06:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Often part of the point of a paper copy of a normally digital work is its non-ephemerality. Digital papers tend to have a serious problem with being ephemeral in my experience; Geocities is virtually all archived away, but newspapers try to keep everything behind a paywall and be the sole source of their text. The theoretical standard behind our citation rules is that we be able to reference our cites in the foreseeable future; a sold PDF is probably hard to get ahold of for the random person, but there's no guarantee at all that anyone will have a copy of the article that we cited.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The modern equivalent is a dvd/cd annual, occasionally a 'perk' for members or subscribers. Thank goodness that tradition is also dying rapidly. Visit or any of the many other aggregators whose purpose is to present a record of publicly published content. But keep in mind that owning the paper copy is a hurdle to your concept of accessible durability, just as paying for access is a hurdle for paywalled content. Most of the world cannot access the OED, online or off. But this is probably not the best location for this discussion. - Amgine/ t·e 16:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I know about; that's why I pointed out that newspapers try to keep everything behind a paywall and be the sole source of their text.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


Is this really an adjective? allotted at OneLook Dictionary Search shows that many dictionaries make allotted in effect redirect to allot. AFAICT only WordNet shows it as an adjective, "assigned as a task" her allotted chores, but this seems to transfer meaning from the word modified to the modifier. Consider his allotted share of the garden. DCDuring TALK 20:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is well suited for RFV. I would like to see a precedent of deleting adjective sections from past participles via RFV or a Beer parlour discussion supporting such deletion via RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
It is perfectly well suited for a fact-based discussion. Either the word is attestably used as an adjective or it is not. The question of whether a term is an adjective is fairly clear cut and reasonable quickly resolved by resort to the facts of usage. The role of lawyerly argumentation is useful in evaluating the attestation evidence or in challenging the authority behind the criteria used. DCDuring TALK 11:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
There are no purely attestation-based criteria necessary for adjectivity. An adjective does not need to be comparable and does not need to be modifiable by "very" and the like. RFD is not forbidden from being "fact-based". All criteria listed at Wiktionary:English adjectives are merely hints; none of the criteria is alone necessary and the criteria are not jointly necessary. If Wiktionary:English adjectives were applied to "allotted", google books:"become allotted" would suggest this to be adjective; nonetheless, I do not take Wiktionary:English adjectives very seriously. In any case, this does not fit my idea of proper use of RFV, which should IMHO above all be used to find whether a term or a sense are actually used to convey meaning. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
You seem to ignore our non-legislated practice of requiring that an English adjective be comparable/gradable OR be used as a predicate OR have a sense distinct from the sense of the noun or verb form from which a separate identity is to be established. The predicate case is that hardest to apply for adjectives that are alleged to be conversions of past participles, because it often requires a high level of sensitivity to the language to reliably distinguish passive use of the past participle from predicate use of an adjective. This is the kind of thing that interpretation of actual evidence rather than armchair introspection and gum-flapping (let alone legislating) is well suited to resolving. DCDuring TALK 15:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, the putative practice you speak of is a non-legislated practice, meaning it is, if it exists, not a result of a vote or a Beer parlour discussion. Now, any evidence of this being a common practice? Do you know of past RFV outcomes that fit this putative practice? How many are they? For the record, I oppose the use of RFV for this. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course it can be an adjective, but I'm rather dubious about the comparative and superlative shown in the entry. Donnanz (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    Why of course? It can be used attributively, but so can nouns and ing-forms and ed-forms of verbs.
    1. Can it be shown to be gradable or comparative?
    2. Can it be used after become or seem?
    3. Is it ever unambiguously used as a predicate, ie, following a form of be with semantics clearly distinguished from a past participle used to form a passive?
    4. Does it have a sense that is not present in the ed-form of the verb?
    If it doesn't meet at least one of these tests we do not show it as an adjective. DCDuring TALK 11:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    All those hurdles? I'm virtually gobsmacked. Donnanz (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    If it doesn't meet at least one of these tests we do not show it as an adjective.
    I share your skepticism about comparability, but can it be used with very or too (gradability)? I don't think so. I've never run into usage that meets any of the other tests either, but there might be such usage. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    1. The allotted tasks are less challenging than the other job expectations; the latter have no specific time set aside for their accomplishment.
    2. My days seem allotted either as a series of disasters and bad news, or boring montages of the same-ol'.
    3. Each is allotted a colour according to its priority. - Amgine/ t·e 06:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    @Amgine: The first is attributive use of a past participle. (Would attested usage of "the circumnavigated globe" make circumnavigated an adjective?) The third is clearly a use of the verb in the passive. (Consider Each is allotted a color by rule of priority., which makes the agent explicit.) The second is the sole telling example. It could be argued that it is an ellipsis of the passive, but I think not. Three citations of such usage for each of the two senses would settle the matter. DCDuring TALK 13:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • There is enough sourcing on "This film has been modified from its original version to run in the allotted time" alone to support this as an adjective. Something can be an adjective while not taking comparatives or superlatives Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 14:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Your reason would imply that cicumnavigated should be considered an adjective, given usage such as:
  • 1965, G. B. Sansom, The Western World and Japan:
    Not many years after the discovery of the Americas and the opening of the Cape route to India, Christian missionaries were making their way to almost every part of the now circumnavigated globe
There is a clear path to justifying treating this as an adjective: that it attestably meet at least ONE of the tests of adjectivity, such as those listed above (There may be more.). There is no amount of attributive use alone that would compel treatment of this as an adjective. DCDuring TALK 15:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
While I don't have an opinion on the rest, wouldn't the modifying element be now circumnavigated in that quote? - Amgine/ t·e 18:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
@Amgine: Yes, but circumnavigated is the head of the modifying phrase. I searched for "now circumnavigated" to reduce the portion of the ocean that I had to boil to find relevant citations. DCDuring TALK 18:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, as a sailor, I would certainly consider a circumnavigated globe as qualitatively different from an uncircumnavigated one, in a comparable way an explored region differs from an unexplored one, a painted versus an unpainted canvas. In a related manner, an allotted hour or day is different from one unallotted. And that's entirely apart from parliamentary usage (throughout the commonwealth), the standard euphemisms allotted span, allotted hours, or allotted days to indicate length of life (or 70 years, whichever comes first?), and of course Google Books—whether religious, poetic, or otherwise. On another hand, your position that allotted is not adjectival is disputed by OED, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge... just wondering which authority is the basis for your position? - Amgine/ t·e 20:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
It appears there is enough sourcing to support allotted as an adjective. User:DCDuring, why do you fight words ending in -ed and -ing being defined as adjectives when they're clearly attestable as such? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 16:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: To avoid the need to maintain English entries that convey no semantic information. All English nouns can be used attributively; all English past participles and -ing forms can be used in a variety of predictable ways. Perhaps you would enjoy adding complete adjective PoS sections to all (I do mean ALL) English noun entries, -ing-forms and past participles and complete noun sections to all -ing-form entries. In principle, each sense of the lemma form of a verb should have an appropriately reworded corresponding sense in the adjective section located on the same page as the section for the past participle and the -ing-form. Mutatis mutandis for nouns. DCDuring TALK 18:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Just because it can be done doesn't mean it has to be done only by me, or immediately. What we just do is end the ridiculous deletion of -ed and -ing adjectives, and create more as needed. Furthermore, it doesn't have to be ALL, because, in practice, not all are used frequently enough to be attributable. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 15:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


Sense "(poetic) virginity, chastity." Sure. I'm putting it on my list of I wouldn't know where to start looking and I don't have a clue how it would be used if it is really used. Cites, please.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Out of all 6 pages of Google Books results for "her thyme" -herb -garlic -cottonwood, these are the only results that look plausible to me: [5] [6] [7]. More context for the third result can be seen here. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The cites might fit a definition like "fertility or sexuality". I don't see "chastity". DCDuring TALK 00:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that it's hard to draw the line between symbolism and lexical meaning, and harder still to pin down the meaning of metaphorical speech- but a line has to be drawn. There are lots of poems that refer to beautiful women as roses, and also refer to the "thorns" encountered when they're "plucked" . That doesn't mean we should have senses at rose, thorn or pluck that capture this usage.
To put it another way: the plant known as thyme may symbolize virginity and chastity, but the term "thyme" doesn't necessarily mean "virginity and chastity" as a word. The former is the realm of an encyclopedia, the latter the realm of a dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Poetry provides the poorest attestation for contemporary English, ambiguity, allusion, metaphor, and prosody often confusing matters enormously. Also IMO metaphors are often given too much weight in our RfVs. The distinction between "live" metaphors and "dead" ones is worth keeping in mind, even though it is sometimes hard to distinguish between "live" and "dead".
I'm not exactly sure how to handle the symbolic meanings of colors and natural things, as, for example, seems to have been common in the Middle Ages, possibly especially in Christendom. DCDuring TALK 15:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I based this entry on the old Irish song "A Bunch of Thyme". There is a very detailed analysis of this song at which clearly states its use as a euphamism for virginity and/or purity.--Dmol (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dmol: Interesting article, but some of the other actual usage doesn't seem to me to quite fit "virginity".
Also, the song is in English. Is it an adaptation of an older Irish song? Did "thyme" have some specific association with virginity in Irish culture? DCDuring TALK 14:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The article actually says: "Thyme represents the girl’s purity and consequently it represents her hopes and prospects for future happiness." This is metaphor, not a meaning of the word. Dbfirs 13:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Is it lexical information to include as a definition the symbolic meaning of the thing represented by a word (and its synonyms), ie, a synset? Would only an entry be merited only for the language(s) of the culture(s) in which the symbolic meaning existed, at least at one time.
I would think that only when the symbolic meaning has somehow transferred from the referent itself to one or more of the synset would a definition be warranted. So if blue were at one time a symbol of sadness, at some time the meaning transferred to the word, which now has the sense "sad". I certainly doubt that thyme ever remotely approached that kind of meaning transfer. Note also that near-synonyms for the color blue are not near synonyms for sad. DCDuring TALK 13:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I've added two quotes from traditional songs, one from the 17th century and another later one from (i think) the 19th. I also added two references, one as discussed above and another I found. There is another website, , that makes the same connection and give the original Irish language lyrics. I also changed the definition to say that it is "an allegory..." which seems more accurate. --Dmol (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: adjective meaning nothing or zero. I'm not quite sure what the author is referring to here. I have found a cite for "since supposedly there are zilch feelings involved". Is this adjectival? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the part of speech in your example should be determiner, but it seems to be mostly a noun. We seem to be all over the map in our treatment of this and synonyms such as bupkis, nada, nil, nothing and zip. I also think we're missing the humorous and emphatic overtones to the term in our treatment. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The French Wiktionary has a head 'adjectif numéral' for cardinal numbers like 'one, two, three' which can describe a noun. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

özçekmiş, teinipeili and meitsieEdit

Tagged for deletion by an IP with the comment: "There isn't that word at Turkish commonly. It is a prefabrice."

Nothing on Books or on Groups. Regular Google search turns 51 hits, many tracing back to us: not hot- not even lukewarm ... Chuck Entz (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

There are results for özçekmiş on Groups. -- 11:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

What about Finnish teinipeili and meitsie? Can you find the results on books or on groups? -- 05:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Teinipeili (lit. "teen mirror") has been around for years and finding three quotes in newspapers would be a piece of cake. First internet appearances of meitsie seem to be from January this year, and thus it does not fulfil our "spanning over one year" -criteria.--Hekaheka (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Turkish word 'sanalgı' has been around for years and you may find three quotes in newspapers [8] but it was deleted. Is it not same with 'teinipeili'?--12:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
If they were actually nominated, someone might check. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
selfie is selfie at Turkish too. Also "take a sefie" is "selfie çekmek". Selfie did become news at online newspapers. When searching at google, you will see "selfie akımı" and "selfie çılgınlığı" ... özçekmiş isn't truth.-- 23:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Can someone add teinipeili citations to the entry? — Ungoliant (falai) 23:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

May 2014Edit


I couldn't confirm the existence of this word in Japanese. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 13:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I found a couple of works related to Shinto and Japanese mythology that use 隱身 in Japanese (not read おんしん but かくりみ, though): [9] [10] [11]. Whym (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
@Whym: thanks. With this reading it makes more sense, it's also in 隱身 Apparently it's a Shinto term. Could you improve the definition, please? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Our favorite IP strikes again. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Does this have to do with the above entry or related entries? What were the edits?
@Whym:, @Eirikr: I'll leave the above entry in your capable hands. :) --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If you look at the edit history, it was created by back in 2012. Any time you find something in our Japanese entries that's wrong in ways that just don't make sense, the odds are it traces back to this same person. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Note also that the initial character here, , is the obsolete kyūjitai for . As such, the entry at 隱身 should only ever be a stub entry marked as {{alternative spelling of|隠身}}, directing readers to the lemma entry content at 隠身.
FWIW, I find evidence for both the readings kakurimi (google books:"隠身"+"かくりみ", 81 hits) and kakuremi (google books:"隠身"+"かくれみ", 28 hits). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
@Atitarev, Eirikr: I tried my best at 隠身 and 隱身. Quotations are not yet added. Whym (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I haven't done much research on this, but 隱形 (隠形) probably has the same problem. Whym (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
@Whym: Thank you! I see you're using {{ja-altread}}. I haven't used it before @Eirikr: has some other way to put together terms with multiple reading but I don't remember exactly. Just by repeating the headword on two lines? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 13:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


Allegedly a Turkish word meaning "camp".

Allegged inflected forms: definite accusative düşerge, plural düşergeler.

Someone doubts the existence of the word entry, so I request attestation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Cited since May, but the citations don’t have translations. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Düşerge is "pay, miras payı" at Turkish. But it is not "camp". "düşərgə" is "camp" and Azeri's word. A group try to show like Turkish. --123snake45 (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
@123snake45: what do the citations at Citations:düşerge say? — Ungoliant (falai) 15:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I've just added the translations. -- 09:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

June 2014Edit


A proposed extension of the Esperanto participle system. I've managed to find quotations with the corresponding active suffix, -unt-, but I can't find any quotations that use this suffix. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 01:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What about the words listed as containing suffix (vizituto, mortiguto, faruta, venkuta)? Do they exist? — Ungoliant (falai) 04:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Not as far as I can tell. If anyone can find three citations containing any of those words (or any others using the suffix), I'll be satisfied that the suffix exists. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Any attestation of this would-be Danish word, as per WT:ATTEST, emphasizing use in permanently recorded media? google books:"musikvideoinstruktør", google groups:"musikvideoinstruktør", musikvideoinstruktør at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I got somewhat different results at Google Books. —Stephen (Talk) 16:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
See. At Google Books it has 3 sources. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I added a third citation. All of them still need translations though, can someone someone who speaks North Germanic languages add them or at least confirm they’re using the defined sense? — Ungoliant (falai) 19:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Sense: "A photo shared on a social media network with the sole intention of making your friends/followers jealous" At first I wanted to speedy it, but then I reconsidered and decided to give it a chance. Anything durably archived? The citation given initially is incomplete. Keφr 18:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The citation originally provided in the entry doesn't look like it's CFI-compliant. I found a few newspaper cites, but none older than November of last year. Marked as a hot word for now. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


Dubious. Editor not trustworthy. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless one of the native-ZH editors here can confirm that the above short spelling is an abbreviation (which seems quite unlikely), delete, and then make sure the [[lapsang souchong]] entry that this same editor also worked on is also correct and in the proper format. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Added by an IP that I blocked for responding to speedy deletion of a few unattestable entries with a couple dozen more, including "igazib" and "gagladon". There were a couple I left alone because they're attestable, and then there's this one: I found two cites, but not three. It seems plausible enough, but I'd like confirmation, given the source.Chuck Entz (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this should be moved to the two-word phrase:
SpinningSpark 15:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I think this shows an interesting use of "nickel", but does not necessarily support "nickel brain" as a set phrase. --WikiTiki89 15:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

plum blossomEdit

Rfv-sense: "The blossom of the Prunus mume."

I suspect that this was created because it was a translation of a species-limited CJKV term, not based on actual usage in English. As it stands it is misleading. DCDuring TALK 22:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • The Wikipedia article on prunus mume has said for a long time that: "The flower is usually called plum blossom", and provides a citation for that proposition. bd2412 T 13:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    @BD2412: That citation is a translation of an old Chinese work, which would probably support my suspicion as to the source of the term. I really don't think that hyponymic translations should be used to justify overly specific definitions, unless we are to completely write off our role as a monolingual dictionary. DCDuring TALK 13:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    Moreover, the book does not actually use plum blossom as a translation for the flower of Prunus mume, but rather mei-flower, as the translator explains in the introduction (page lv therof). DCDuring TALK 13:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, if that's the route we're going:
  • 1969, Ernest Henry Wilson, ‎Daniel J. Foley, The Flowering World of "Chinese" Wilson, p. 63:
    Japan holds flower festivals during many months of the year, beginning with that of the plum blossom (Prunus mume) in February and ending with that of the chrysanthemum in November, but the most popular is that of the cherry blossom which falls in early April.
  • 1974, Yoshiaki Mihara, Agricultural Meteorology of Japan, p. 25:
    The plum blossom is the earliest of all the flowers in Japan. The flowering date of the plum (Prunus Mume) has also been extensively studied.
  • 1983, Edwin T. Morris, The Gardens of China: History, Art, and Meanings, p. 173:
    Hsiang Sheng-mo (1 597-1 658), "Prunus mume" (mei hua) in "Landscapes, Flowers, and Birds." The plum blossom that bloomed against the naked wood was the sign of spring and renewal.
I can't say whether this is idiomatic, since the fruit of the plant is an apricot, which is technically just a pale plum. bd2412 T 13:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps context is an issue. Among native speakers, plum blossom would seem to be understood as "flower of the Prunus mume" only in the context of discussions about oriental flora, the Orient itself, and in reference to products or art associated with the Orient. I suppose it could all be done in a usage note. I can only hope that the translations respect the narrowness of the usage. DCDuring TALK 15:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment. In any case, this only differs from sense one in that it identifies a specific species of plum blossom. bd2412 T 18:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: in the OED. Ƿidsiþ 18:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
That the fruit of Prunus mume is called a Japanese apricot and the tree goes by that name as well is sufficient, I suppose. I have added some material to the entry to clarify some of what is idiomatic about it. DCDuring TALK 19:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Prunus mume is really neither an apricot nor a plum, but something without a clear one-to-one English translation, except the lesser-known loanwords ume and mei. Botanically, it's definitely much closer to the apricot, but judging from the Wikipedia article, most of the culinary products use plum in the English name. From this I would guess that "plum" is the older, more established usage, but "apricot" is the current prescriptivist favorite. I don't think that the "it's an apricot, not a plum" argument is sufficient in itself to prove that it's idiomatic, but I'd be curious how references to the blossoms of Prunus salicina are translated, since that's the Japanese fruit most solidly identified in English usage as a plum- in the US (at least in California, where I live), it's actually far better known than the original European plum, Prunus domestica. The blossoms have deeply iconic cultural significance with both the Chinese and Japanese, and so are more likely to be found in English translations, while those of Prunus salicina are no doubt of secondary importance to the fruit. By the way, I'll have to see if I can spend some time sorting through our East Asian fruit tree terms, since many of them seem to be either confused or vague. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Prunus mume more or less specifies the bearer of the blossom. Simple vernacular terms often refer to more than one species, sometimes to different genera, families, orders, even classes and phyla. Chinese plum is an example, by no means exceptional. The set of English vernacular names that have a one-to-one correspondence to species names not only doesn't cover many species, but also is often not used except in limited contexts, though many of the contexts are in print. The English vernacular names for species not native to English-speaking lands are a challenge as there may be one or more "official" names; names based on similarity of appearance to a species that is native to English-speaking lands, qualified by one or more adjectives associating it with a region (eg, Japanese, Chinese); and transliterations of non-English names.
Plum blossom is one of a narrower set of terms that have a connection to vernacular names, but also a cultural meaning in a culture that has a strong cultural influence on the English language. DCDuring TALK 11:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


Some other kind of selfie. Protologism? Equinox 18:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The earliest citation I could find was from September of last year. The alternate spelling usie is also in use. Should we tag this as a "hot word?" It's evidently in use, and will likely still be in use in three months time, so why not keep the nicely-formatted entry for now and reassess it later? -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't quite cover a year but the citations are good, and numerous. Thank you. I'm okay with "hot word". Equinox 22:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Cited. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


As far as I can tell, this is only ever mentioned in the context of the A Song of Ice and Fire books (which means it fails WT:FICTION), and even in those books and other books which discuss them, it's a title like "Queen" rather than a name. - -sche (discuss) 23:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a rapidly growing name in the united states. See this article --Mnidjm (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider 146 in the US in one year to be "rapidly growing". That number is minuscule. --WikiTiki89 02:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
[12] finds 39 hits, about ten baby girls named Khaleesi. Birth records of Nevada are probably durably archived, but I cannot reach them or format proper citations. Betsy, less fashionable according to the Mnidjim's article, gets 2 437 163 hits. To quote WikiTiki, this kind of result means Khaleesi is very, very rare.--Makaokalani (talk) 09:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Rapidly growing, as in 5 babies with the name in 2010, 28 in 2011, then 146 in 2012. --Mnidjm (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

bible beltEdit

I ask for attestation of this capitalization: bible belt. Note that Bible Belt exists, and is currently not questioned. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Even if this capitalisation is accepted, aren't the two definitions basically the same. Does the Bible Belt ever mean anywhere other than the south-east part of the country.--Dmol (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the first definition of "bible belt" is meant to be general, potentially referring to any bible belt in any country. The question is whether this usage is attestable. --WikiTiki89 00:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not experienced at this, so ignore me if I don't know what I'm on about, but how about [13] and [14]? This, that and the other (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The first citation seems to be rather attributive use of the narrow meaning. But it may be either way. The second I cannot read. Keφr 12:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the fact that it is attributive. It seems to be the broader meaning, since it is referring to regions of Australia as far as I can tell (even though America is mentioned earlier in the paragraph). The second I also cannot read. --WikiTiki89 13:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
What about w:Bible Belt (Netherlands)? —CodeCat 13:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
That would be another narrow sense. It doesn't necessarily prove the existence of the broad sense. --WikiTiki89 13:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Also Finland, Sweden and Norway have a "bible belt". I don't know how often they are written about in English, though. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I am sceptical that this capitalization ("bible belt") is worth keeping; I am even more sceptical that it is worth keeping as a lemma. Inspired by Heka's comment, I have added some citations of "Bible belt" and "Bible Belt" in reference to Finnish and Norwegian areas to Citations:Bible belt. I am not sure if it makes sense to have a dozen narrow senses or one broad sense + a subsense for the US region, which is the region meant by most of the citations (even most of the citations that turn up for searches like google books:"Bible belt" Finland or google books:"Bible belt" Norway). - -sche (discuss) 01:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

fonner, fonnestEdit

Is it a real form of the adjective fon as Equinox asked? I took a quick look in Google Books at fonnest and all I'd found was a surname (which is why I added Fonnest to the see also template at the top). Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 20:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

google books:"the fonnest" turns up only scannos of formest and soonest. google books:"the fonner" turns up capitalized proper nouns, and scannos of former. I'm a bit surprised that it isn't used as a jocular spelling variant of "fun / funner / funnest". - -sche (discuss) 00:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Since Yeti created these himself (from the green links at fon) and now has doubts, perhaps we should speedy them and remove the -er/-est forms from fon. Equinox 11:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense (Portuguese): to hospitalize

Ungoliant (falai) 15:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think this is wrong? Could you explain your case a bit more? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 16:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
RFV is not for thinking it is wrong, it is for thinking it doesn't exist. No case needs to be made, but simply citations need to be found and added. --WikiTiki89 16:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The default case for RFVs is that the nominator thinks the word doesn’t pass the requirement of having three independent, permanently recorded uses (though the requirements are more lax for smaller languages). I spent some time looking for them, even the inflected and elided forms, but the only thing I could find in permanently recorded media were the adjective and scannos. Furthermore, it’s not even mentioned in the trustworthy dictionaries I have available. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I too looked on Google Books for several of the inflected forms (hospitalarmos, hospitalardes, hospitalando, and hospitalarem, hospitalava) and found nothing, although hospitalarem does seem to be a Latin word. If this fails, it won't be (as it is for some words) because no-one tried to cite it, it'll be because it really doesn't seem to be in use. - -sche (discuss) 00:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


This has the sole sense: "A very thin person." The quotations that I find seem to be adjectival. Worth attesting. google books:"skinnymalinky", google groups:"skinnymalinky", skinnymalinky at OneLook Dictionary Search. We have skinnymalinks, which I do not question, since that seems easy to attest using google books:"skinnymalinks". --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


""Railroad built upon an evened, ground level length of land." This is supposed to be an adjective, not a noun; also, all I could find relating to railroads was sense 1 (crossings on the same level). Luciferwildcat added this sense so I am not very hopeful. Equinox 19:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  • It seems very plausible as an adjective and would most most used in the context of railroads, I think, though other rights of way may be contexts as well. "A unprotected at-grade crossing" might be an example. DCDuring TALK 19:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Not so plausible to me. It's SOP use of at + grade (sense 8: ground level). You can find usage of "at grade", "at or above grade", "at or below grade", with hyphenation when used as a modifier. Do we have entries for at-sea-level or below-sea-level? Chuck Entz (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I might add that grade crossing and level crossing are basically the same thing as at-grade crossing. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Because of all the references to academic grades, it's hard to be sure, but searches with preceding words such as "an", "no", "many", etc. and with pluralizing to reduce the number of false hits turns up nothing in Google Books for a noun. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Never mind. I was only thinking of the other sense. I can't see a noun meaning for this. DCDuring TALK 21:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


Back in December 2013 someone questioned the existence of ap as an English adjective meaning "In or relating to the apothecaries' system of measures", but nothing more was done about it, so now I'm bringing it here. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

To start off, here are a few hits in reference works: here, here, and here, and one use: here. Maybe not complete by CFI standards, but at least enough to show it wasn't made completely up. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014Edit

Shia crescentEdit

RFV all senses: I request citations to establish how the term is actually used and base definitions on that. Keφr 11:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


It looks like the term is in use (e.g., Dioscliosta David Guetta), but I can't find anything permanent enough to count. Not in GBooks, GGroups, or --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

There's, but it's more of a mention than a use. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes... that's the 1959 English-Irish Dictionary, which is as near to the Official Modern Irish dictionary as is available. (Ó Donaill's Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla is the other half, from almost twenty years later, and doesn't include this word, although diosc and liosta are both present.)
Which leads to an awkward situation: anyone looking up "discography" in the closest thing to an official dictionary of Irish will find dioscliosta. And just because it hasn't shown up in print yet, it's appearing in other places and a print appearance would seem to be a matter of time. If someone can find it in a citable medium, then no harm, no foul. If not... I dunno. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 05:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
No, it is not listed in the 1959 English-Irish Dictionary; the link above points to Foras na Gaeilge's new English-Irish dictionary. Irish is an LDL, so a single mention is sufficient for it to pass RFV, but since Foras na Gaeilge coins its own Irish words in response to a perceived gap in the language (rather than waiting for speakers to develop terms naturally and then reporting them), I'm not inclined to take its word for the realness of this term. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Huh. That's not exactly clear from that page. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 23:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
It is once you get used to how that site is organized. The pages that say "New English-Irish Dictionary" beneath the logo belong to the new dictionary. The Ó Donaill and de Bhaldraithe databases are at, e.g. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Mexican beer dermatitisEdit

The phenomenon itself is thoroughly plausible, since many plants in the family that limes belong to contain photosensitizing substances- but I only found one usenet post, which linked to an online article, which referred to a journal article published in 2010. It looks like a one-off descriptive phrase that never caught on. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Journal of the American Medical Association - Dermatology: [15] 2010
  • New York Daily News [16] 2010
  • National Public Radio [17] 2010
  • "The Doctors" TV show [18] 2011
  • Canadian Dermatology Association [19] 2014

-- 10:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

margarita dermatitisEdit

By the same user. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't rfv this one because this quote seems to point to there being actual usage, though Google Books and Google Groups don't show it. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
But even that quote is just a mention. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • BBC [20] 2006
  • ScienceDaily [21] 2007
  • KCRW radio [] 2013
  • USA Today [22] 2013
  • [23] 2013
  • Canadian Dermatology Association [24] 2014
  • New England Journal of Medicine [25] Margarita Photodermatitis - 1993 (yes this is a somewhat different term; seeing if it should be added or left alone, if these are being deleted; there's also the alternate meaning for "lime disease" being phytophotodermatitis from the fruit 'lime' (shown in some of the links above))

-- 10:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Various ostensibly Hiberno-English wordsEdit


RFV of the English section. google books:ablachs turns up nothing but Scots; google books:ablach turns up a lot of capitalized chaff. - -sche (discuss) 13:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I have a hunch we're dealing with someone who considers Ulster Scots to be English, or is using a reference with that point of view. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, Ullans, the lect famously derided by opponents and even some supporters as "a DIY language". Hard to say what L2 it should be treated under (English, Scots, or an L2 all its own), since its speakers try so hard to make it different from both English and Lallans Scots. I'd stick with considering it Scots for now (though note how it was double-categorised). - -sche (discuss) 19:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I would definitely treat it as a variety of Scots. Any words with a distinctly Ullans sense should be tagged with {{label|sco|Ulster}} to be categorized in [[Category:Ulster Scots]]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


- -sche (discuss) 14:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


- -sche (discuss) 16:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


I'm seeing exactly one citation of this word (probably, but not definitely of one of the two listedmeanings) at Google Books: John Joseph Jennings' 1900 Widow Magoogin. I see nothing on Usenet. - -sche (discuss) 18:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

PS, "listedmeanings" is not a typo/misspelling, it's an homage to Joyce, who typo'ed/misspelt this word as pishogue. - -sche (discuss) 19:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Nothing on Google Books for this spelling, "doodog" or "dudoge", or the plurals thereof. "Dudog(s)" might be citable. - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Nothing on Google Books. The "alternative form" garsoon does seem to be attested, but seems to be derived directly from French, not via Connacht Irish as gasoor claims. - -sche (discuss) 20:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


All I see on Google Books are capitalized names (from a variety of sources, including Slavic) and an unrelated common noun meaning "corner", from an unidentified language. - -sche (discuss) 20:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto for uxoricide. Nothing on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto alternative spelling of olivoleo, which means olive oil. Nothing on Google Books, Tekstaro, or Google Groups. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


Allegedly Slovene for "apple tree". Since Slovene is not an less-documented language per Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages, I ask for three quotations attesting the word in use to convey meaning, as per WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to be so overly formal about it. We all know what RFV is for. —CodeCat 20:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't the refs suffice? They are from the site of SAZU (w:Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts). The second one is from a web edition of a 19th century dictionary by w:sl:Maks Pleteršnik, AFAICT. --biblbroksдискашн 21:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Not in this case. Slovene is not an LDL so we need three real citations of usage. But we probably won't find any because this is a dialectal term that would not likely be used in published texts. —CodeCat 21:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Re: "We all know what RFV is for.": As you can see, many people have a poor idea of RFV. Nothing wrong with being clear and explicit so that even newbies can know what is going on, which you call "overly formal". --Dan Polansky (talk)
Indeed, people sometimes post things here asking to verify the pronunciation, which isn't the job of this page. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

pecker millEdit

I request attestation in use to convey meaning as per WT:ATTEST. The current three quotations are not in use to convey meaning, IMHO, since the invocation of the term is preceded by "called", so the quotations talk about the term rather than using it. Relevant snippets: "Rice mills, called pecker, cog, and water mills...", "and in others by a rude machine, called a pecker mill.", "The first mechanical mills were harnessed to animals: the so-called pecker mill ". --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the citations in the entry are good enough. —CodeCat 12:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Are they used to convey meaning? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, yes they do convey meaning. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Additional cites added from the Google Books search on the citations page. Thanks for wasting our time. DCDuring TALK 15:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Of the citations in the entry, I think the 1995 and 2003 ones are clear uses; the rest are all mentions or at least very mention-y. I don't doubt that there's a third use out there somewhere, though. - -sche (discuss) 18:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
If you look at the first one " [] called a pecker mill", I'd class this as a use not a mention. It's used in context to convey meaning but recognizes that the reader may not be familiar with the term, hence the wording. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I rest my case. A sentence of the form "X is called Y" does not use Y; it merely mentions it. For the purpose of use-mention distinction, I do not see a difference between "X is called Y" and a dictionary entry "Y: X". Sentence "X is called Y" does not make use of the meaning of Y; instead, the sentence binds the meaning to Y to the reader; in order to understand the sentence, the reader does not need to know the meaning of Y.
As for the 2003 quotation ("The pecker mill is likely the fulcrum device developed by Guerrard in 1691."): the phrase "The pecker mill" does not suggest the meaning of the term is clear to the reader and to the writer either; instead, the writer seems to be in the process of figuring out what "pecker mill" means, stating one hypothesis about the meaning of the term in the quotation. That does not seem very use-y to me, but I admit that it is much better than the "X is called Y" quotations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Company namesEdit

These need citations meeting WT:COMPANY rules -- Liliana 21:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)



(company sense only) -- Liliana 21:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This already passes. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Where are the citations? - -sche (discuss) 15:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I mean it passes WT:COMPANY as "To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested." It's attested as town in Finland. It would seem trivial to type these citations up. I just said it passes, I never claimed to have typed the citations up. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
the use of the company name. The city sense is not the use of the company name. -- Liliana 09:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)





  • I oppose this RFV nomination. This is a very unwise nomination. These entries are single-word ones, capable of hosting lexicographical material such as etymology, pronunciation and translation into other languages; multiple of the nominated items already do. WT:COMPANY is not supported by consensus, as per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names. WT:COMPANY is not a plain RFV regulation; it is one that places additional hurdles on company names, for reasons that I still do not undertand and that are IMHO not explained at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names. The opposers have not explained why company names must be excluded while place names can be included. The arguing in the vote is along the line "we need some rules or else will have too many company names", but the opposers have not proposed any rules, and have not explained what is wrong with having a large number attested single-word company names. As for plain RFV nomination, all terms are clearly in widespread use, and RFV does not apply. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • We have a certain user here who often likes to say "no consensus -- status quo ante". Keφr 08:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
      • For one thing, the status quo ante before this RFV for the nominated terms in the namespace is that Wiktionary has them. But let us look broader, at the status of company names in the mainspace in general, not just the nominated ones. As for most of the nominated terms, they are quite recent, so they are a poor indication of "ante": Motorola (since August 2012), Samsung (since August 2012), Hyundai (since September 2012‎), Toshiba (since March 2013‎), and Mitsubishi (since April 2013‎). However, Wiktionary had company names as early as in 2004 - Sony; Apple, BMW, FedEx, Gibson, Google, IBM,Kawasaki, Mobil, Nokia, Peugeot, Pixar, Raleigh, Toyota and Volvo are all from 2005, all as company names. More company names are listed at User talk:Dan Polansky#Company names. There were some deletions, including Atari, Exxon, Microsoft and Verizon, and probably other. As for the current WT:COMPANY text in CFI, it was entered there without a vote and even without a discussion AFAICT, so it never was supported by consensus by any stretch; the diffs that I found are diff (22 May 2005) and diff (21 November 2007). So I am not sure what your point really is. In any case, I consider this use of RFV to be an abuse of it, by a person who could not get his or her way by a proper consensus-based channel, in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names_of_specific_entities and Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames_with_linguistic_information_2 under former user name Prince Kassad, newly Liliana-60. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
        • It may have been added without prior discussion, but nobody removed it. The above-linked vote on your proposal has failed with 9 opposes against 8 supports. Which for me indicates that the community feels that WT:COMPANY is still in force, and supports keeping it in place for the time being. And even if the policy is changed, the citations collected here (or lack thereof) can still be useful to make drafting the new policy more of an evidence-based discussion instead of armchair consensus-building. Keφr 12:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
          • The fact that no one removed the offending part from the CFI after it was added is wholly immaterial. I for one never felt comfortable making changes to a policy page that said at the top of the page that changes should not be done without a vote. For some time, I naively thought that CFI was really based on consensus; I only discovered later that it was not so. As a result, I set up a multitude of votes to remove things from CFI that were not supported by consensus. Some were a pass, some were a fail. Some of the best examples of things that were in CFI for ages with most people not taking them seriously is the attributive-use rule, removed via Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names_of_specific_entities. The trick of adding stuff to policy pages and hoping that people will not remove them for the fear of edit war was tried in Wiktionary multiple times by various editors, with a considerable success. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know, which rule could be applicable here but I vote keep all and I think we should keep all notable one word company names for the same reason we keep countries and place names. People are likely to look them up, search translations or want to find etymology, pronunciation. The more linguistic info such entries contain, the more important and interesting they are. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have added four citations for Hyundai which I believe meet our strictures for brand names. bd2412 T 15:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto for crowbar. The alternate spelling levstango is attested, but there's nothing for this spelling on Google Groups or Tekstaro, and only a single mention on Google Books. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 01:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


This looks like another made-up substitute for a term whose etymology isn't Turkic enough. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It is some people's surname in Turkey. Kara means black and bat means duck or kar means snow (kara is the dativ form) and bat means sink in Turkish. Why are you commenting about the etymology of a Turkish word without knowing Turkish language? -- 03:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Some people's surname... that would be Karabat then. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
You may find some google results that it was used with the sense of pinguin: May 1, 2014 Linux'un simgesi karabat kuşudur (yani penguendir). (from Google Groups). -- 13:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't need to speak the language to see that penguen, the word listed in dictionaries, isn't etymologically Turkic, and you've now demonstrated that karabat is. Thank you for proving my point. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
You mean penguen has not Turkish origin. I misunderstood because you used the word "enough". Anyway... -- 11:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
"karabat" isn't penguin. They did fabricate against "buzulkuşu" word and try to show like a other bird the "buzulkuşu" word.
This unsigned message was typed by Türkeröz. -- 11:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
According to Avibase buzulkuşu means Diuca speculifera. -- 09:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
You made add to Avibase. It is your cheat... -- 12:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Avibase is not an open dictionary like wiktionary. -- 20:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


Added by same IP as previous. rfving to be on the safe side. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a noun derived from old Turkish verb öndürmek to produce. It's some people's surname in Turkey. -- 03:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Some people's surname... that would be Öndürücü then. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


The superlative base form of שיין (sheyn) is שענסט (shenst). The declensional forms are דער שענסטער (der shenster), די שענסטע (di shenste) and so forth. --Sgold84 (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


Scannos constitute a large portion of the limited number of Google Books hits this gets. I am doubtful enough citations remain to attest all four of the entry's senses. (Some scannos are of "man-woman" in phrases like "the ideal man-woman relationship", but others are of the entirely ambiguous designations "man-woman" and "woman-man" which I comment on here.) - -sche (discuss) 05:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

manwomen needs citing as well, or else it's a case of plural unattested. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)



Supposedly modern (as opposed to Middle) English. I am doubtful. BGC hits are mostly scannos. - -sche (discuss) 05:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The OED has entries for the noun queem marking it as obsolete (and the latest cite from before 1500 suggesting that it's really Middle English). The adjective and adverb are less clear, with the OED saying "now rare" but including cites from regional English in some senses (some with the spelling weem or wheem, and a Scots cite from 1983 (New Testament in Scots). Dbfirs 07:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I found a couple of uses for the verb and added citations for them. Not sure how old they actually are (one seems to use Middle English words/forms in an archaic fashion, so I suspect EME on that one); but the other is certainly Modern. Added tag. Leasnam (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
A couple more I added. One need only search after 'que(e)mest', 'que(e)meth', etc. to flush out the lave of them. There is also the variant quim. But I do think that the two entries should be merged, probably at queem? Leasnam (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree, merge to queem, with queme as alternative form of. Ƿidsiþ 19:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I found another work which has the same poem about "the king she quemed"; it clarifies that the original was by Robert Mannyng (1275–1340) and that avenant, semblant and marvellich mean handsome, appearance and marvellously. Aside from those words, it seems to be an updated version of Robert's poem rather than a pure quotation, however, which in my understanding (see Talk:undeadliness) means it can be cited as English.
I have merged the noun and the verb at queem. Note that I have left the adjective at queme because queem does not currently claim that the 'ee' spelling can be an adjective. Also note that various senses still need citations.
PS, to save anyone else the trouble, I just went through every citation of google books:"queming" and google books:"queeming" and found nothing relevant; most hits were scannos of fre-quenting across a line break, some were scannos of querning. - -sche (discuss) 18:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Supposedly English. Has one citation, but it's apparently Scots. Google Books turns up Middle English, Scots and scannos. - -sche (discuss) 05:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

However, It wouldn't surprise me if this were attested in an entirely different sense, namely "eye dialect of fairly". - -sche (discuss) 05:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The OED has entries for noun, adjective, verb and adverb. All marked as obsolete in English (though probably preserved in Scots) except for our noun sense which is "chiefly Scottish English and dialect". The most recent cite is from "N. Davis & C. L. Wrenn Eng. & Medieval Stud." (1962) but C Day Lewis used the noun in Time to Dance in 1935. Dbfirs 07:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)



  1. Using specious arguments or discourse.
    a plausible speaker

See Wiktionary:Tea_room/2014/July#a _plausible_ speaker uses specious arguments or discourse?

Chuck Entz (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

If a speaker says of someone else that He is a "plausible speaker, using sense 2, he is failing to endorse the truth of what the "plausible speaker" says. That is a kind of understated or polite criticism of the "plausible speaker" or the arguments made. Some dictionaries seem to have found that usage has elevated this kind of implication to the status of a pejorative definition. A collocation like "plausible liar" makes it difficult to determine whether plausible itself has the negative meaning rather than liar alone. I wonder what kind of quotations would give use evidence: something like "not true, but plausible"? DCDuring TALK 02:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Having looked at a few examples, even "not true, but plausible" doesn't assure us of plausible having negative rather than neutral valence, IMO. DCDuring TALK 02:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Senses 2 through 4 were part of the original entry, created in 2004 by a user who was apparently mass-importing data to pad out the new dictionary. The second sense, especially, is not much better than random verbiage: what does "obtaining approbation" have to do with plausibility? What does "specifically pleasing" mean? It looks like the first sense was added because the other senses have little to do with the one meaning in widespread, modern use. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
To my surprise, the New Oxford Dictionary of English (2001) does have this: "(of a person) skilled at producing persuasive arguments, especially ones intended to deceive: a plausible liar. Assuming OUP are right, senses #2 and #4 to me also need verifying. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: The "obtaining approbation" sense fits with the etymology. The entry is from MW 1913, from which so many entries have been copied and remain without significant alteration. The ARTFL copy of MW 1913's definitions follows:
  1. Worthy of being applauded; praiseworthy; commendable; ready. [Obs.] Bp. Hacket.
  2. Obtaining approbation; specifically pleasing; apparently right; specious; as, a plausible pretext; plausible manners; a plausible delusion. Plausible and popular arguments." Clarendon.
  3. Using specious arguments or discourse; as, a plausible speaker. <-- 4 appearing worthy of belief [MW10]. Now the most common sense, and a good sense, rather than the traditional bad sense. --> Syn. -- Plausible, Specious. Plausible denotes that which seems reasonable, yet leaves distrust in the judgment. Specious describes that which presents a fair appearance to the view and yet covers something false. Specious refers more definitely to the act or purpose of false representation; plausible has more reference to the effect on the beholder or hearer. An argument may by specious when it is not plausible because its sophistry is so easily discovered.
MW 1913, following the practice of many dictionaries presents the definitions in the plausible, even probable, order of their development. We rely on the more prominent placement of the "obsolete" label.
I believe that all of the synonyms in all of the definitions reflect words that could be substituted for plausible at the beginning of the 20th century and earlier. From them one could inductively arrive at "the" meaning. For our style of definition, definition 2 seems to contain a contradiction: "specious" does not fit with the others (IMO).
I have no idea why definition 4 is formatted as it is and whose usage note it contains. The synonyms discussion seems to suggest that definitions 2 and 3 had been the prevailing senses. This fits with my finding of some modern philosophy (logic) texts that had the need to explicitly distinguish between "specious" and "possible"-type glosses of plausible. I don't really doubt that MW 1913 was accurately reporting 1-3 as definitions that were or had been in common use. I think this needs cleanup, to convert from "synonyms" lists to proper definitions using the current meanings of preferably unambiguous defining words or at least use of modern synonyms. This takes more than a hit-and-run effort, IMO.
Move to RfC. DCDuring TALK 12:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


Alternative spelling of Norcal, meaning northern California. I can't find any uses, but it is somewhat difficult to search for because of the asterisk. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


This better pass WT:FICTION. --WikiTiki89 17:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no use in lion about it. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


RFV of the Spanish entry with this capitalization. --WikiTiki89 13:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason you believe this to be unattestable? Purplebackpack89 16:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the fact that the event took place in California, and the fact that Spanish doesn't normally capitalize common nouns. --WikiTiki89 17:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
California has a large Spanish-speaking minority though. —CodeCat 17:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but they don't produce much literature as far as I know. Anyway, I was wrong because this event took place back then when California was at least in part still part of Mexico, but the second part of my point still stands that Spanish does not normally capitalize certain common nouns the way English does. --WikiTiki89 17:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
For the gazillionth time, this is a proper noun, not a common noun. Purplebackpack89 17:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Why? It has a plural, and it can take an indefinite article. —CodeCat 17:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Please don't bring that debate here to RFV. Regardless of what type of noun it is, I'm not withdrawing the RFV. --WikiTiki89 17:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89:, I still don't understand why you consider the construction unusual. It is my experience that factions are capitalized in romance languages. For example, the Green Party is referred to as "Les Vertes" (capital V) in French, and "Los Verdes" in Spanish. Purplebackpack89 17:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
"Los Verdes" is a proper noun referring to the organization. --WikiTiki89 18:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The Spanish entry is a common noun, just like the English word "Popperian" (A proponent of Karl Popper's philosophy) or "Clintonite" (A political supporter of Bill Clinton). --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Purplebackpack89 if you're so confident this exists, just cite it. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that this is a proper noun, and I feel the "bear flaggers" would be called “los osos.” It is difficult to find hits with a specific capitalization, but in this Blog de Banderas article, there appears the following sentence which I consider to be well written Spanish:
En la plaza del pueblo izaron una bandera con una estrella y un oso grizzli y pronto fueron conocidos como “los osos” o los de la “Revuelta de la bandera del oso”.
In the town square they hoisted a flag with a star and a grizzly bear and soon they were known as “the bears,” or supporters of the “Bear Flag revolt.”
—Stephen (Talk) 14:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


"A musician or band's demo tape." Seems redundant to the general sense of a magnetic tape medium. Equinox 21:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

So it should be deleted, rather than verified? Siuenti (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, if we can find cites that say, "I asked for an audiotape, so why'd you bring me this tape of music from a concert", they'd suffice to prove this is a separate sense. (I doubt that's gonna happen, but what do I know.)​—msh210 (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if tape is used generically to refer to demos released on mediums other than magnetic tape (e.g., home-burnt CDRs). Much as we continue to speak of "rewinding" DVDs and Blu-rays despite the fact that the days of VHS are long past. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Only seen this for mixtape, e.g. "an MP3 mixtape". Equinox 12:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
People called CDs tapes for a while, before they got used to them. --WikiTiki89 16:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 02:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


Scottish Gaelic entry. I've just downgraded this from a full entry to an "alternative spelling of ugh" (which is the usual spelling), but I'm hoping someone who actually knows Scottish Gaelic will be able to confirm or deny that this spelling is ever actually encountered. I thought it was an Irish-only neologism, but I could be wrong. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be the other way round: it's recorded by Dwelly (search here but Colin Mark's dictionary (2004) says "ubh an older spelling of ugh - not recomended" [26]. --Droigheann (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

big ballsEdit

Alleggedly means "courage". I request attesting quotations per WT:ATTEST. This was already once in RFV, but the RFV closure was irregular and no attesting quotations were provided. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the previous discussion DP refers to is at Talk:big_balls. Equinox 20:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Doesn't just "balls" mean courage? Purplebackpack89 02:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Regardless of what "balls" means, I request evidence in the form of attesting quotations that the phrase "big balls" is actually attested to mean courage, as per WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    Does that help? --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 08:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    Let us have a look. I'll take the 1st quotation and replace "big balls" with X, and let us see whether the quotation suggests X means courage. The result is this: "Biffy says, “You've got X for a girl Bubbles. I like your style. Give it to him. Juicy's rotten, but Bubbles. You've got the scevusa on your hands now.” Bubbles drops the hot dog, and calls Biffy and Juicy some un-young ladylike words.". Now, do you think it can be inferred from the sentence that X means courage? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, I do, actually. Do you not? Certainly it is clear from two of those quotes that it's not a literal reference to body parts. The other quotes are similar: they are general approbations with a clear meaning. Unless you are demanding one of the quotes from a dictionary of slang, or a quote of something like "He showed that he had big balls by standing up by which I mean he was very brave" or something equally awful. (I'll grant that the quote you copied here could be reduced to the first two sentences, but I wanted to find a balance between excluding context, and including too much.) --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 09:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    I certainly do not require dictionary quotations, since that is not what WT:ATTEST allows. I cannot really infer the meaning of "courage" from the quotations, but then I am not a native speaker. Let other editors comment on the merits of the provided quotations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    In my experience, [big] balls (without the) doesn't simply mean courage: sometimes it means assertiveness, but usually means gall, nerve or chutzpah. A former employer of mine used to say things like "you've got balls the size of an elephant to complain about that" Chuck Entz (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


Supposedly a female given name Anglicised from the Irish Eithne. w:Eithne lists Ethnea, Ethlend, Ethnen, Ethlenn, Ethnenn, Eithene, Ethne, Aithne, Enya, Áine, Ena, Edna, Etney, Eithnenn, Eithlenn, Eithna, Ethni, Edlend, Edlenn, Ethniu, Ethliu, Ethlinn, and Enya as variant spellings of Eithne, but not Etna. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Irish-language given names includes it, but it may deserve a handful of salt. It would want to be Anglicised, as even in Old Irish it was spelled with "-th-". (And we know it was pronounced with /θ/ because it was borrowed into Old Norse as "Eðna".)
As for "Etna", it gets drowned out by the volcano. There is
  • Women Swindlers in America, 1860-1920 p. 39
    "Extending over six years, from about 1895 until 1901, Etna Dungan of Gold Hill in southern Oregon had been in correspondence with a large number of men, all anxious to secure a wife and, under promise to marry every one of them, [] "
And a look in FamilySearch shows a non-trivial number of Etnas in Ireland, where a derivation from Eithne is more likely than from the Sicilian mountain. (Conflation with Edna is always a possibility, though.)
--Catsidhe (verba, facta) 12:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Searching for "Etna + (w:List of the most common surnames in Europe#Ireland)" turns up the citations I've put here. It may be possible to find some of the people named there in genealogical databases and ascertain whether or not they are Irish. In addition to "Eithne" and Mount Etna, variation of "Edna" seems like another possible source of "Etna" (but note that "Edna" says that it itself is used as an anglicization of "Eithne"). - -sche (discuss) 17:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The citations I've found prove that Etna is a name, and the derivation of it from Irish is plausible under the circumstances (Eithne is anglicised a lot of similar ways, and several bearers of the name Etna have last names that are common among the Irish). I suggest closing this RFV and, if desired, moving to WT:ES. - -sche (discuss) 02:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

collective punisherEdit

This exists, but I’m unable to find durable citations. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I found one, now on the Citations page. Choor monster (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I found a second one, unfortunately an unpublished, undated, working paper, but I added it to the Citations page anyway. Presumably it will eventually be published, but these things often exist in limbo for a long time. Choor monster (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The rationale for this (and collective punishment, collective responsibility, and collective guilt) is that the term has a relatively specific meaning in international law. Shouldn't there be law journal articles at Google Scholar? DCDuring TALK 22:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I found the first cite using Lexis. If it's a specific term of international law, it's in relevant dictionaries, and passes the Lemming test. Choor monster (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


Tagged but apparently not listed. - -sche (discuss) 17:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


Tagged but apparently not listed. - -sche (discuss) 17:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Lugaid mac Con RoíEdit

Cú RoíEdit

Does mythology count as a fictional universe? 'Cause I really don't think these guys' names are used out of context in an attributive sense, in either English or Irish. (So this RFV applies to both languages and if it fails, I'm requesting that the whole pages be deleted.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Oy vey, there are 74 pages in Category:en:Irish mythology, many of which could probably be subsumed under this RFV, but I just don't have the time to go through them all now. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't count mythology as a fictional universe. People misuse the word fictional to mean anything that (in their belief) is not factual, but really fiction implies a specific genre, in which the plot is intended to be understood as not being factual. --WikiTiki89 22:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree, old mythologies are different from fiction, and I dispute that WT:FICTION applies to old mythologies. Certainly, all of WT:FICTION's examples are works of (modern) fiction rather than mythologies. For new stories which are mythological/religious stories according to some and fictional stories according to others (e.g. the stories of Gerald Gardner or L Ron Hubbard), the situation is less clear.
We do have a separate policy that "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic." But there's disagreement on whether or not that policy should be enforced when the person in question was important to a mythology or religion — see WT:RFD#محمد بن عبد الله — so "Lugaid mac Con Roí" is potentially still in a grey area. (Bah.) - -sche (discuss) 01:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as someone with an interest in Irish Onomastics, I'd say that the name elements are dictionary-worthy, but to include a full person's name as a name seems encyclopaedic and out of scope. See, eg, Badb: As a word, it's the name of a goddess. For further details, history, great feats, symbology, etc, etc; the Wikipedia entry exists.

In this instance, Lugaid is a name. Cú Roí is a name. Lugaid mac Con Roí is a person. He serves as an attestation of the name elements, an example of them in use, but this place is a dictionary, not a who's-who.

Similarly, I'd say that Finn is a lemma, definition "an Old Irish name, Descendants Irish: Fionn", but Finn mac Cumail, or Fionn mac Cumhail, or Finn MacCool are not. He's an attestation of the name, and there might be an argument for a (not-exhaustive) list of noteworthy bearers of the name, but I submit that we distinguish between names as words, and names as people. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 01:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014Edit

make outEdit

Rfv-sense: (intransitive) To succeed in seducing; to have sex. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I think so. 'make out' = "succeed, turn out well/as expected"...I can certainly see this used in certain contexts. For instance: I took Jennifer out for the first time last night. As you know, I've been trying to get in her panties for a long time. (Friend): Yeah, so did you make out? --this could also be interpreted as "Did you kiss each other/have a make-out session. Leasnam (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
But that's just because of the context. You can't say that the word "succeed" means to "to have sex", just because it can also be used in that context. --WikiTiki89 01:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • MWO has this as sense 2 a.[27]; has a sense like this as well[28]. Some other dictionaries have senses involving necking. Making a deeper search for quotations could be worthwhile. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


I don't seem to be able to find attestation (WT:ATTEST) in durably archived attestation sources: google books:"paraskevodekatriaphobia", google groups:"paraskevodekatriaphobia", paraskevodekatriaphobia at OneLook Dictionary Search.

As a simple solution, paraskevodekatriaphobia should be moved back to paraskavedekatriaphobia, from which it was moved on 29 May 2014‎. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The only spelling I see in Google Books is paraskevidekatriophobia, which is based on Modern Greek, rather than Ancient Greek. Even that may very well be only mentions. Maybe it should be moved to Appendix:Unattested phobias. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
For paraskavedekatriaphobia, there are Citations:paraskavedekatriaphobia from permanently recorded media, albeit somewhat mentiony to me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
It has no bearing on the rfv, but this term is an etymological train wreck. In Ancient Greek, παρασκευή (paraskeuḗ) simply meant preparation, and was probably closer in pronunciation to "paraskewe". In Judaic contexts such as biblical translations it could refer to the day before the Sabbath, when observant Jews would prepare everything so they wouldn't have to work on the Sabbath itself. Since the Sabbath is on Saturday, that makes the term a very restricted synonym for Friday, but probably not a common one outside those contexts. The widespread adoption of Christianity and thus the change to being the general Greek word for Friday approximately coincided with two sound changes: υ between vowels became v, and η became i.
That means that "paraskeve" meaning "Friday" would require combining elements from different time periods, while "paraskevi" would mean using Modern Greek in a context which is normally strictly Ancient Greek. User:Pyprilescu tried to avoid the issue by moving to a compromise spelling, not considering that we go by usage rather than by etymological correctness. I suspect that whoever coined the term looked up Friday in a Modern Greek dictionary, and the "paraskeve" was an attempt to normalize the Modern Greek romanization, "paraskevi" to the way Ancient Greek is romanized in scientific terms.
At any rate, I think the best course of action is to treat this as an rfv of all the spellings of the term. If any of them passes (paying careful attention to the use/mention distinction), it should be moved to the most common spelling that passes and any other spellings that pass should become alternative spellings. If none of them pass, it should be moved to Appendix:Unattested phobias. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Is there even a (gentile) Ancient Greek word for Friday? Some calque of dies Veneris, perhaps, e.g. ἡμέρα τῆς Ἀφροδίτης? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Good point. I shouldn't have talked about commonness without knowing anything about how the ancient Greeks referred to the different days. If I had to guess, I'd say it would be some derivation from ἕκτος (héktos). I vaguely recall reading something about the custom of naming days after gods being a later borrowing from a foreign source. Chuck Entz (talk)
Pedantic point, but I think the days were named directly after the planets and thus only indirectly after the gods. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
True. After looking at the article on the w:Attic calendar and w:Roman calendar, it occurred to me that there may not have even been a widely-used system of 7-day weeks in Greece until the Romans instituted theirs in the early years of the Roman Empire. The earlier Roman nundinal week was based on an 8-day system, but I see nothing mentioned for Greece except the division of lunar months into thirds. I'm sure the Greeks were well aware of the 7-day systems of the Near East, but I wonder if anyone really used them. The lack of an accepted Ancient Greek name for Friday would certainly explain why a Modern Greek name was used. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


Does not look attested in use: google books:"apikorosim", google groups:"apikorosim", apikorosim at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a malformed (in spelling and definition) plural of apikoros, correct plural apikorsim. Choor monster (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Note that the incorrect plural (I wouldn't call it "malformed", since it is the regularly formed plural of a noun with a slightly irregular plural) is used occasionally in both Hebrew and English, but it is nevertheless still a plural of apikoros. --WikiTiki89 16:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


Can't see it with the small Z in Google Books. In general, concerned that PaM is adding a lot of barely- or un-attestable terms relating to a pet topic (anti-Judaism) without checking whether they meet CFI. Equinox 19:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


Moved from RFD. It literally means the world's oldest profession, and reference to prostitution seems to be always an explanation rather than euphemism. I’m wondering whether there is a euphemistic usage without directly mentioning prostitution. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

My attempt:
  1. あなたの州のどこかでは世界最古の職業も合法なんでしょうけれど、自分のパティスリーを開くために体を売りたかったら、ここでもできるわ、ジョナス。
  2. ほう、一体あらたまって何のことかい」「その、っまり成人男子の観光客がだね、世界最古の職業に従事している現地女性とだね... ...」「何だ、そのことか... ...」と、ジャンは吹き出した。
@TAKASUGI Shinji: would you consider usages such as above euphemistic? Also, would translations from other languages count, such as the 2nd example? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The sentences above don’t sound very natural, but I think it is attested. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

oved elilimEdit

Another sloppy anti-Jew-topic entry. The -s plural doesn't seem to exist anywhere, and the term itself seems (i) not CFI-attestable and (ii) not English, just a rare transliteration from Hebrew or some such. Equinox 16:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, it's from a Hebrew phrase meaning "servant/slave of gods". I didn't have time when I saw this earlier to search thoroughly, but I don't remember seeing anything that wasn't referring to it as a term used in Hebrew rather than using it to describe something. While I'm glad that the loaded term heathen was removed, I suspect the phrase might at least sometimes legitimately refer to actual pagans rather than to just any non-Jew. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
In Hebrew: עוׂבֵד אֱלִילִים (worshiper of idols). @Equinox, I don't find anything particularly anti-Jewish about this. --WikiTiki89 14:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


Discussion moved from WT:RFD#Deletion of entry "ವುತ್ತು".

The entry "ವುತ್ತು" should be deleted. I speak Kannada, the language for which that entry was created, and I have never heard that word, and cannot find attestations anywhere, even on the Internet.

Princeps linguae (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Really? Because it took me about 1 minute, not reading the language, to find attestation, like at [29] and on Google Books [30].--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
See, actually knowing the language, I can conclude that (a) the first example was a typo for "ಮತ್ತು," and (b) the second example was a Google Books misreading. You'll notice that all the "attestations" for "ವುತ್ತು" are from Google Books, because Google Books is not perfect, especially at reading non-Latin scripts. If it's a word for "and," which is a fairly common word, why can I find "ವುತ್ತು" less than five times outside of Google Books misreadings? (They're probably typos.)
Either way, this belongs at WT:RFV. --WikiTiki89 13:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
No, it definitely is not a word. I found less than five examples that were not from Google Books (which are all just misreadings), and those are probably typos for an actual word meaning "and" that is spelled and sounded very similarly, and appears very similar ("ವುತ್ತು" is the contested entry, "ಮತ್ತು" is the actual word).
RFV is where we determine whether words exist or not. Here at RFD, we determine whether a word that does exist is worthy of inclusion or not. --WikiTiki89 15:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll do that.

The entry "ವುತ್ತು" should be deleted. It's defined as "and." I speak Kannada, the language for which that entry was created, and I have never heard that word, and cannot find attestations anywhere, even on the Internet. I requested deletion and I have some information there supporting this claim.

Princeps linguae (I couldn't sign with the tildes)

Delete. I agree that it is not a word. Whenever it appears, it is a typo for ಮತ್ತು, which looks almost the same. —Stephen (Talk) 15:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
We could keep this as a common misspelling if it has enough citations. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 17:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
We could, I suppose, but the language is completely phonetic, so misspellings are very rare. "Typo" would probably be more accurate. And the typo only occurs less than five times on the Internet... Princeps linguae (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Um...hello? Is anything going to happen now? It's been about two months. Now that we're done with the formalities, can we actually do something? Thanks. Princeps linguae (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Changed to a redirect. —Stephen (Talk) 08:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
The second link posted by Prosfilaes was a Google Books misreading for the actual word for "and": "ಮತ್ತು" (which for some reason unknown to me is being reviewed below). "ಮತ್ತು" and "ವುತ್ತು" look similar, and it was probably these misreadings that misled the creator of that page. No software is perfect, after all. The first link posted by Prosfilaes--I don't know, probably a typo. But if the word we're talking about is "and," you would think there would be multiple results, since Kannada is not a very obscure language. And again, why isn't it on the Kannada Wiktionary (with I think about 100,000 pages) if the word is "and"? Now, I'm no long-time Wiktionarian to recommend anything, but I think that the bar should be a bit higher than three attestations for "and." Thanks. Princeps linguae (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
PPrinceps linguae, you just need to choose a couple of sentences from the thousands found here. They are printed books and Google tries to convert the images of Kannada pages to Kannada text, but makes mistakes. You will probably need to look at the sentences on the pages that you want, and type them yourself. —Stephen (Talk) 13:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


Ungoliant (falai) 17:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Not in the OED and no hits at OneLook. Also no usage at And not even any usages vaguely consistent with this definition on the unfiltered web. It doesn't look good for this one. -- · (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete. The word can't be found in any dictionary in which I looked; a brief Internet search evinces three pages of results, and no attestation at all. Princeps linguae (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Let me point out that, as per our WT:CFI (esp. WT:CFI#General rule and WT:CFI#Attestation), we do not go by dictionaries but rather by actual use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone have actual attesting quotations as per WT:ATTEST? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


Looks like a protologism. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

And look at all of the synonyms. They all are red links, and look like SOPs to me. "image with citation" just seems like it means an image with a citation for example. Why not remove at least the ones that we know are SOPs, which I bet are all of them? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 17:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I think this was simply borrowed from the name of the website "" That website posts "imcites" and the website's Facebook page gives the same etymology as the Wiktionary page. That's the only attestation that can be found as far as I can see--just the website and its Facebook page. Princeps linguae (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

peas and carrotsEdit

This may very well exist, but I would like some citations. --WikiTiki89 20:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it's only used in similes along the lines of "They go together like peas and carrots." The way the definition is currently worded it ought to be "They are peas and carrots", and I'm not sure that exists. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
"I saw peats and carrots walking on the street" simply does not work. I think Angr is right > delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


RFV-sense "To be known or considered." This seems to be limited to the collocation go by (as in his name is Samuel but he goes by Sam), which we (for better or worse) have a separate entry for. Notably, both Random House and Merriam-Webster have a comparable sense under go rather than under go by, but their only usage examples are of "go by". - -sche (discuss) 22:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I have heard usage like this and this, but I'm not sure "be known or considered" is a good gloss of that — and I'm not sure if it belongs at go or at go under. - -sche (discuss) 02:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (childish) Penis.

I created this from Wikisaurus:penis. Any attestation? google books:"dingy", google groups:"dingy", dingy at OneLook Dictionary Search. Also google books:"with your dingy", google groups:"with your dingy", with your dingy at OneLook Dictionary Search.

An informal extra-process question to the native speakers: from memory, do you recognize this word as meaning "penis"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't recognise it. There are thingy and dingus, however. Equinox 10:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I also do not recognise it, but I would know what its referring to if used in context, and it seems very plausible. It looks like a diminutive (or child-language form) of ding-dong, using the first element + -y. Though i dont withcall it per se, im sure i must have heard it over the years....somewhere...Leasnam (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
w:Ruth Wallis recorded a song called "Davy's Dinghy", which is full of double-entendres based on this sense, but it obviously doesn't attest the spelling. It's not easy verifying anything, because the adjective sense is very common, and because the boat is spelled in a variety of ways.
This sense is attested with the spelling dingie, which has less interference from the adjective and boat senses, but I was also finally able to find this and this, this and this.
The entry needs work, since there are two pronunciations, at least one more sense, and more etymologies:
Etymology 1
Pronounced as /ˈdɪn.dʒi/
Adjective: drab; shabby; dirty; squalid
Etymology 2: somehow related to dingbat
Pronounced as /ˈdɪŋi/
Adjective: ditzy, silly, a little crazy
Etymology 3: the y seems to be the diminutive suffix -y
Pronounced as /ˈdɪŋi/
Noun: penis
Etymology 4
Pronounced as /ˈdɪŋi/
Noun: Alternative spelling of dinghy
There's also the matter of dingie, which is attested as an alternative spelling and/or misspelling of most (probably all) of the senses of dingy. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


Wonderfool entry. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Hundreds from this year can be found like

[31] [32]. From 2012 we have this one. I haven't got the knowhow to put these quotes up --Type56op9 (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

These aren’t durably archived. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


Wonderfool entry. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: A portmanteau derived from "Tolkien Hollywood", used to describe the cinematographic presentation of the stories in J. R. R. Tolkien's Legendarium. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


RFV of both senses in the English L2. I can't find any evidence of the cigarette sense, and nothing for the Haida sense that unambiguously uses it as a noun and not some sort of title. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "to go quickly" Added back in 2008 by an anon user with this explanation: "New page: Added definition of jot "to go quickly" I have seen this usage in literature (e.g. Enid Blyton). I found multiple occurences of this usage on the Internet (google "jot over"). Interesting…". The usex seems to be made up by himself, and it has been cited on dozens of websites. The little usage I found in BGC would indicate that "jot over" has been used to mean to drop by (we didn't jot over that bar yet) or to go through (we jotted over the records of last 3 years). Works of Enid Blyton did not appear among 120 first hits. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There was short discussion on this on Feedback pages. Here's one comment:
Perhaps not erroneous, but it certainly seems to be rare. I searched b.g.c for "jot over" and found nothing relevant. Then I searched for "jotted over" and found only two relevant hits. "Jotted over" most commonly seems to mean the same as "dotted over", e.g. "He had strolled away to a little headland, jotted over with rocks and aged tree-trunks" and "Here also the groups representing the passages included in this portion of sacred history are jotted over the field, often interfering with one another." Then I searched for "jotting over" and found only hits meaning "jutting over", i.e. protruding over. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Sounds suspicious to me. Perhaps confusion of jog with trot?! Equinox 08:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
There is also jolt over/jolted over which seems to fit the meaning indicated. Perhaps a misspelling? Leasnam (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

nước mắmEdit

Supposedly English. Needs cites in this orthography. DCDuring TALK 10:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It's easy finding English sentences using this spelling, but much harder deciding whether the term is being used as English or as Vietnamese. I'll see if I can come up with some good examples. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I view this as a kind of test case. I won't challenge other terms with similar orthography if this turns out to be attestable. If it is attestable, we should create the category of which it is currently the sole member. DCDuring TALK 15:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Would Hà Nội or Việt Nam (with Vietnamese diacritics) be attestable as English terms? In any case, we have examples of Romanian, Turkish, etc., etc, spellings used in English, Japanese macrons, e.g. Tōkyō are also common. It's hard to verify, though. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Two tests I’ve seen people using to determine whether the author considers the term a loanword instead of a foreign word are:
  1. the term is unitalicised;
  2. the inflected forms of the term use English desinences.
Number 2 is inapplicable in this case, since nước mắm is uncountable. As for unitalicised uses, I’ve only found this one. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


English: "(slang) a single serving of beer (such as in a can or bottle), used as a mock currency"

Could be. DCDuring TALK 10:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently is not. Failed. Keφr 21:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


I'm sure there should be an Azeri sense with this spelling, but I am wildly skeptical of the idea that this could be an English spelling of the word.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Alt forms are worth a look too. Apparently I created qepiq but I'm not finding much for that either. Equinox 13:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The English spelling is qapik or gapik (phonetic rendering), ultimately from Russian копе́йка (kopéjka). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


RFV-sense "(philosophy) Among the Sophists, the topics of rational argument." The sense is not present in other dictionaries and I am not sure it was even intended to apply to the English word logos — I think it may have just been a comment on how the Ancient Greek word was used. The citations turned up by google books:logos Sophists "rational argument" suggest this is the case — in them, the word occurs in italics and/or quotation marks or parentheses, and in phrases that suggest it is being mentioned rather than being used. - -sche (discuss) 04:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The sense seems to be a copy from AHD 1b[33]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


RFV-sense: "Different symbols, written or spoken, arranged together in a unique sequence that approximates a thought in a person's mind." As written, this would seem to include even a (multi-term) sequence of symbols like "this does not make sense", which approximates the thought I had when I read the sense. Such a sense is not present in other dictionaries I checked. It needs to be shown to be both attested and distinct from (=a better definition for any citations that support it than) the other senses in the entry, particularly sense 1, sense 1.2, and senses 4–8. - -sche (discuss) 04:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd have thought best case scenario the wording is poor. Spoken words aren't made up of symbols! Not all words are made of a unique sequence of symbols (centre/center for example). Renard Migrant (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
But the intent of the definition clearly seems to be that word and concept are synonymous or identical. DCDuring TALK 13:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


We now have our first hot word that was added more than a year ago. So following the procedure, we should re-evaluate it. —CodeCat 13:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The first amendment to the procedure should be to have the automatic RfV be at least 13 months after the first use. The cites I've added are probably not durably archived, being from the Smithsonian online. The first was apparently the initial public release of information and the second was their celebration of the first anniversary to the announcement. DCDuring TALK 11:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I think this comment is for olinguito. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. An RFV exactly 12 months later is probably going to fail on practical matters... —CodeCat 20:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
If we want to give Google Books a chance to generate cites, at least cites not directly copied from Wikipedia, we would probably want to wait at least 18 months. Similarly for Scholar. OTOH, News and Usenet cites could be quicker, so even 13 months might be enough. I'd prefer at least 18 months. More than two years seems too long if this approach is to work at all. DCDuring TALK 22:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Two recent on-line magazines Smithsonian, Science News, and one TV news show (with transcript) PBS that discuss the olinguito, "one year later".
  • “One question that was on everybody’s lips last year was: Could any animal be more adorable than the olinguito,” Helgen says. “And of course the answer is a baby olinguito.” Choor monster (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    It's just a question of whether the sites are "durably archived". DCDuring TALK 13:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    That's why I put the links/citations here. But I believe it's clear where this is going: of course there are going to be more olinguito stories, and some of them are going to be MSM even. Choor monster (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I liked the cite about 'crowd-sourced' science from PBS and added it. I had seen the piece when it aired, but had forgotten about it. Thanks. DCDuring TALK 15:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I found a "journal" cite at Google Books dated September 1, 2014. That should do it. DCDuring TALK 13:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


Re sense 3: "a form of looped and knotted lace needlework made from a single thread". In every dictionary I've checked, "tat" in reference to lacework is only a verb, the noun being "tatting". JudahH (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

In case you don't have access to the full Oxford English Dictionary, it has no less than eight separate noun entries for "tat", and not one of them matches sense 3. I agree that the correct noun for this sense is tatting. The disputed sense was added by CharlieHuang nearly eight years ago and is the only English entry by this now-inactive editor. I'm surprised that it hasn't been challenged before. Dbfirs 16:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
In the absence of any citations, may we remove this mistaken sense? Dbfirs 06:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
It's been two months now so I've removed the error and moved the Finnish translation to tatting. I hope this is OK. Dbfirs 16:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


This looks like another instance of a Middle English word being not only propped up under an English header, but given more sense-lines than there are citations of it. google books:(byspel|byspels) that (with that added in an attempt to weed out non-English books) finds only dictionaries, Scots, dictionaries of Scots, Middle English, Old English, miscellaneous non-English, one citation which is already in the entry, and this:

  • 1866 (1874), Sidney Gilpin, The Songs and Ballads of Cumberland:
    Thou byspel, I'll shoot.

- -sche (discuss) 07:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

    • 1897, Lord Ernest William Hamilton, The Outlaws of the Marches:
      [...] I thought was none too well beloved of many present, and the King's dislike of him was as marked and clear to all as was his liking for his cousin Lord Bothwell; for cousins they surely were in spite of my lord's father being but a byspell so to speak.
    • 1983, Marianne Powell, Fabula Docet:
      Helmut de Boor offers a similarly narrow definition of the nature of morals to be drawn from fables. Opposing "bispel" and fable he sums up the differences as regards this aspect: "The bispel aims at cognition, the fable gives practical knowledge, and in so far as an educational aim is involved the bispel aims at improving man, the fable at making him wiser."
    • 1992, W.N. Herbert, To Circumjack MacDiarmid:
      What is clear is that his use of glossaries conceals the origins of his own byspales as much as it elucidates his texts. ...The effort towards maturity means renouncing the stance of the 'byspale' Christ and accepting the baffled limitations of the father, Joseph.
    • 1998, Joseph Needham, Science and Civilisation in China: Volume 7:
      Such episodes and events were used to illustrate and justify more general or abstract 'philosophical' statements in much the same way as exempla or bispel 'edifying illustrative stories' were used in medieval sermons. And just as we have collections of exempla and bispel from medieval times onwards in Europe, [...]
    • 2005, Marco Fazzini, Alba Literaria:
      He is, or his mother would like him to be, on a threshold, between being awake and falling asleep, but this is the very opposite of what the 'byspale', the wondrous, precocious, uncannily unchildlike child, has in mind.
    • 2008, Janie Steen, Verse and Virtuosity:
      In adopting the bipartite structure, then, the Phoenix-poet demonstrates that this poem is a 'two-fold story,' a bispel.

Leasnam (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

How do those citations support either definition, even allowing for the spelling variation (which I would rather not)? DCDuring TALK 20:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
At this point I am gathering modern uses to prove this word made it securely past the Middle English period, per the original concern. Nothing more beyond that. Leasnam (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Spelling "byspel" is not supported by the above citations. Should no more quotation supporting spelling "byspel" be provided, the entry for byspel should be deleted as RFV failed, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk)
Check the entry Dan. There is one above dated 1866, and 2 more on the entry page spelt "byspel". This is also the spelling used for many of the Scots cites, if that makes any difference (it may not). One thing's for sure, there is a lot of variation with this word. Leasnam (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
In the entry byspel, there is one "byspel" citation for the sense of "A proverb.", one for the sense of "An example." and one for the sense of "A family outcast; bastard." So we do not have three attesting quotations per sense. As the entry is now, every sense fails WT:ATTEST, and therefore the entire entry fails it, as far as I am concerned. As for Scots cites, I don't see why Scots cites should count toward attestation of English. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Wait a minute, so what you're telling me is each sense has to have minimum 3 attests to pass? For a word labelled as obsolete and/or dialectal? Afaict, dialects fall under "all other spoken languages that are living" do they not, and therefore might require only one use or mention ? Leasnam (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
We sometimes relax the requirement of exact spelling identity for individual senses, especially for EME usage and dialect, but we certainly need three citations per sense. DCDuring TALK 18:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, here's the breakdown and my suggestion:
In the entry (mainspace), we can merge senses 1 & 2, encompassing a story or proverb used as an example, pattern, or model for better behaviour, instruction, etc.
Merge 3-4-5 as a person marked for any quality, used as an example, and often shunned for such.
sense 6 appears to be Scots, not sure if it is used in Scottish English per se
7 is a mischievous child (see below)
8 I've never personally seen but I believe it to be Scots
the cites above (on this page):
1886, 1897 are "family outcast/black sheep"
1983 is proverb, example, model, pattern of behaviour, exemplar
1992 has one of each: first is "model, example", second is a play on the word, using same sense and the sense of "bastard, illegitimate child", so both.
1998, 2008 are "illustrative story/proverb/example"
2005 is mischievous child, or perhaps "black sheep"
thoughts? Leasnam (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
And I apologise if I seem a bit curt or snippy: I'm on my mobile and its extremely difficult to edit :/ Leasnam (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I object to using cites above on this page, since they are in a different spelling. Nor do I think "proverb" and "example" to be synonyms, by any stretch, and mergable to a single sense. If a spelling cannot be salvaged, it should not be. byspel at OneLook Dictionary Search. I am unaware of any WT:ATTEST relaxation for obsolete words. Century 1911 has "byspell"[34]; perhaps you will have better luck with that spelling. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Re: 'dialects fall under "all other spoken languages that are living"': I know of no such regulation or previous practice. I tend to oppose requiring only a single citation for English dialects or any other dialects. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, here it is:
"For languages well documented on the Internet, three citations in which a term is used is the minimum number for inclusion in Wiktionary. For terms in extinct languages, one use in a contemporaneous source is the minimum, or one mention is adequate subject to the below requirements. For all other spoken languages that are living, only one use or mention is adequate, subject to the following requirements:[...]".
Let's forget about what we all think, want, expect, and come together on what Wiktionary policy says. No ones going to succeed at changing minds. Byspell/byspel/bispel/byspale is a modern English word, and it is being used online. Its best to give people unfamiliar with it and who come across it for the first time its meaning(s). That's what we're here for. Leasnam (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Are you kidding us? English is listed at WT:Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages. English, even obsolete English, is not part of "all other spoken languages that are living". Please read the above quoted part of the policy carefully again. For English, three attesting quotations are required. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I make no time for games.
Who is "us" ? Leasnam (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC) the disconnect this: you see the spelled form byspel as distinct from the others, and to be the page title, "byspel"(in that spelling) must have 3cites? If that is true, then I can surely agree. For me, the spelling is not what is drawing my focus, but the word as a viable whatever form it may take. .if ive missed this, please forgive me .Leasnam (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer it be under the form which occurs most, which users are most likely to run into, be it as byspell, bispel, or byspale Leasnam (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, a sentence containing "byspell" or "bispel" is not attesting "byspel", not by my lights; other editor may take a different stance. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Gotcha. Ok :) Leasnam (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Just for information (no opinion) the OED has an entry under "byspel, bispel" but marks it "obsolete or ? dialect". The four senses given are: "1. A parable. 2. A proverb 3. dial. One whose worthlessness is proverbial, who becomes a byword. 4. An illegitimate child, a bastard." It has no recent cites with this spelling. Dbfirs 07:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

tomato tomatoEdit

tomato, tomatoEdit

Please attest these spellings. --WikiTiki89 19:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. 'tomato, tomato', but needs a lot of context
  2. 1996, C. C. Benison, Death at Buckingham Palace, page 121:
    "Presumptive, then. Robin is heir presumptive to this title." "Apparent, presumptive. Tomato, tomato."
  3. 2013, Gary Fincke, Sorry I Worried You, page 189:
    He looked at his wife and repeated "Potato, potato; tomato, tomato," three times before Sarah began.
  4. 2010, Robert Rave, Waxed, page 83:
    I was thinking of Italian,” Sofia says, sliding open a drawer and pulling out a large three-ring binder filled with menus. “And by 'making Italian' you mean ordering from Piccolo's,” Scott says. “You say order, I say make. Tomato, tomato,” Sofia says
  5. 2011, Lutishia Lovely, ‎Michele Grant, ‎Cydney Rax, Crush, page 266:
    Tomato, tomato. Same difference.
  6. 2012, Elizabeth Lennox, The Billionaire's Elusive Lover:
    "Oh, you must be asking if I've humanized any part of your organization lately." “Tomato, tomato," he mimicked, changing the accent for the same word.
  7. "Tomato!" "Tomato!"
  8. ? An interesting one with yet another spelling (tom-ot-oh and tam-at-oh).
  9. 'tomato/tomato'

I didn't find instances of tomato tomato without punctuation, not that that matters to the search engine, AFAIK. DCDuring TALK 22:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

From the previous discussion:
    • 2010, A. Sole, The Dot Comparable, page 74:
      'Oh tomato, tomato. Now come on Luke,' said Bob as he began to run away, 'I think customs is this way.'
Another variation from the previous discussion:
  1. 2012, MJR, I Am Dianna, page 150:
    • “At least allow me the pleasure of torturing—or is it seducing— him?” She put her finger to her cheek as if pondering. “Oh well, you say potato—I say potato, tomato—tomato. Who's to say they aren't the same thing?”
Cheers! bd2412 T 22:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation-only variants using the "tomato" spelling that are not entries lead to the failed-search page with [[tomato tomato]] and [[tomato, tomato]] at the top. [[tomayto tomahto only appears on the second page, #36 among the pages offered. For us to not have a "tomato" form of this would be completely unsatisfactory, even if tomato, tomato were not attestable. DCDuring TALK 23:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Based on the search results, I would be satisfied with tomato tomato redirecting to the reasonably well attested tomato, tomato. bd2412 T 00:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    I agree. --WikiTiki89 00:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    Done. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    Unstriking to give people a bit more time to look for citations of the comma-less form. --WikiTiki89 03:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    As you wish, but I spent quite a bit of time searching and turned up zero, so I hold out no hope for coming up with a CFI-worthy number. bd2412 T 03:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


RFV of the noun sense synonymous with blasphemy. I'm having trouble finding a single lemming at OneLook that lists a noun blaspheme or a non-scanno/typo usage of blaspheme as a noun at b.g.c. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"Such blaspheme" finds a handful, but they all look like errors to me. Equinox 20:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In Middle English blasfeme (blasphemy). See blaspheme in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 where it is a noun. DCDuring TALK 23:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The Century Dictionary's noun (and adjective) entries list only Wyclif and Chaucer as authors, so maybe it should be moved to a Middle English section. If it can be found in Early Modern authors, then maybe it should be tagged "obsolete". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
      • The OED marks this sense as obsolete, with the latest cite from 1583 (Poems of T Watson). It looks more like Middle English to me. Dbfirs 08:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
        • If it's from 1583, that's well into Early Modern English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Yes, agreed. I wasn't convinced that Thomas Watson was using Chancery Standard because he also wrote in Latin and studied law, but he was educated at Oxford, so he would be using Early Modern. There's another cite from W. Bonde Pylgrimage of Perfection in 1526, so I think you are correct that the word survived into Early Modern English. We should mark it as obsolete. Dbfirs 09:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


rfv --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Pinging original author User:Type56op9. --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


rfv --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Cannot find examples in, pinging original author User:Type56op9. --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

rubber bandEdit

Rfv-sense: should be hyphenated if used as a verb. --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


rfv --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


rfv --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if it could be attested to mean one who necks a drink. I doubt it, I'm just musing. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


Could someone add an example for the purported synonymy between "to email" and "to mail" in this line: "mail (transitive): To send by electronic mail" in the mail entry. I have never heard "to mail" used to mean "to send an email". Thank you. 2604:2000:DFC0:100:DC6B:AC1F:3C8A:C3CE 17:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Equinox 17:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
"I need to mail my tutor"? Who says that? Not in my corner of the world. 18:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The world has other corners than yours, believe it or not. Equinox 22:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Believe it or not, your quote sounds like you have to stuff your tutor into a box and ship him (to whom?) through you local post office. In what part of the Anglosphere have you ever heard that? 17:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The "mail my tutor" usage sounds strange to me too, so I've added an {{rfv-sense}} tag to the entry. The sense has two quotations already, so only one more will be needed to verify it. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Cited: somebody who saw a (supposed) virus "open my e-mail package and start to mail my friends". Perhaps it needs a UK gloss? Equinox 05:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I've heard it in America too. --WikiTiki89 13:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • RFV passed: quotations for "To contact (a person) by electronic mail" are at mail. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


Another dumb invented philia/phobia. Cannot find one usage, only a few mentions. Equinox 22:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It amazes me how long this has been around. --WikiTiki89 23:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Can we keep this until 31/10/2014? Then it will have lasted 10 years. Also why does lavacult- refer to bathing suit? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Presumably whoever invented this term was thinking of Latin lavō (bathe) and cultus (clothing, attire), but this isn't the way Latin compounds are formed, and lavō means 'bathe' in the sense of 'wash' not in the sense 'swim for recreation', and cultus means 'fancy dress'. If I were going to invent a Latin word for 'bathing suit' it would be vestitus natationis, and if I were going to invent a philia for arousal by bathing suits I would use a pseudo-Greek word, not a pseudo-Latin word. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Failed. Keφr 21:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


One of those dictionary-only words, I suspect. I found one very dubious running-text citation in a book attempting to use as many unusual words as possible, but otherwise I can't see any evidence. Ƿidsiþ 08:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


Ungoliant (falai) 17:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


(German.) Does not seem to have been used anywhere except a few websites. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


As above. I checked Google Books for "planeswalker" + "le", "la", "un", "une" and found nothing. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


As above. I checked Google Books for "planeswalker" + various common Italian words and found nothing. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


As above. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The only durably archived use I found italicises the term. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


As above. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The only durably archived instance I could find was an italicised mention. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources: I don't know if there are any other uses of "planeswalker" outside the MTG card game. So I'd say this is a specific game term. Since you have found nothing about it in other languages, I'd say the term is used exclusively in the MTG card game in those languages.

Here are the sources of the official rulebooks. Just type "planeswalker" in the search box and you always find it no matter what language you're dealing with.

Update: English:
—This unsigned comment was added by Fumiko Take (talkcontribs) at 03:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC). (diff)
I think this term fails WT:FICTION. It's like the Pokémon stuff all over again. Equinox 05:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
The English word has not been officially RFVed. I've added one non-MTG cite to the page; it's possible another could be found if someone wants to RFV it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I added RFV to English as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


I request attesting quotations for English as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I added 7 uses that, to the best of my knowledge, are not connected to the Magic: The Gathering universe at Citations:planeswalker (includes spelling variations). — Ungoliant (falai) 17:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


Seems reasonable - but, just to be sure that it is not a protologism. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: traffic cone. Could be vandalism. --Type56op9 (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly an error, but not conscious vandalism. Added by User:Ciciban who has done some 100 serious-looking entries, mostly in German articles or en-de translations. The sense looks unlikely, though. I found no hints to that direction in Google or Wikipedia. Perhaps local slang somewhere? --Hekaheka (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
de:User:Nobelium also says that toddler is another word for traffic cone, having added that meaning to the German wiktionary in September 2012. It also was added to French wiktionary in 2011. It seems like a joke (imagine "Oh, there were about fifty toddlers standing in the middle of the highway today. I ran over a few on my way here and got out to see if my car was damaged and that's why I'm late for work!") but at least three people have said it, unless the others were just copying the first unaware that it was an error. The French wiki has added (Construction) as if to imply it's a slang term. Soap (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd think we need something stronger than a mention in German and French wiktionary. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Failed: no citations provided. Keφr 21:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


Spanish, apparently means pew-warmer. It was used as the title of an American movie called "The Benchwarmers", but I can't see any decent evidence of use outside. --Type56op9 (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It's suspicious that this doesn't even appear on the wiki of the language that it's apparently taken from. I'm not sure why "pew" would be used instead of "bench", and I would say that that much at least is an error. calentar seems to mean "to warm", not calientar, but I could see the use of both. Soap (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Cited with the sense bench-warmer. The reason for the i is that calentar is irregular—its stem changes so that the third person singular present is calienta rather than calenta. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense #2: "Medical resident working as an intern". Other dictionaries do not seem to recognize this sense. On the contrary, gives the following as 2nd definition: "person who teaches or conducts sessions at a clinic". Most others define "clinician" as a health professional who treats patients rather than practices research. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Failed. Translations marked as "to be checked". Keφr 21:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemaseEdit

  • Rfv-sense: (pathology) a superbug strain of Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteria that produces carbapenemase
  • Rfv-sense: (biochemistry) a carbapenemase enzyme produced by Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteria

The term exists; the question is which of the two senses is attested per WT:ATTEST. I propose you place the attesting quotations at Citations:Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase, since if the 1st sense is not attested, the 2nd can be later deleted as sum of parts via RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the biochemistry sense is used in w:Carbapenemase. It seems to include at least four types, which types may be subject to further division. IOW, the term reflects our current state of knowledge, but may not refer to a specific chemical whose composition and structure is well-established. As such I don't know in what sense it will really seem to be a term as more is understood. Perhaps users view it as SoP now. DCDuring TALK 13:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
From reading abstracts it appears that there is a gene which spreads among bacteria that enables them to create the K. pneumoniae carbapenase, so the notion that there is a strain the identity of which is stable enough to warrant treatment as a taxon seems unlikely. For example, {{w:NCBI}} does not have a taxon called Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase.
I feel that this is beyond my access to the scientific literature and probably my paygrade. If we do not have and cannot recruit a contributor with better access and knowledge, I would rather we deleted the pathology sense. The biochem sense would provide an interested user with a term to be used in further research. The pathology sense looks like it leads up a blind alley. DCDuring TALK 13:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
OTOH, this may be an important gateway to the phenomenon or rapidly spreading drug-resistance among pathogens that we would be remiss to neglect. DCDuring TALK 13:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
That's all very nice (or not, depending on one's taste), but I really request attesting quotations; these absent, I request that this be ultimately deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I know you are only interested in formal procedure, so I apologize for boring you. I don't know how to cite this properly in this case. I'd appreciate someone else trying or offering constructive advice or support. DCDuring TALK 17:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
RFV is not "formal procedure" in any pejorative sense; it is a process used to discover whether, as far as we know, a term or sense is attested. The material requested via RFV are usually attesting quotations, or at least links to them. You know that by now, having spent multiple years around here, so I not sure what to make of your above responses. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed by 123snake45 (talkcontribs), with the comment:"There is no that word at Turkish. It has been prefabricated! It isn't Turkish." A couple of cites have just been added to the citations page for the entry, so it looks like a good time to assess those cites and see if there are any others.

The definition in the entry is "beach".

This fits the profile of the type of terms that our anonymous Turkish protologism purveyor targets: the word for beach one finds in dictionaries is plaj, which is an obvious borrowing of French plage- they specialize in trying to substitute terms manufactured from items in various Turkic languages for common Turkish words whose etymology isn't Turkish enough for their taste. The dictionary app on my computer has a verb çimmek (to bathe (in a creek, stream, etc.)), which could be the source for this, along with -er and -lik. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There are at least two citations from Google Books, so stop saying gibberish words and shut up. —This unsigned comment was added at 2001:a98:c060:80:7948:8701:2669:dbc5.
Your theory is wrong. There is already another word 'kumsal' for a beach as a Turkish origin word. -- 06:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
In what way does that invalid his (Chuck Entz's) theory? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I was aware of that, though it literally means sandy. As for the previous comment: the issue isn't whether it's gibberish, but whether it's really Turkish. If someone were to try to translate beach into Turkish as çimerlik, there's a real possibility that they would either, at best, come across as not knowing Turkish very well, or, at worst, simply not be understood. A language consists of what people actually speak or have spoken in the past, not what someone thinks might be a good idea. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Kumlu literally means sandy. The definition of kumsal is 2. Denize, göle vb. yerlere girilebilen genellikle kumluk alan, deniz hamamı, kumbaşı, plaj according to the TDK's (Turkish Language Association's) Up-to-date Turkish Dictionary. -- 10:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Just my two cents. If a word, used in the given language, is attested, for CFI purposes, it's possible to include a word, which is quite rare and native speakers are not very familiar with it. It can be qualified as rare. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
You can look at

plaj, kumsal, kıyı, sahil words are exist but there is no çimerlik. Because çimerlik is Azeri word. So originally is Azeri. Lie of "çimerlik=Turkish" is same personal who prefabricate words of "sınalgı, birdem, özçekmiş, haydavcı, yöndemci, köpyak, düşerge, eğleç, türküm, karabat, yağday, emes, öndürücü, haydamak, birak, dikuçar, beket..." e.t.c --123snake45 (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The rules we use are WT:CFI. RFV basically requires someone to cite a word for it not to be deleted. If someone is not offering cites, then there's basically no point in arguing against a word. If there is someone providing cites, then it's irrelevant what any other site says; the question becomes, among other things, if the cite is from an appropriate source and if the word is really used in the text. Words that are actually used will be kept, even if strongly disapproved of by whatever authorities there may be, though a note to that effect is appropriate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
123snake45 is behaving like this because he fabricated many words and those words were not accepted. After this he tries to delete other words that he sees on the forums which people discuss with him because of his absurd words. If you think that pan-Turkists or language purists use this kind of words it is irrevelant with if the citations are valid or not. A word can be used by the nationalists or the communists etc. A dictionary represents a word if that word really exists. I have just added the translations of the citations from Google Books so decide yourselves if they are valid or not. -- 09:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


Stupid or foolish person. Plausible, but I searched for "you bollard!" etc. and found virtually nothing. Equinox 03:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


Old English ? Leasnam (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The same contributor (Top Cat 14) also created leag, which is equally dubious (the g appears in inflected forms of leah, not the lemma).There's no evidence they knew any Old English at all. The y would have to have the same sound as modern y in order to be a variant of Old English g, but I have my doubts that y was used as a consonant/semivowel at all in Old English, and as a vowel it was only the umlated u, as far as I know.
Searching Google Books with Þe and ðe used to narrow it down to Old English texts just turns up scannos and the Middle English counterpart of lye, law and lay- not conclusive but strongly suggestive that this is wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


RFV of all the "political entities" senses (except "the Crimean Khanate"). All of the citations of I can find that use "Crimea" as the name of a state rather than a region are referring to the Khanate — which, notably, did not always control the entire Crimean peninsula, and did control relatively large areas of territory on the mainland, for which reason I am convinced it merits its own sense-line. Searches I used: google books:"war with Crimea", "peace with Crimea", "embassy from Crimea", "embassy to Crimea", "ambassador from Crimea", "ambassador to Crimea", and all of those with the definite article added. The results of searches like "forces from (the) Crimea", "government of (the) Crimea" seem to me to be using (or indistinguishable from) the geographic sense.
It may be relevant to compare this entry to "Georgia", where only the really distinct senses "a country in the Caucasus" and "a state in America" are distinguished; the American entity was a colony (not a state) in some eras, but that is unmentioned.
Note that a few of the political senses were originally added by me in an attempt to address a POV dispute over whether the peninsula was part of Russia or Ukraine; the subsequent expansion of the list made it clear how untenable an approach it was. - -sche (discuss) 20:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


Is mel really English? —Stephen (Talk) 20:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I suspect not. It occurs in some fixed Latin phrases (mel boraeis, mel rosae, mel roset, mel rosat...) and derivatives (melrose, oxymel, hydromel, oenomel...), but AFAIK not alone. Equinox 02:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe in ingredients lists where they have "aqua" for water. I dont know if that's meant to make it easier for non-English speakers to understand or if it's some legal thing that it's not healthy enough if it doesn't give the chemical formula of water. Soap (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


...and zio. I found no hits for the previous usex, "Zio-centric". The only hit I could find was of "Zio-Nazi", which I changed the usex to. I have found a few hits for "Zionocentric" and "Ziono-centric", and one hit for "Ziono-socialites". - -sche (discuss) 06:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It's no coincidence that the only example is attached to a word that starts with an "N". That's obviously a blend of Zion and Nazi, which was misanalysed as Zio- plus Nazi. Yet another case of trying too hard to extract every conceivable vaguely-plausible term out of minimal data. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
PaM's edit history shows a mania for adding Jewish/Islamic terms that are very barely, or not at all, attestable. I have speedily deleted the stand-alone Zio since it's patently ridiculous ("more Zio, most Zio"?). However, I can see "Zio-centric" in two (!) Google Books search results. Equinox 07:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I commented before with regard to Erik (the Srebrenica-obsessed editor) that I feel editors should be judged on local behavior, and not e.g. blocked on one project just because they misbehaved on other projects. But if users engage in poor editing locally, it can be instructive to note that they've engaged in and been disciplined for poor editing elsewhere. On Wikipedia, PAM's caricaturally liberal POV-pushing has been brought up on w:WP:ANI repeatedly (1, 2; see also the many threads about edit warring, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), and the user is currently blocked for using sockpuppets to avoid a topic ban on editing religious topics, which was imposed because of that POV-pushing. What is the cost vs benefit of PAM's edits here? They have to be checked for attestation (many aren't attested), placement (PAM often makes lowercase/unhyphenated forms the main entries when the uppercase/hyphenated forms are apparently more common or more standard), formatting, POV...(Should I move this to the BP?) - -sche (discuss) 21:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I don’t think PaM’s contributions here are so bad that we need to block him, but it’s reaching a point where we should require him to add three citations (and links to the citations, since he doesn’t check for scannos) to every entry he creates. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
@Ungoliant: How would you enforce this "requirement"? And what would do it for you? How much of this absolute incompetence are you willing to tolerate? Keφr 13:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
By deleting and reverting every edit that doesn’t contain cites. Some of PAM’s contributions were good, but he has gotten much worse since I posted that. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


No Google Books matches for "to bewield". I tried the -ing and -ed forms, but only found scannos for "be wielding", "be wielded". Equinox 08:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I found one on Books, plus 2 online which apparently show some use. It is labelled rare, and aptly was not easy finding. Thing is, its listed in several dictionaries, so its likeky to keep popping up here and there. I cant seem to locate the Morrison attest anywhere on Books, though its purported...Leasnam (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The two 2014 quotations are not from permanently recorded media and thus fail WT:ATTEST: diff, diff. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Added three more. Leasnam (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. This is an example how 123snake45 says "This isn't Turkish! It is prefabricated!" without any prior research. If he looked up Turkish Language Association's Up-to-date Turkish Dictionary, he could probably see this word there. --2001:A98:C060:80:3C5D:D53C:F96D:7B9A 07:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I did look today and it isn't writing at mean "to drive". So it isn't "drive" it is "dehlemek". "Haydamak" comes from "hayda" and "hayda" is mean "haydi". So, it uses for get move the animal(s); a kind of hurry up. --123snake45 (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
You said it was prefabricated. Anyway, there are citations, so i will not argue with you. --2001:A98:C060:80:3C5D:D53C:F96D:7B9A 08:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I said it was prefabricated for "drive".
You said it without any prior research. Because you only want to spread the words which you fabricated. If you don't know a word, you think that word was fabricated by another one and you can not stand this. --2001:A98:C060:80:3C5D:D53C:F96D:7B9A 09:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
You are still telling lie. Not me, you did entry your prefabricated words "birdem, sınalgı, haydavcı, öndürücü, köpyak, türküm, özçekmiş ..." e.t.c. --123snake45 (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The words "sınalgı, haydavcı, türküm" etc. are not prefabricated words. They are loan words from other Turkic languages. You can not stand these words because this kind of words prevent you to spread your own fabricated words. Öndürücü is some people's surname in Turkey, and you may find all these words in other dictionaries. Anyway, there are citations from Google Books so stop saying irrelevant things here. --2001:A98:C060:80:3C5D:D53C:F96D:7B9A 11:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
We need another Turkish speaker to sort this out. Assuming the citations at Citations:haydamak are valid (as they appear to be) we need someone to tell us what they mean. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Unquestionably, the etymon of the Ukr. hajdamaka is Tkc. haydamak ‘treiben’; as it displays the initial h-, it was visibly the Ott. form. Morphologically the word is a suffixed form: hayda- + -mak (a suffix building in Turkish a grammatical category similar to the Indo-European infinitive form) ‘to drive, drive away; driving, driving away’. The verb (h)ayda- seems to be a derivative from the onomatopoeic stem hayda ‘come on! (to spur someone on)’. Thus the original meaning of haydamak was ‘to shout hayda’ and developed into ‘to shout hayda driving someone / something away’. In Ott. or CTat., however, this verb could have gained another meaning of ‘to shout hayda while chasing after / pursuing someone or something’ and finally ‘to chase, to pursue’. (Michał Németh, Remarks on the etymology of Hung. hajdú ‘herdsman’ and Tkc. haydamak ‘brigand’ , STUDIA TURCOLOGICA CRACOVIENSIA, · 10 (2005). (This source is available on Google Books) --2001:A98:C060:80:E40C:3A70:A48A:99C2 12:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


Cantonese opera. — Ungoliant (falai) 09:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

From a Google search, it looks like it's a word that Hong Kong tourism board used for one event, but that never caught on anywhere else. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I was about to say it does get some web hits but nothing in Google Books. No Google Groups hits (the 15 hits are all for 'can't opera'). Renard Migrant (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

sic semper tyrannisEdit

I ask attesting quotations for Latin (not for the English entry) showing 1) the phrase was ever used in Latin at all, and 2) the phrase was used to mean "tyrannical leaders will inevitably be overthrown" or the like, thus having a meaning beyond the plain combination of the meaning of the separate components. Even quotations showing 1) but not 2) would be worthwhile; if no quotations in Latin text are found, the entire Latin section should be deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

We're not disputing the English translation, we're disputing the existence in Latin. PS this has failed, look at the date of the listing. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


bonelore is not cited. Please provide attesting quotations, or this will be deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


Cited, but I had to change the definition (lore isn't scientific study). Equinox 18:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


Actually RFV-sense: "The branch of zoology dealing with cetaceans, including dolphins and porpoises as well" as per diff.

Not enough quotations now that I removed those for the forms "whale-lore" and "whale lore". Please provide quotations for the form "whalelore" so spelled, without hyphen and without space, to attest that sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)



Cited: some quotations are at lakelore. Are they good? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


Please note that horselore and lakelore appear to be cited already, whalelore has citations but they are mostly for whale lore. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


Another one that seems to be already cited. Please untag if you're happy. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Chak HaryamEdit

Ungoliant (falai) 21:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like our POV-pushing Pakistani expat (the one who created entries and categories for all the divisions of Pakistan) is back under a different IP.


This was copied straight from the 1913 Webster's, which AFAICT was copied straight from the 1828 Webster's, which probably got it from this 1742 text, but I can't find any indication that there is any New World snake called the "bom", and, well, zoological knowledge has advanced a little bit in the past 272 years. So far, it looks like this word has only been mentioned and not used. If such a critter ever existed, it presumably has some modern name, but if we can't find out which one, we can't even label this an obsolete word for something else. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Webster's Second International c. 1935, shows it in a footnote, saying it is the same as aboma. DCDuring TALK 22:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I found bom and boma in this sense in some Portuguese dictionaries.
bom in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 also says it is the same as aboma.DCDuring TALK 23:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
"Zoological knowledge has advanced a little bit in the past 272 years." I loled. I am also enjoying the idea of any snake being named after the sound it makes, because then all snakes should be called sssss or hsssss or sssshh or Slytherin. What kind of stupid snake says "bom"? Beautiful ecologist Kirsty told me that she used to hiss at people who bothered her, although I imagined it being more of a catlike hiss. BTW, one thing that Webster 1913 brought to my attention is that there was some point, not too long ago, when everyone stopped saying "serpent" and started saying "snake". Anyway here is a promising search for anyone who is currently more sober and less distracted: [35] Love always Equinox 23:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Dubstep snake, I suppose. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I looked through the first ten pages of that search, and all I found was hyphenation artifacts, scannos (mostly for born and boæ), and one mention. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Could it be somehow a mistake for boa? Boa is the feminine form of the word bom in Portuguese, although the word "boa" for snake apparently goes back to Latin and ins unrelated. Soap (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
It is more likely that the English dictionary entries are intended to potentially help someone who might read a rendering of a word heard in Brazil that was or was derived from aboma: *bom, *boma, *bomma. I doubt that any of them are attestable in English. DCDuring TALK 11:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I found and added two book citations, but both are mentions. Inadequate! Equinox 15:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that "This is called the bom, ..." (now in mainspace) is a mention, not a use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


It was used by Adlai Stevenson, but other than that, this is just too rare to merit an entry. --Æ&Œ (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it's real Latin anyway; it's just a highly educated (and self-referentially ironic) joke in English. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
See w:Dog Latin Chuck Entz (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


All I can find are mentions with a different definition. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

culpable homicideEdit

RFV-sense of three senses. I believe that the only use of the term is with sense 1 ("homicide which is culpable but does not rise to the level of murder"). The "Scottish" and "South African" senses aren't even independent of each other, let alone sense 1. See also Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2013/January#Standards_of_Identity, which concluded that Wiktionary, being a dictionary of words and not a record of the laws of every jurisdiction at every point in history, should not have things like this and this. (The recent discussion of how we don't even have senses like "a British colony" for Georgia, even though Georgia was a British colony at one point, is semi-related.) - -sche (discuss) 22:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This is already being discussed on the definition discussion page. Many countries have a legal definition for culpable homicide. I believe the generic definition: "Criminal negligence causing the unlawful death of a human being." And a sample of legal definitions is the best way to go. The term "murder" is a misnomer for culpable homicide, it may or may not include the word "murder" it depends on the country you are in; for example "murder" is considered culpable homicide in Canada. Better to use the generic idiom unlawful death. thanks WritersCramp (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
"A sample of legal definitions". Who chooses the sample? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
WritersCramp, of course. Apparently no one is allowed to make changes of any significance to any of WritersCramp's entries without prior permission. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I have deleted the senses in question per the previous BP discussion about mayonnaise, first-degree murder and plain murder, the last of which in particular would otherwise have had a few hundred definitions. (I listed and cited 10 in diff.) If someone wants to know the details of what Law X in State Y at Time Z considers "murder", "culpable homicide", etc, the place to look is the law itself; Wiktionary is not a compendium of laws but a dictionary. - -sche (discuss) 21:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


Parental Alienation Awareness Association. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 21:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

kapang syndromeEdit

The Wikipedia article was deleted in 2005 [36] and I see nothing in Google Books or Groups, or even on the Web. Equinox 12:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


Not sure. I can see a few uses on the Web ("his acting can gargle my ballsatchel"; "your PCT is gonna suck ballsatchel"), but nothing in Books or Groups. However, Cloudcuckoolander can sometimes cite this kind of Web-only word! Equinox 20:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Not this time, I'm afraid. :( -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

cœnæsthesiæ, obœdience, obœdient, onomatopœiæEdit

Way too rare to merit entries. --Æ&Œ (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

On a side note, I kind of like how you can see ‘onomatopceiae’ in this text, but searching for it in Google Books reveals three unrelated books. Just further proof that Google sucks fucking balls. --Æ&Œ (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


The uses are misscans of præmunitory, and the few valid ones are only mentions. --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedied: this will be an artifact of automatic ligature-to-letter-pair conversion in the Webster software I wrote. Usually both forms exist; this is the rare one where they apparently don't. Equinox 22:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


I could only find one use, and it’s actually for prænaris. --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


More rare crap that I added. --Æ&Œ (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course we don't exclude rare terms unless they're too rare (unattestable). Renard Migrant (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Goupil, we only include terms if they have three uses in Google Books or Google Groups. Ѯ&Π(talk) 12:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Not quite. We only include terms if they have three uses in durably archived sources. There must be millions of books, magazines, and newspapers in existence that aren't in Boogle Gooks yet, it's just a pain going through them all to look for specific words and spellings. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


The transcription of the text says ‘presidency,’ not præsidency like it actually says. —Æ&Œ (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)





Rfv-sense: genus of herbaceous plants. --Shouldn't the name of a genus be capitalized? --Hekaheka (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite often the lower-cased version is used as a countable noun (fuchsia(s), pelargonium(s), etc.) but yes, in this case I think it's a mistake. Equinox 22:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
People often use the lower-case English form as if it were a genus name, but it seems silly to have definitions both as an individual specimen and as the genus. Moreover, it could refer to one or more of the subgeneric groupings (eg, subgenus, section, species, subspecies, variety, form). People also sometimes use the italicized taxonomic name (eg, Digitalis) to refer to an individual specimen, rather than to the species or genus. If some would like to insert and attest these, they can, but it won't help users much. I suppose such phenomena belong in Wiktionary:Taxonomic names. DCDuring TALK 01:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I just came across another entry illustrating non-rule-following use of such terms: [[Homines neanderthalenses]]. DCDuring TALK 01:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I hope I'm not the only person in the world who uses the plural [[Tyrannosauri reges]]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
@Angr: As professional systematicists would have it, Tyrannosaurus rex is a proper name of an individual, the individual being the group of individual specimens of common lineage that can mate. I offer this not as definitive, but to point out that a taxon is something like a Roman gens or the House of Windsor. One would not refer to Prince William as one of the HouseS of Windsor! Phylogeneticists refer to clades, which are lineages, which also have proper names, but are not defined in the same way as the classical taxa.
But you are certainly not alone in not respecting the niceties of taxonomyspeak. I think most zoologists and botanists don't either unless they are being very careful. DCDuring TALK 21:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
However, Tyrannosaurus rex is not only a taxonomic name; it's also the vernacular name, as shown by the fact that our entry has an English section in addition to the Translingual section. And as the vernacular name it's a common noun for any individual of the species, like frilled lizard or least weasel. And as such, it needs a plural, which I suppose is actually Tyrannosaurus rexes most of the time, but I still prefer the more Latinate form. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but we all have polymathic intellectual pretensions that we need to indulge, as I tried to. I happen to enjoy the peculiar intersection of linguistics, taxonomy (classical and phylogenetic), and (ordinary language) philosophy. DCDuring TALK 23:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Cited. I propose that we change the definition to something like “Any plant of the genus Digitalis [] ”, because genus names themselves are listed as translingual. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The cites support the new sense Ungoliant proposes, not the challenged 'genus' sense. I suspect that cites might be available for the 'genus' sense as well. I am reluctant to actually seek out such cites, because I don't believe that we add value to more than a tiny number of users by laboriously adding to every English name of a natural kind, descent group, or any other grouping of living things the extra senses, let alone citing them in each case. DCDuring TALK 17:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: clitoris. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It was listed at Wikisaurus:clitoris Pass a Method (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


No Google Books hits; no Google web hits in English (other than as someone's online user name). This, that and the other (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


This word is a lie of a group. --123snake45 (talk) 08:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

If a liar calls somebody "liar", how can we know if that liar is telling a lie again?
Arkadaş! benim açtığım sayfama kaldırtma girişiminde bulunmanı kınıyorum. Benim yapmaya çalıştığım Türkçemizi yabancı sözcüklerden korumak için karşılık türetip millete benimsetmekti. Senin uydurma söz dediğin benim söylediğim söz için karşılık türetmesiydi. Lütfen böyle çirkin kaldırma girişiminde bulunma.
123snake45 (mesaj) 16:16, 22 Aralık 2012 (UTC) [37] Can you translate this into English without telling a lie here? -- 05:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


That word is lie of a group. --123snake45 (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Watch your mouth, we know about your lies. It is zir ü zeber in Ottoman Turkish. This may be a changed form of that word (see Hungarian zűrzavar) but since there is no citations from Google Books this word may be deleted. --2001:A98:C060:80:9C10:38EF:8648:DCCF 09:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


This isn't Turkish! --123snake45 (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


A supposed Latin adjective. Can't find it in Late Latin glossary or Lewis and Short online. DCDuring TALK 20:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't find anything either, on the web or in Google Books. There's a city mentioned in the Bible (eg. Gen 10:12 Resen quoque inter Nineven et Chale haec est civitas magna...), but the next nearest thing I can think of is χαλή, a form of n. χάλις ("neat wine")or v. χαλάω ("to loosen"). Neither of which would seem to have anything to do with the provided definition of chale. (Unless the effects of chális are meant...) --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 22:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
This was originally a transwiki, but the Latin was added by User:Goldenrowley in this diff, using the same reference as the Spanish ([[38] which no longer works). The definition is rather odd, since it starts out with adjectives, but then has a couple of seemingly unrelated verbs. Checking further, the Internet Archive Wayback Machine has no record of the URL in question, even though there are plenty of neighboring definition URLs from that era. If this had been added today, rather than 7 years ago, I would have speedied it. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, just delete it. It even claims to be an adjective meaning be for crying out loud. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I thought there might be some charitable revision that made sense to a better Latin scholar than me. DCDuring TALK 17:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I thought that definition was just very badly written, and meant "to be or feel passionate or inflamed". --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 20:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


Equinox 04:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


Yes, this has a few hits in Google Books, but none of them seem to be native speakers. At any rate, the previous edits of the IP who added this haven't exactly inspired confidence or even trust (boneloreosteology), so I'd prefer a closer examination (it might squeak by as a rare South Asian regionalism). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Cited. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm impressed by the number of citations, but they don't convince me that it is an alternative spelling. Dbfirs 17:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I actually think it's a word in its own right. I imagine it being pronounced like manifold. It's possible that it was modelled after manifold, with mani- being assumed to be a legitimate prefix. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Well it's not standard English, but perhaps we could mark it as an Indian invention? Dbfirs 18:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Most of the quotations do seem to be from India, but not all. Maybe {{context|chiefly|India|lang=en}}? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

salad tossingEdit

Is this attested to mean anilingus? I find mentions in Google books, but don't know how to find uses. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Uses of the phrase "tossed his salad" are easy enough to find on b.g.c; is that close enough? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
That would be the verb toss salad or toss someone's salad, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Here are three uses of "salad tossing" as a noun: [39], [40], [41]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: One who is opposed to brown people. — Ungoliant (falai) 05:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedied. It's Pass a Method. I don't think he deserves RFV time any more, since despite repeated requests he never makes an effort to verify anything. Just undo whatever he does. Equinox 18:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Cited the adjective for good measure. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

village bikeEdit

Alleggedly a local woman who sleeps with many men. Any attesting quotations as per WT:ATTEST? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Here's one. Here's another, though it's a little mentiony. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Tangential point: this might be SOP, since one can also speak of a "bike" (promiscuous woman/girl), a "town bike" (promiscuous woman/girl in a town) or a "school bike" (promiscuous woman/girl at a school), etc. - -sche (discuss) 17:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I definitely consider this (and its variants) to be idiomatic. The idea is that the person in question is like a bike shared by an entire village ("everyone gets a ride"). I don't think it always literally refers to a woman who lives in a village and is considered promiscuous within said village. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Even if a woman who acquires this title, as a result of her behaviour, doesn't live in a village, the term may still have village origins. Donnanz (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I added some citations but the quality is probably variable. I'll leave it to you guys. Equinox 01:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


"A person who is considered to be clumsy, characterised by the amount of bangs they inflict on themselves, others or objects." Suspiciously badly written (should be "number of bangs", and the "considered to be" is weasel wording), and I've just never heard of it; no relevant Google Books results for "bangies + clumsy". Equinox 20:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


Alleged to be the Irish word for multiple dystrophy, whatever that might be. There's muscular dystrophy (Irish diostróife mhatánach) and multiple sclerosis (Irish scléaróis iolrach), but I've never heard of "multiple dystrophy" and neither has Wikipedia. I can't find ildiostróife in any Irish dictionaries, and all I find on Google is mirrors of this entry. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

village bicycleEdit

This was in Wikisaurus. Can we attest this to mean "A local woman who sleeps with many men."? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Easily (though it doesn't seem to be just UK, so I've struck that). Cited Smurrayinchester (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
It's just a slightly longer synonym of village bike. Donnanz (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

spider's legsEdit

Can this be attested to mean "pubic hair"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


"(humorous, slang) a very long SMS message" Was at WT:RFD#SMSA. DCDuring TALK 19:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

chicken liverEdit

Any quotations attesting this to mean coward? Was in Wikisaurus, present in at least one online thesaurus for "coward". --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but offhand sounds quite dated. Evokes a sort of 'Classic Westerns' kinda feel, like something you'd hear in old movies made in the 1960's (but set in the 1860-1890's), or Gunsmoke. Leasnam (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Aside from hearing it said by other children in the US in the 60s, there's this, this, and this. There's also this and this, but they're hyphenated. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems like a childish blend of chicken and lily-livered, influenced by literal chicken liver. DCDuring TALK 22:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


Is this capitalization with "Z" and no hyphen attested? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


Is this capitalization with "C" and no hyphen attested? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The entry currently has one quotation, from this source, but as can be seen from the Google Books preview, the source also uses the spelling "anti-Chinese", which suggests that their use of "antiChinese" may be a typo. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


Is this attested, with no hyphen and so capitalized? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Cited, Are you happy now? Zeggazo (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


Is this attested, with no hyphen and so capitalized? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • There is no entry for anti-British, so I suggest this entry be replaced with the correct form. Donnanz (talk) 08:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


Is this attested, with no hyphen and so capitalized? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


Is this attested, with no hyphen and so capitalized? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


Is this attested, with no hyphen and so capitalized? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Try to search "antiRussian" (with quotation marks) -- 13:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
When you search for "antiRussian" (with quotation marks), you get hits that appear to be antiRussian, but when you click on them and examine them, they are actually anti-Russian (all of the ones that I checked on). In American English, the rule for the prefix anti- is that it normally connects without a hyphen (antitank), but if the word is capitalized, it must be hyphenated: anti-Russian. In British English, as far as I know, all cases are hyphenated (anti-tank). It is possible that some of the Google Book hits are truly antiRussian, but I did not find one, and if I did, I would consider it misspelled. —Stephen (Talk) 13:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The other time American English uses a hyphen after anti- is when the following word starts with an i, e.g. anti-intellectual. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
What about this one? It looks really weird - antieverything - anti-everything is more palatable! Donnanz (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I think antieverything looks fine, but in British English, it would be anti-everything. BrE always keeps the hyphen after anti-. —Stephen (Talk) 16:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, so be it. Returning to the matter in hand, anti-Russian is correct as well as preferable, and the same applies to the the other anti entries listed here for rfv. Donnanz (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
BrE doesn't always keep the hyphen, though it usually does. "Preferable" is of course subjective. Equinox 20:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we usually prefer to retain the hyphen for clarity, especially in AuntieVeryThing. Dbfirs 20:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


Is this attested, with no hyphen and so capitalized? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I have cited it but without the capitalisation, so it should be moved to antizionistic Zeggazo (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


This has one quotation, but the quotation is not actually in English, so it doesn't attest this term for English. It also failed RFV before. —CodeCat 19:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It even uses the same quote that Ruakh said in the course of the rvf was probably Middle Scots. I'm sure it's a case of forgetting that what the OED considers Scottish dialects, we consider the Scots language. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Middle Scots doesn't have a code. Should we make one for it? Category:Middle Scots is a subcat of Category:Regional Scots, which seems wrong. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Probably. - -sche (discuss) 21:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


This IP has been adding entries in a wide variety of unrelated languages, which always makes me nervous. In this case, though, it was the lack of this spelling in the fairly comprehensive Monier-Williams dictionary that led me to be concerned. I don't know Sanskrit well enough to check thoroughly, so I'm bringing it here. I believe this is a less-documented language, so one mention in a durably-archived source should suffice. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It's an alternative spelling (specifically, a sandhi variant) of मांसम् (māṃsam), which is the nominative and accusative singular of मांस (māṃsa). It shouldn't be listed as a lemma form. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


This appears in exactly one source, as a mention. It's said to be from Ancient Greek, but I can't find anything at Perseus under any plausible spelling. For all I know, this could be an error or a hoax. At any rate, it definitely looks like a dictionary-only entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this instrument belongs to the zzxjoanw family. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


A Luciferwildcat entry tagged for speedy deletion by User:Peter Bowman as not existing in the Spanish language. I haven't had time this morning to check thoroughly, so I brought it here. Given LW's track record, I won't be surprised if this fails. Also included:

Chuck Entz (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the gramatically correct form would be atravesamiento (first conjugation ending -ar + suffix -miento = -amiento). Although not noted in the RAE dictionary, there are some hits in CORPES and CREA and the term (spelled with an a) seems to be used in Latin America. Peter Bowman (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah they're spelling mistakes; move to 'a' forms (atravesamiento) and kill the redirects. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


Tagged for speedy deletion by User:Peter Bowman, so I brought it here, just to be fair. This one looks like it's attested, but it would be useful to know whether it's a misspelling or an alternative form (the authoritative RAE dictionary online only recognizes cervecería). Chuck Entz (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be real but obsolete. Perhaps archaic would be a better tag because it seems to appear in at least one place name (hence the hits in running English texts). Renard Migrant (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


Can this word be interpreted two ways?

1: the state of being a homeowner.
2: home ownership (the ownership of a home / homes).
I have made a new entry for home ownership, and had second thoughts afterwards. Donnanz (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Homeownership is definitely attested. Home ownership looks dodgy though. WT:COALMINE says "Unidiomatic terms made up of multiple words to officially meet WT:CFI when significantly more common than a single word spelling that already meets CFI". Google Books Ngram has it as about twice as common. That's probably "significantly more common". I doubt an rfd is merited. Anyway I struck homeownership as nominated by mistake. Renard Migrant (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
It's hard to know there to put cases like this. Anyway I have added usage notes to both entries, assuming they have different meanings. Donnanz (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


Previous discussion: Wiktionary:Tea room/2014/July#Semitism

The entry has numerous quotations, but most of them are so poor and opaque that I find it hard to judge which sense, if any, they are using. (Several of the most problematic citations have already been removed.) Heka previously opined that all of the quotations listed under the "religion, culture and customs of adherents of Abrahamic religions" in fact "refer to Jewish features of Islam, ... sense #1", but even that reading is not easy to arrive at. (I've put the quotations in question in a "Quotations" section for now.) Which senses of this word are actually attested? - -sche (discuss) 18:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said at the other place, the only real meaning that I'm personally familiar with is the linguistic meaning, basically "feature of the Greek language usage of the Septuagint or Greek New Testament which is influenced by features of the Hebrew and/or Aramaic languages". For an example, see "Septuagint Lexicography" by Takamitsu Muraoka in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography, edited by Bernard A. Taylor, John A.L. Lee, Peter R. Burton, and Richard E. Whitaker (ISBN 0-8028-2216-9), p. 85: "The main reason for this neglect is the fact that it is largely a translated text, a fact which is alleged to account for its strange idiom tinged with Semitic traits, largely in syntax and lexicography. For sure, one can easily identify countless Semitisms." -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I have added about 8 refs. Pass a Method (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Wikitiki89, you have both a "he-2" and an "I'm Jewish" Babel box, what's your take on which sense(s) the citations are using? As I commented above, I think "most of them are so poor and opaque that I find it hard to judge which sense, if any, they are using". Some, like the one I removed here, seem to be errors for "Semites" or "Semitic". - -sche (discuss) 03:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


RFV-sense "A Scottish person coming from or living south of the Grampian area". The hits google books:"Southron" Scotland Grampian gets all seem to use sense 2 of southron, "an English person". - -sche (discuss) 19:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  • One citation here. Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks; I've typed it up here. Like the "English person" sense, it seems to pertain to the lowercase form rather than the uppercase form. (Who knows, maybe the "Southern US person" sense is also more common in lowercase, in which case my creation of it in uppercase should be reconsidered.) - -sche (discuss) 16:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
In Ward Moore's famous alternate-history story Bring the Jubilee, "Southron" is basically an always capitalized noun... AnonMoos (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I've added three more citations. Two of them (1898, 2014) could possibly be adjectives, but I'm pretty sure that at least the 2014 cite is an attributive use of the noun. Given that none of them mention the Grampians specifically, maybe "A Scottish person from outside the Highlands, a Lowlander." would be a better definition. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
    @Smurrayinchester: where are those citations? I see nothing at Southron and Citations:Southron. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
    They're all at the lower case form Citations:southron (as -sche said, there don't seem to be many upper-case uses of this word). Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
RFV-failed as a sense of Southron, added (in modified form) to southron. - -sche (discuss) 21:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


Anarchist and socialist? Seems contradictory. WikiWinters (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It would probably help to have two more clearly distinct senses of socialism. There is the Marxist sense, which is The Government Owns Everything For Your Own Good, Comrade, which is the source of the American political boo-word ("Obamacare is creeping socialism!!")
The other is the softer understanding of a general ethos of helping your neighbours and them helping you: working for a generally social benefit. So a capital-S Socialist Anarchist is a contradiction in terms: someone who wants to pull down government in order to ... build an overarching all-controlling government. The soft sense, on the other hand, is someone who wants to bring down government in the expectation that people will naturally work together for communal benefit without a government getting in the way. (This tends to go with a belief that government tends to be captured by oligarchy sooner or later, so that corporate-controlled government is actively working against the common good as seen from street-level). As opposed to the "every man for themselves" anarchist; such as the Randian, for whom everyone should be selfish and greedy and unrestrained by the needs of those around them, and that this is a good thing; or the caricature anarchist who just wants to watch stuff burn.
--Catsidhe (verba, facta) 01:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
There is such a thing as left-libertarianism. bd2412 T 03:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed: libertarian (= seeking individual liberty) does not necessarily mean Libertarian (= Ayn Rand was right about everything). --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 04:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Good Hell, I hope that you are trolling. If not, then I am sad to say that you people are bloody ignorant. Socialists, communists, and anarchists (which I consider synonymous) seek the elimination of the state, not the strengthening of it. Look it up. Most anarchists therefore consider ‘anarcho‐socialism’ a pleonasm, in contrast to anarcho-capitalism, which is definitely oxymoronic because capitalism requires the state so that capitalism can sustain itself. The concept of ‘state‐socialism’ was a nonsense concept fabricated by Vladimir Lenin to attract the workers to his movement, and Leninism and its successor ideologies have very little to do with Marxism. Most people have no clue what socialism, communism, or anarchism are. Influential people obfuscated the concept because it could be very dangerous to their power. --Romanophile (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad you are so firmly convinced that Socialism as exemplified in the USSR doesn't mean what the Soviets thought it meant. (Or that it can't hold two, even potentially contradictory, meanings depending on context.) And that Socialism means exactly the same thing as Communism... in all possible contexts, I assume? Also that Anarchism means only what you think it means, and that there are not such things as anarchists who desire the loss of government so that they can as individuals do and take whatever they want, or people who may be unclear on the inherent contradictions between capitalism per se and anarchism per se, but still identify as "anarcho-capitalists". Are there any other political terms you think everyone except you gets wrong? --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 04:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The point is, anarcho‐socialism is not oxymoronic, and your idea of ‘Marxist socialism’ is obviously tosh. Even if you think that it’s still a valid meaning, it can’t possibly be the only meaning. Also ‘…everyone except you…’, that’s wrong, too. [42] --Romanophile (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I never said it was the only meaning. It would seem to be you having the problem with the concept of polysemy. The World Socialist Movement doesn't get to define what the word is and isn't allowed to mean either. (I am sympathetic to socialism myself, but the "About Us" page of the World Socialism Movement has as much of a monopoly on the word "socialism" as does the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. That is: none.) --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 05:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The sense of "libertarian" nominated for RFV is "An anarchist, typically with socialist implications." Please let us have attesting quotations, and, they absent, let us eventually fail this RFV. I am suspicious of the sense, since dictionaries don't have it. google books:"libertarian", google groups:"libertarian", libertarian at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    I've added a couple which clearly put libertarians, anarchists and socialists into the same semiotic pot, and a couple more which I'll add here rather than there, because they are not the noun, but used adjectivally:
    • 2011 Carissa Honeywell, A British Anarchist Tradition: Herbert Read, Alex Comfort and Colin Ward, p. 146
      He highlighted libertarian traditions of socialism and linked them to anarchism in the British context.
    • 2012 David Goodway, Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward p.15
      The Labour Emancipation League had been founded in the East End in 1882 and, while never calling itself anarchist, was always libertarian socialist and became anti-parliamentarian, as expressed in Joseph Lane's notable An Anti-Statist, Communist Manifesto of 1887.
    --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 04:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The three quotations present in the entry do not attested the sense, IMHO. I mean 1973 Eugene Lunn, 2009 Peter Marshall and 2012 Wilbur R. Miller. Consider the third one: "While anarchism and socialist libertarians have a rich history of revolutionary thinkers ...": how do you infer that "anarchism" and "socialist libertarians" are terms intended to mean the same in the sentence? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    Obviously, I think they rather do. They are all used in the context of Anarchist/Socialist theory, and are contrasting specific subtypes of that ideology. The last reference, the one you quote, is also contrasting socialist libertarians against right-libertarians. The preceding sentence reads "Socialist libertarianism sounds like anarchy, and for good reason; in fact anarchists began using the term libertarian in the mid-1800s, far before the right-wing usage in the United States that began in the 1950s."[43] Maybe that would have been a better quote? But it explicitly draws out socialism, anarchism, and libertarianism as different strands of the same basic ideology. The 2009 quote also explicitly contrasts socialist libertarianism against authoritarian socialism, which contrast Seth seemed to have such difficulty with in the conversation above. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 20:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    Also: "how do you infer that "anarchism" and "socialist libertarians" are terms intended to mean the same in the sentence?"
    Semantics. If they were different movements, it would say that "... anarchism and socialist libertarians have rich histories ...". As it gives the two terms a singular history of revolutionary thinkers, it follows that they are different aspects of the same thing, QED. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 21:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
    What about this: "The Asian civilizations of India, China, Korea, and Japan each have a rich history of design development extending back for thousands of years", boldface mine. Looks like a refutation of your argument to me. To find more sentences like that, check google books:"have a rich history". --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    You yourself bolded the difference. Each: "The phrase beginning with each identifies a set of items wherein the words following each identify the individual elements by their shared characteristics. The phrase is grammatically singular in number, so if the phrase is the subject of a sentence, its verb is conjugated into a third-person singular form."
    With the "each" the singular subject "a rich history" applies to each individual civilisation of India, China, Korea and Japan. Without it, "The Asian civilizations of India, China, Korea, and Japan have a rich history" implies a singular shared history between them as a group. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 22:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    You must be kidding me by now. There is "Shreveport and Bossier City have a rich history [...]"; find other quotations at google books:"have a rich history". Your argument, which by the way was syntactic rather than semantic, is flawed. In general, a phrase of the form "X and Y have a rich history" does not suggest X and Y to be synonyms. As for "have rich histories", few people write that even when the subject is plural: have a rich history, have rich histories at Google Ngram Viewer. When the subject is singular, it is google books:"has a rich history", with "has" rather than "have". --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    Oh for Deity's sake: the references are giving the history of anarchists and socialists and calling them libertarians, and somehow you can't extract any meaning from that? Do you think that someone is talking about A and B having a history of C because there isn't a semantic connection between them? If that is the case, please describe the sort of source and/or wording which could possibly convince you.
    Moreover, that more people fail to observe the singular verb with multiple subjects and 'each' doesn't stop it working in that way. Arguably the bit about verb conjugation in the Usage Notes of "each" is not accurate, certainly not for "has". I still maintain that "A and B have a rich history" implies a shared history between them; where the technically correct "A and B each has a rich history" and the more common in use "A and B each have a rich history" both imply separate and distinct histories. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 12:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

các tôiEdit

I've been living for 20 years as a native Vietnamese speaker and never in my life have I heard "các tôi". Where could anybody have gotten this word from? Fumiko Take (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fumiko Take: That's me. An honest mistake, sorry. Not sure where I got it from any more, I don't have my Vietnamese books handy, they may have been the source or maybe I maybe I made it analogous to các anh. If the word is wrong, let's delete it. It's also in Glosbe dictionary (not very reliable), listed together with chúng tôi, chúng ta. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
@Atitarev: You mean this Glosbe? Gosh, its translation is just as bad as Google translate's. Even the dictionaries' names sound totatally unnative. I think if you need a source of citation, you should not get any from this one. I've done a Google search for "các tôi" and the only sites that really include it are just this Wiki and that friggin' Glosbe.Fumiko Take (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I've speedied it but won't archive it, so that anyone objecting the deletion could post their opposition here. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
google books:"các tôi" finds plenty of hits. What makes you think there are no attesting quotations? What was the term defined to mean? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


A kitten's meow (as opposed to an adult cat's, perhaps?). Having trouble finding this in English. Equinox 15:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The only mentions of this word I can find in English are:
  1. In the OED: "The herb spignel, Meum athamanticum. Also: the root of this plant."
  2. 1819 London Quarterly review: "[S]omewhat less than an English acre." From Mandarin or .
  3. If it is used in the plural form meus, it is overwhelmed by the Latin.
I can find no evidence of this use in English. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 19:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps the originator (from UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA) was thinking of mew? (It wasn't User:Wonderfool, was it?) But then, why did Connel MacKenzie add an etymology?
I suggest that we just change the entry to the herb definition. Dbfirs 20:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I've added the herb definition and found we had two of the other vernacular names for w:Meum athamanticum already. I converted the {{rfv}} to {{rfv-sense}}. I wonder how the herb name is pronounced. It must be derived from the genus name, perhaps with the terminal s interpreted as a plural ending. DCDuring TALK 21:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I've added pronunciation and etymology according to the OED, Perseus, and other sources. The OED's proposal that meu passed through Middle French from Latin mēum from AG μῆον would account for the nasalization and loss of the final m and the reinterpretation of Latin /eːu/ > MF /œː/ > Eng /juː/. This seems a plausible enough account for its pronunciation and spelling to me. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 22:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. The genus name is just Pliny's transliteration of Discorides' name for the plant. DCDuring TALK 22:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
We have a policy against paywall links, don't we. DCDuring TALK 22:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Aha, sorry about that. What would be the better way to cite that (apologies for the noobishness)? —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 22:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


Is this attested? Indicated to mean fleshlight: A sex toy for men. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Done! (press the dragdown tab for evidence) Zeggazo (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
While we're here, can't we have a better definition for fleshlight? There are lots of sex toys for men that aren't fleshlights. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please double-check the cites, as they may be scannos for hyphenated forms etc.? Equinox 18:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
They’re good. Usenet doesn’t really have scannos. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The 2007 one has the unspaced words "thefuck" and "tofuck", strangely. Equinox 18:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe there was a filter that wouldn't allow the word "fuck" but didn't notice it inside a larger word (thus avoiding the Scunthorpe problem). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
That hypothesis would also explain the spelling "f.uck" a few times in the same thread. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
It would also explain the spelling "pocketpussy" rather than "pocket pussy" if the filter prohibited the word "pussy" too. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
In that one thread, yes, but other threads using the spelling "pocketpussy" have "fucked" and "fucking" uncensored; it seems unlikely a filter would let those through but not "pussy". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "(Ireland, archaic) decent" As an Irish person I have never, to the best of my knowledge, heard this term used with this sense. As a kid probably though, and certainly as a (pre-)teen I heard it often with the new sense I have added, meaning pretty much equivalent to the colloquial meaning of awesome. Is this archaic sense real? User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 22:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It was posted by WF just before that account was blocked, so it's best not to take it at face value.
At any rate, it's not hard at all to find usage in Google Books, but it looks like most or all of it is eye dialect for decent by non-Irish. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


English section. I can't find any evidence of its usage. The more common term is ophiuroid or the brittle star. JamesjiaoTC 21:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I've added three quotations, from 1815, 1845, and 1864. I don't see anything more recent, so maybe it should be marked "obsolete" or "archaic". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Never mind - Ungoliant has added more recent quotations. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
What about rare or uncommon? It’s hard to be sure, due to interference from French and German, but that’s the impression I got. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Except for one work, apparently of fiction, translated (from French?), all of the use seems technical (biology). One can find more at Google Scholar, though most of the usage I found was in works in French an in bibliographies citing those works.
This seems like exactly the kind of word that we should discourage translators from using. What would it take to discourage someone from using the word, rather than brittle star or ophiuroid, which do seem more common. Would using those words as glosses instead of the fuller definition help? Certainly {{trans-see}} would help a bit. DCDuring TALK 22:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The OED lists it as obsolete and rare, if that is any help. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 22:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I have the feeling that this is one of those words that lies dormant as a mention in translating dictionaries, which rarely drop terms that have been replaced by others, to come to life as a use only in a translated work or a work by a non-native speaker. DCDuring TALK 22:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


The second etymology, "excrescence on the trunk of a tree usually covering a knot", has just been added by an anon. All I could find in a cursory search is bole (with an e) as another word for tree trunk. Since the IP also added a Maori translation, maybe this sense of bol is specific to New Zealand? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm think anon meant burl, which could easily be pronounced "bol", and may have such a pronunciation-derived spelling somewhere, though I haven't found it yet. DCDuring TALK 13:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

female penisEdit

This failed RFV before; now there are quotations in the entry, which I have copied to Citations:female penis. The quotations are inadequate, IMHO. First, the quotation "The correct anatomical term to describe [...] is the female penis." is a mention; any quotation of the form "The correct term for X is Y" is a mention of Y, while it is use of X. The second quotation actually uses the term "miniature female penis" to refer to clitoris, not "female penis"; it becomes apparent if you try to substitude, and get "miniature clitoris", which was not intended; in any case, it is a one-off metaphor and not the use of the term "female penis" to refer to clitoris before clitoris was introduced to the context. As for the third quotation, substitution again clarifies what is going on: In "The female penis is something that physically disrupts the idea that men and women have sex because they were built to fit together", this is really an abbreviation of The [idea of clitoris being a] female penis ..."; substitution yields nonsense: "The clitoris is something that physically disrupts the idea that men and women have sex because they were built to fit together". I motion to speedy delete as unattested term that failed RFV before until the author adds acceptable quotations to Citations:female penis. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added two more cites; not sure how acceptable they are but they do allude to the clitoris. Zeggazo (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As for "I stroked each side of her labia majora [...] before homing back on what had, by now, swollen to become her female penis with it's familiar Germanic helmet—albeit in miniature—which I now rolled around between my thumb and fore-finger": That is a one-off metaphor not using "female penis" to refer to clitoris; the sentence indicates that only after it has swollen has the clitoris become "her female penis", immediately continuing the metaphor with "familiar Germanic helmet", which does not attest "Germanic helmet" to refer to a part of clitoris. Also notice the word "become"; if "female penis" would mean clitoris, the sentence would suggest that clitoris has become clitoris, a nonsense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

house warmingEdit

Rfv-sense: The act of welcoming a person/family to their newly purchased or newly rented home.

Not found in Onelook. The only support which I could find for this sense is this comment in the Wikipedia article for Housewarming party: "In some communities, neighbors may bring the housewarming party to the new residents to welcome them." --Hekaheka (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The with-space spelling is certainly less common. housewarming at OneLook Dictionary Search and house-warming at OneLook Dictionary Search find just few lemmings. This is certainly attestable. DCDuring TALK 23:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
COCA has 84 instances of housewarming, 11 of house-warming, 5 of house warming. All three spellings are used as nominals and attributively. DCDuring TALK 23:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not doubting the spelling, but the sense. The first sense is "party to celebrate moving into a new home", which I think is the usual one. --Hekaheka (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd not be surprised that it existed. I take it that any of the three spelling could provide the attestation, not just the least common one, which we call the lemma for some reason. DCDuring TALK 01:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I think I understand the problem with the entry. We should not have an adjective section, as the term does not meet tests for adjectivity such as comparability/gradability or predicate use, nor does it have any distinct meaning when used attributively. The challenged noun sense is the original sense of housewarming, usually used attributively and usually uncountable when a nominal. This is the sense used in housewarming party and housewarming gift. The "party" sense is a countable sense derived from the first, when housewarming came to take formal shape as a party.
If my view is correct, the adjective section should be RfVed to confirm that it does not meet the tests and the challenged sense should have a label (usually used attributively) and should appear before the "party sense". DCDuring TALK 01:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Or not. A "feast/merrymaking" sense goes back at least to Samuel Johnson. So housewarming party is a pleonasm. The adjective sense should still be RfVed IMO. DCDuring TALK 02:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Etymonline says 1570. It looks to me like that's the original sense, which was extended metaphorically to mean a welcome, and the metaphorical sense is what's used attributively. The question is where along the way (if anywhere) has there been a split into separate senses or words? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Can one now have a housewarming without a party, a feast, or merry-making? I think so. Certainly one can give a housewarming gift without there being festivities. That Cambridge has housewarming (party) as an entry, even though it should be a pleonasm, suggests to me that housewarming has the challenged sense. Oxford has a definition "A party celebrating a move to a new home" and gives as examples sentences with "housewarming party", ie, its definition is not substitutable into the very usage examples it provides. DCDuring TALK 03:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I think this noun sense is essentially the same as the first noun sense, where party should be interpreted broadly to include small social gatherings. Adjective should get terminated with extreme prejudice. Make housewarming the main form per DCDuring. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

in infiniteEdit

English: "Alternative form of ad infinitum"

Not in OneLook references. Hard to search for. DCDuring TALK 12:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No useful Google Books hits for "so on in infinite" nor "continues in infinite". Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


There are purported cites in the entry, but each needs to be reviewed to determine whether it is "durably archived" and to be formatted to allow for broad participation in any decisions about whether this merits "hot word" status before it would otherwise be included (after a year has passed), assuming the validity of the cites. DCDuring TALK 13:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I've formatted the citations from print journals. All are from articles reporting on the same piece of research. While I'd say we should keep this for now, the important part in a year will be seeing if other research groups use the word in scientific papers (or if the characters in CSI start profiling victim's thanatomicrobiomes...) Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    Are you sure that they are in print editions? In the past, I've assumed that online content provided by a title that was also in print was in print/durably archived. I no longer think such an assumption is justified, but I don't know how to make a determination one way or the other. DCDuring TALK 06:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    The journal citation: definitely. The New Scientist citation: definitely (it says "This article appeared in print" at the bottom. The Forensics Magazine citation: almost definitely (it's tagged with a reference to the issue it appeared in). In general though, I don't think having an even more restrictive criterion for web citations is really going to improve the quality or reliability of Wiktionary, since we're just going to lose whole swathes of high-quality sources of citations for relatively little gain. If nothing else, it's fair to assume that any reasonably well-trafficked website will be put in the Internet Archive and copied by a hundred spam mirrors. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    That's a matter for WT:BP and even a VOTE. It might be time to revisit the question. DCDuring TALK 12:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh come on, we've never made any effort to define 'durably archived'. It wouldn't be revisiting the issue of what durably archived means, it would be a start on the matter. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: We have what is more useful than a verbal definition: an operational one: We accept as sources any print work that would be found in a library, any print journal or newspaper, any Usenet group. Folks have made arguments for other things but haven't convinced very many people. DCDuring TALK 18:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello... does this work? . I am the author of the word "thanatomicrobiome". I created the original web page... however someone keeps changing it... Can we please leave the references as is...?

The other person keeps adding news paper articles... does the rag newspaper "Montgomery Advertiser" count as a real publication? I do not think so.. but I have NOT deleted it. Can we please discuss? Thanks Peter

Here they are:


  • [44] Peter A. Noble, A NSF proposal I wrote: "Life after death: The role and composition of the thanatomicrobiome in the decomposition of mammalian organs", October, 2013.
  • [45] Can, I., G.T. Javan, A.E. Pozhitkov and P.A. Noble. Distinctive thanatomicrobiome signatures found in the blood and internal organs of humans. Journal of Microbiological Methods 2014 106: 1-7.
  • [46], Peter A. Noble, Introducing the Thanatomicrobiome, MicrobialWorld August 15, 2014
  • [47] Anna Williams, Death: the great bacterial takeover, Your death microbiome could catch your killer. New Scientist, August 28, 2014.
  • [48] Siouxsie Wiles, Monday Micro – the microbiome of death! SciBlog: Infectious Thoughts, September, 1, 2014.
  • [49], Jesse Jenkins, The Death Microbiome: Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Biotechniques - The International Journal for Life Science Method, September 11, 2014.
  • [50] Randall Mayes, The Death Microbiome Could Inform Forensic Science And Medicine. Design & Trend, September, 11, 2014.
  • [51] Gulnaz Javan, The Dirty World of Body Farm Microbes. Forensic Science Magazine, September 30, 2014.
  • [52] Brad Harper, ASU researchers hope to help solve homicides. Montgomery Advertiser, July 8, 2014
    The Montgomery Advertiser is the largest daily newspaper in Alabama and it's won three Pulitzer Prizes, so it definitely counts as a real publication, though here at Wiktionary all that matters to us is that it's durably archived (a term which we haven't formally defined but roughly means you could go to a library and find the publication in question—in other words, we prefer print publications like books, magazines, and newspapers to websites). As for other people changing the entry you started, one of the most basic rules for participating in a wiki like Wiktionary is accepting that other people will edit pages that you start. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

kol çekmekEdit

There is no that word at the Turkish!!!! Somebodies are deleting rfv! --123snake45 (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There are already citations. -- 08:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The entry was never de-tagged. 123snake45 I imagine you just forgot to list it (until now). Renard Migrant (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
There are already citations for the English senses, not the Turkish.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
You think the citations in Citations:kol çekmek are in English? Renard Migrant (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, got confused. I thought that was a comment on kodak.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • RFV passed: some quotations at Citations:kol çekmek. I cannot judge their quality or fitness, but they do seem to be in Turkish, of the challenged term, and from permanently recorded media. Until someone challenges these quotations, this is a pass. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: The standard word that everybody uses for "to sign" is imzalamak (or imza atmak). Two of the citations are ok. Of the remaining 4 "citations", 1 is non-durably archived, and 3 are dictionary entries (Ottoman Turkish (2x), regional colloquial Turkish (1x)). If a third citation can be found, the entry can be kept, but needs to be tagged with "rare" (and possibly also with "archaic"?). -- Curious (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


That word isn't family!!! --123snake45 (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Erdoğan kodağı ticaretle uğraşıyor. from Google Groups. -- 08:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If you google "kodağıyla" or "kodağının" etc. or "aile, kodak" you may find some results. -- 16:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Commenting on the etymology, it would appear that Japanese kazoku is a compound of two other Japanese words, simply ka and zoku, and cannot be borrowed from the Turkish word, nor can the Turkish word be borrowed from it unless one can explain how it skipped through all those other languages. Soap (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Japanese kazoku is not a compound of ka and zoku. I would guess that kazoku comes from Chinese because ka and zoku are the Chinese readings of the characters 家 and 族. --Haplogy () 14:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, what Haplology said. Japanese kazoku (and, for that matter, Korean gajok and Vietnamese gia tộc) is derived from Middle Chinese /kæ d͡zuk̚/ (reconstructed pronunciation). The Chinese is the compound, consisting of (home) + (family, clan, tribe).
If you're positing that Turkish kodak is derived from Chinese, perhaps -- but even there, the required vowel shifts don't make sense given what little I know of Turkish diachronic sound changes. Past that, there is no reasonable expectation that the Turkish word could possibly be derived from Japanese (or Korean or Vietnamese). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There are some other forms of kodak in Anatolian city dialects: kadak little sibling; baby donkey/colt; young buffalo calf, kaduk baby donkey/colt, koduk baby donkey/colt; calf; camel calf; puppy; follower; a widow's child who is/was taken to her second husband, kozak child (Compare: Etymology of English word family: From Early Modern English familie (not in Middle English), from Latin familia (“the servants in a household, domestics collectively”), from famulus (“servant”)/famula (“female servant”), from Old Latin famul, of obscure origin. Perhaps derived from or cognate to Oscan famel (“servant”). In Turkish, the word uşak means both male servant, servant boy, domestic help and child). The word kodak home is resembling to Finnish koti home/Estonian kodu home, too (Compare: Turkish word ocak means both home and family).-- 10:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

F kota 'teepee', koti 'home'. E kodu 'home'. Tam, Malayalam kuti 'house, home', Kan gudi 'house, Gondi kota 'cowshed' (DED 1645). M kфЛе 'retinue, tent', xota(n) 'city, town'. J ko, katei, kataku 'house'. Note PFU *kota 'Zelt, Hütte, Haus' ... (1997, Hannu Panu Aukusti Hakola, Duraljan vocabulary: lexical similiarities in the major agglutinative languages) There are some words which mean both 'home' and 'family' in many languages. As some users state above, Japanese word kazoku has the Chinese character /Kan’on: (ka), (ko)/ which means 'home'. So it seems there might be a relationship between the words which mean 'home' and 'family'. -- 21:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no direct relationship to anything Japanese here, with the possible distant chance that OJP-derived (ko, gate, door > house > household > family) might have an Altaic / Turkic cognate.
Note that JA 家庭 (katei), 家宅 (kataku), and (ka, there is no ko reading) are all Chinese-derived, and as such, really cannot be considered as Japanese for etymological purposes when looking for potential cognates in ancient Turkic. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • RFV sense failed: no quotations meeting WT:ATTEST and attesting Turkish would-be sense "family" provided. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: adjective. Seems to be a misrepresentation of attributive use of the proper noun. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Nothing for "more Orinoco", nothing for "most Orinoco", nothing for "very Orinoco" when you exclude the phrase "that very Orinoco", nothing for "slightly Orinoco", nothing useful for "is Orinoco", "was Orinoco" or "were Orinoco"... I'm going to go with the Flow and say delete away, delete away, delete away... Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Do we really need a whole RFV for this? Cant the fact that Orinocan exists prove that this was just a misclick or other type of mistake, and that they meant "Orinocan" ?Soap (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@Soap: 'Do we really need a whole RFV for this?' Yes. Orinico is often used attributively, eg, Orinoco Flow and Orinoco River, where Orinocan is not used. But Orinoco probably does not otherwise behave as an adjective (See Wiktionary:English adjectives. The RfV is intended to make sure that "probably" is something we can rely on.
'Cant the fact that Orinocan exists prove that this was just a misclick or other type of mistake, and that they meant "Orinocan"' ? Definitely not. It is not that kind of trivial error. First, Orininocan is not a substitute for Orinoco. Second, it is a matter of maintaining consistency in our presentation of English nouns. Virtually ALL (or just all? Are there any that cannot?) English nouns can be used attributively in virtually ALL of their senses. It would be silly and wasteful to have adjective sections to cover attributive use of all English nouns when almost no information is thereby added. DCDuring TALK 14:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


Translingual sense: "A kiss at the end of a letter". I request citations in languages other than English to confirm that this is indeed translingual. Keφr 21:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

w:it:XOXO implies that it's English, though I would be surprised if it hadnt spread to at least other Roman-alphabet languages by now. Then again there's :x which represents at least a kiss, and is translingual. Soap (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I've added four non-English citations: one for Portuguese, two for Spanish, and one for French. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
And one in German. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


The original definition was "a white, stained black and brown horse". Could not find it in the dictionary, typing "un rocillo" in google image returned nothing good. --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's an error for rosillo. In Latin American Spanish, ci and si generally sound the same. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Stephen G. Brown's moved it to rosillo. Objections? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Definitely rosillo (from rosa + -illo). Moved. —Stephen (Talk) 12:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Closing because Stephen tends to know what he is doing! Equinox 00:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • RFV failed by Equinox above; by now, no attesting quotations provided anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "To dispose of after determining that something is no longer useful for its intended purpose (military)". Not really sure what this means, to be honest.

(By the way, this whole entry could do with some TLC, if anyone's keen.) This, that and the other (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I suppose it means "To dispose of" as you don't generally dispose of something if it's still useful. Something like "survey ammunition" though I'd imagine in most cases that would mean "inspect ammunition". Anyway, good luck! Renard Migrant (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I could not find this definition in MW 1828, MW 1911, or Century. I find survey used on the US Congressional Record in lists of ships in uses like "surveyed and condemned", "surveyed and sold", etc. IOW, disposition was not inherent in survey, which seems to be used in the sense of our third definition: "To examine with reference to condition, situation, value, etc.", possibly in a specific military, governmental or even legal sense that means survey to determine whether a neglected item should be retained or disposed of and what its disposition should be. I could imagine that survey might be used to try to convey to someone tasked with cleaning out an area in which low-value items were stored the idea that they should not simply dispose of the items, but exercise some judgment about whether there was some value remaining. This could be interpreted as "do with it what you will".
Perhaps the best outcome would be a reworded definition, a subsense of definition 3, preferably from a military or legal source. For example: from "Sea talk": "To examine a ship for damage or faults, usually before a sale or insurance coverage is approved." (But to me this seems too close to the generic sense 3.)
Added in this diff by User:Jimmygyuma, who contributed to fewer than 50 mostly maritime entries. They might be worth a quick review. DCDuring TALK 15:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I've left him a message. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • RFV failed: no attesting quotations provided. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

gotcha keywordEdit

Equinox 17:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


The word on the brand's respective Wikipedia page for Lego is now capitalized just like that (Lego, not LEGO). Shall we change all Lego-related word listings to make all capitalizations other than "Lego" "alternative forms of" it? WikiWinters (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


The Wikipedia page for the term is titled "Homie," yet the entry for for it makes it unclear as to whether "homey" or "homie" is the main form of the word. It appears that the former is an alternative form of the latter, yet the former has much more content. Thoughts? Should it be changed to "alternative form of?" WikiWinters (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I get the feeling this word existed in speech long before it was written down, and its written form is just an approximation of its pronunciation. As long as we define it somewhere, I don't think it matters where. For what its worth, in my head, it's "homie", but Google ngram curves for 'my homie' v 'my homey' (with "my" to try to remove the adjective use of "homey") are practically identical. If we assume there are a few lingering adjectives in there ("my homey cottage"?) then maybe "homie" has the edge. Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Struck as the existence of the term homey is not being challenged. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
WikiWinters when you list a page here it's because you want it to be either cited or deleted. It's pretty common mistake because of the name of the page. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
My apologies. WikiWinters (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

more Catholic than the PopeEdit

  • RFV-sense: (idiomatic) hypocritical Added later --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC).

The entry for more_Catholic_than_the_Pope includes "hypocritical" as a connotation. This is non-standard to the point of being the opposite of the main meaning of the idiom, and is either inadvertently confusing or deliberately wrong. Soliciting examples of usage with that meaning per RFV.

If it comes to that, I don't think I've ever heard it used literally, as in sense 1. Sense 2 is the only one I know. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
You must travel in exclusively secular circles. Google books abounds with more or less literal uses. The challenged sense is now the third sense in any event, which I didn't find among the first hundred+ hits at Google books. DCDuring TALK 10:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
No, but I travel in predominantly Protestant circles! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I can't picture this directly meaning "hypocritical". I can certainly see it that context, though. For example, in "He cheats and steals throughout the week, but on Sundays is more Catholic than the Pope.", the expression is used in its literal meaning. --WikiTiki89 11:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I am fairly sure that the contributor of that definition, part of its creation, is not a native English speaker. A non-native speaker could have misinterpreted such a use, perhaps underestimating the importance of a word like but or missing an implicit contrast.
Other languages have similar expressions (translated as "more royalist than the king" (French), "a bowl hotter than the soup" (Persian)). DCDuring TALK 13:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • 2000, Eliphas Levi, The Great Secret: or Occultism Unveiled, page 36:
    In upholding this in the face of the Pope himself if necessary, we shall be more catholic than the Pope and more protestant than Luther when occasion demands
It makes for the generic snowclone "more AdjP than NP", 'NP' being the paragon or arbiter of 'AdjP'. For a change, the prototype seems to be entryworthy, though sense 1 seems quite literal and transparent. OTOH I suppose that, even for that sense, there is a question of 'prior knowledge': accepting the convention that the Pope plays the role required. DCDuring TALK 13:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

November 2014Edit


Rfv-sense: "The act of removing a belief from the mind or the result of such removal."

This is a rewording of a definition just added by an anon. This is morphologically possible, but does not appear in any of the OneLook references. Could there be use in this sense? DCDuring TALK 09:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

A couple of possible citations:
I think most of the Google books hits for "gradual disbelief" support this sense. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Good finds. They initially seemed a bit ambiguous to me, but I think they support the definition. I wonder whether we could beat OED to the punch on this one.
Further, I wonder whether there are parallel uses of the verb disbelieve, either like transitive like disabuse (someone) of (a belief), or only reflexive, or transitive with a belief as object. If so, it would probably be even less ambiguous. DCDuring TALK 16:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Here are examples of the verb with the belief as object. They help me get the concept.
  • 1802, The Connecticut Evangelical Magazine, and Religious ...: 
    And so far as this opinion prevails, we have reason to fear that the important doctrine, of the real Divinity and even of the humanity of Christ, will be gradually disbelieved.
  • 1890, Edward Henage Dering, Freville Chase, volume 1, page 37:
    Elfrida walked slowly upstairs, reviewing what had happened and not happened in the last three, not to say six weeks, and gradually disbelieving the good case that she had made out.
  • 1923, David Alec Wilson, Life of Carlyle, volume 1, page 79:
    He never "revolted" against Christianity; only, reluctantly and gradually, disbelieved it.
  • 2007, Robert F. Gorman, Great Events from History: The 20th century, 1901-1940:
    Cook's claim was gradually disbelieved, and Cook fell into disfavor and died a pauper in 1940.
Both religious and secular use. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Looks good, I might reword it a bit, I don't think 'removing from the mind' is the best wording though; I'm a former Christian and the believe hasn't been removed from my mind, I just don't believe it anymore. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Please, give it your best shot. DCDuring TALK 19:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I did rather walk into that. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


This looks like another dictionary-only phobia- everything in Google Books seems to be a mention. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

This is what I found: [53], [54], [55]. The first one is solid but the other two are on the fence between use and mention. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

generative leadershipEdit

I read a fuck of a lot of books and this entry is a strange mystery to me. What does it mean? Equinox 03:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Read this to see an explanation using real English sentences that actually mean things. The term looks citeable, but the definition given is only decipherable if you already know what it means and read between the lines. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I overlooked the second definition, which doesn't seem to mean anything at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
"Creating patterns that enable adaptive capacity across a system" sounds more like a tortured definition of fault-tolerant network design than anything to do with leadership. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
It's very difficult to understand. If it's an exchange, what sort of exchange? In the sense of a discussion, or the sense of a swap? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "Software that is useless or of poor quality." I have saw this term only in the meaning of "unwanted pre-installed software" which I just added (with citations), but perhaps this more generic sense is in use too. I was unable to cite it, however. Keφr 13:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Failed: no citations provided. Keφr 21:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


Only in the Smurfs universe? Needs to meet WT:FICTION. Equinox 17:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I have added some External links to meet the criteria of attestation. The smurfberry seen as a berry is, without any doubt, part of a fictional universe. The game curreny, however, isn't fiction at all. It was hard reality and quite a shock for a number of parents a couple of years ago.-- 19:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The links only provide support for the game currency. The fictional sense needs cites that do not explicitly refer to the fictional universe: that's what we mean when we say it has "entered the language". See, for example, kryptonite. Choor monster (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The usual interpretation is that the citations need to be on the page or the citations page, and they aren't. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
For 'fictional universe' refers to the content not the medium! A book made of paper, the paper isn't fictional but the information contained in the page may well be! Renard Migrant (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • To clarify. Citations don't actually have to be anywhere, unless challenged. There are only 2 kryptonite cites, for example, but since everybody knows it has entered the language, nobody is challenging it for the third to make it official. Referring to links is common during discussion, helping others judge the challenged term. At the moment, smurfberry the currency seems secure, but the fictional berry remains unsupported. Choor monster (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)



Rfv-senses "in my (not-so-)honest opinion". An anon tried to delete it, and I have never heard of it. --WikiTiki89 01:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: the sole adjective sense 'unexpected'. Is this an adjectival at all? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of phrases that take the form "a surprise NOUN". Purplebackpack89 18:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Invalid argument: same goes for "tractor" (tractor parts, tractor driver) but that's not an adjective. "Surprise" fails many of the typical tests for adjectivity: you can't have "more/most/very/somewhat surprise"; you can say "surprise party" but not "the party was surprise"; and so on. Equinox 18:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree. It's an attributive use of the noun, not an adjective. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, this is rfv (though I'm not sure why it isn't at rfd), so it's all about usage, not arguments. At any rate, the usage mentioned doesn't establish adjectivity for the reasons mentioned. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't make them adjectives: you don't say "that inspection was more surprise than the last one", you say, "that inspection was more of a surprise than the last one. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: It is at RfV because RfD tends to be a fact-free zone and facts could in principle show surprise to behave like a true adjective. We actually have criteria for "true adjective" use, unlike the situation for multi-word entries. The burden of proof is on those with insight into some type of true adjective use to demonstrate such use. The longer minimum time period before removal of items is useful to give advocates more of a chance. There is a substantial bias toward deleting these because linguistically naive contributors are inclined to take attributive use of a noun as an indication that the noun is also an adjective. A weakness of the process is that we rarely add examples of the noun in attributive use as usage examples for the noun definitions. DCDuring TALK 18:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Are we sure it is a good idea to single out one particular sense that arises in attributive use, as the definition "unexpected" in this case? For example, in the surprise element (aka the element of surprise) the element is not unexpected, it is a desired and planned-for feeling of surprise, which may indeed be expected, as in those attending a horror movie. DCDuring TALK 19:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
It may be planned and expected in some way (as in expect the unexpected), but there's something unexpected about it for the viewer, otherwise it wouldn't provoke the "feeling of surprise". Chuck Entz (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Attestation is the key. Nouns can't be qualified by adverbs such as "very surprise" "more surprise" "the most surprise". I wasn't the tagger it was tagged by Hamaryns in December 2013. Not really relevant because we go on the merits of the entry, not who tagged it. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
There are thousands of citations for google books:"very surprise" and google books:"so surprise". I've found nothing yet (scannos for "very surprised" mainly) but I have looked. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


I can't find any reference to this as a separate noun. The usual term for a Sami person seems to be sápmelaš, while sámi is only the genitive form of Sápmi (Lapland). —CodeCat 15:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

An additional note: Judging from w:se:Sámit, it seems that the plural sámit is used to refer to the Sami collectively, as a people. But I haven't seen it used in the singular with this meaning so far. —CodeCat 15:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Sámi is unambiguously the accusative-genitive of Sápmi. This word in general is cited to have also the sense "a Sámi person" e.g. at the Neahttadigisánit dictionary, so I suspect citations for that can be found. I suspect someone has been confused with the attributive use of the noun though in adding a lemma for the inflected form. --Tropylium (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
We are now talking of sámi with minuscule "s". According to Finnish wiktionary (Northern Sami Wiktionary is still in incubator stage) and our entry Sami, sámi is an adjective, which of course does not necessarily exclude other senses. I changed the entry accordingly. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
That's not really any better, I'm afraid. The -m- in "sámi" is a weak-grade consonant, so it doesn't normally appear in the nominative form (gradation in Northern Sami is like Finnish, but all the consonants gradate), while it does appear in the genitive. So I think that Sápmi and Sámi relate to each other in the same way as Finnish Suomi and Suomen (and quite likely have the same origin too, but that's another matter). The difference is that in Northern Sami, the lowercase version also refers to the people, but only in plural. Maybe the genitive is an exception to that, and this is simply how Northern Sami handles plurale tantum nouns (i.e. no singular forms but there is still a genitive). —CodeCat 19:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
It's true that sámi is the genitive form of sápmi, but that does not automatically make sámi invalid as a word. Flipping through the scarce information available of Sami language in the internet I found several occasions in which sámi is defined as an adjective. I would assume that the genitive has acquired a new meaning at some point of the development of the language. I'm not a Sami expert but I'm quite certain that you aren't one either. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
It does exist as a word, but I think people are misinterpreting it as a separate lemma. This is not surprising given that many people interested in Sami languages and culture would be speakers of other languages which don't have such things as case systems. If an English speaker saw "suomen kieli" and knew that it meant "Finnish language" then they might be tempted to think that "suomen" is an adjective meaning "Finnish". I suspect something like that may be going on here.
My own interpretation is that sámit is a plurale tantum referring to Sami people, but its singular genitive form is used attributively. I think User:Tropylium knows more about this than anyone else, so his views would be welcome. —CodeCat 15:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this is what I was saying: sámi is, in the cited sense, definitely not a lemma. Northern Sami has both attributive and predicative forms of adjectives, the latter are taken as the lemma, and this is an attributive.
It'd still take further verification to determine if the adjectival use actually checks out though. I hope our small number of Category:User se-2 people might have better knowledge of this yet. --Tropylium (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean with "In the cited sense not a lemma"? The article was originally written of sámi as if it were a noun. However, based on what I've read, it seemed that it would be an adjective and I have changed the entry accordingly. Are you saying it's not an adjective either? --Hekaheka (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
We seem to be mixing together far too many different questions by now. Let's try to be explicit about what we are discussing.
  1. Semantics.
    • Sápmi, uppercase, exists in at least one sense: 1. "the land of the Sami people" (proper noun) (NB: not "Lapland", which covers also traditional Finnish and Swedish territories!)
    • The word IPA(key): /saːpmi/ is moreover used also in two other senses: 2. "Sami" (adjective); 3. "a Sami person" (common noun).
  2. Capitalization.
    • I am still not able to take a definite stance on if the two latter senses should be uppercase or lowercase. I have by now checked a couple other dictionaries, which all seem to only report the capitalized Sápmi (acc. Sámi); I have also checked some grammars, which seem to at least use the word in these senses as the lowercase sápmi (acc. sámi). Probably we should dig into some Sami media for citations.
    • Another question I do not know the answer to is if there is any semantic difference depending on the capitalization.
    • I do know that sámit, "Sami people", is always lowercase.
  3. Lemmatization.
    • If it turns out that lowercase sápmi "a Sami person" is valid, then probably sámit "Sami people" needs to be treated as simply its plural, and not a separate plurale tantum (cf. e.g. Brits, Finns).
    • The form ‹sámi› is definitely not a lemma, but merely an inflected form of ‹sápmi›.
Am I being clear enough yet?
(I think we went off the rails already at the beginning — I interpreted CodeCat as asking whether the accusative deserves an entry as a separate lemma, while I now think she was asking if the meaning "a Sami person" is correct; and then Hekaheka introduced the question of capitalization.) --Tropylium (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Adjective. "Of, or relating to asbestos."

Is this ever a true adjective? DCDuring TALK 18:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it. 03:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Old Man WinterEdit

Rfv-sense: "humanization of winter". Humanization says act of humanizing. Humanize says:

To make human, to give or cause to have the fundamental properties of a human.
To convert into something human or belonging to humans.

I'm very curious for a start to know which of these definitions WritersCramp is referring to. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Neither. Winter is not something which can be turned into a person, but it can be talked about as if it were a person. personification or anthropomorphization are correct. (And I wonder if anthropomorphization is what was meant in the contested sense.) --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 23:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd use personification. It's easier to spell and pronounce than anthropomorphization. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, this sense is supposedly distinct from the "personification of winter" sense, which is also in the entry. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
And what's the difference? --WikiTiki89 23:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
A personification is a fictional person which stands in for a non-person: The Grim Reaper is the personification of Death, Neptune is a personification of the sea, Uncle Sam is a personification of the United States of America.
An anthropomorphization is where you describe or treat a non-person as if it were a person. Describing a meteor as "punching" the ground, or a plant as "longing for sunlight". Or else ascribing human motivations: assuming that a cat is sitting on your lap "because she loves me", or a car as "it wants to go faster". In the case of Old Man Winter, I take it back: this is a personification, pure and simple. It ascribes a human persona to a phenomenon, without necessarily saying anything about motivation. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 00:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The way I learned it, the two things you describe are both personification anyway. --WikiTiki89 20:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Just make the change to personification. Purplebackpack89 00:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I did that and the user undid my edit. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't think RfV was for settling content disputes... Purplebackpack89 16:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Not quite sure what you mean. I'm disputing the existence of this sense. If you're saying it should be speedily deleted, I've already done that, if I do it again I'm in danger of edit warring. Let me put it another way; if RFV is not for disputing content, what is it for? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Attesting it. RfV answers the question, "can sources back up this being said?" Content disputes answer the question, "what should be said?" You can have a content dispute between two verifiable definitions. Just because both definitions can be verified doesn't mean both should be kept (meaning, in this case, that sourcing "humanization" will not end the content dispute, and may actually make it worse). Notice the position I've taken on this entry. My position is that "humanization" should be changed to "personification", regardless of whether or not humanization can be sourced. I am saying that on the premise that humanization and personification are enough alike that we only need a definition that deals with one of them, and prefer that of personification. Purplebackpack89 19:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
If you look above, my initial concern was non-existence, not redundancy to definition #1. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the distinction WritersCramp is trying to go for is a distinction between Old Man Winter as a metaphor and Old Man Winter as an actual character in folklore. If so, humanization is not the right word to use. I couldn't find any entries where we make this distinction (so there's no separate sense at Cupid for "Personification of the act of falling in love", no sense at Mars for "Personification of war"), although perhaps we should. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not sure how much value is added by having a distinction that most users would not grasp. But, if there are citations to support the distinction and if we can have usage examples that understandably illustrate the distinction, why not give it try? DCDuring TALK 17:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
WritersCramp has added two citations. I think they actually cite a sense of humanize that we lack, which is 'to personify', hence this would be the same as 'personification of winter', which we have and is not challenged. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Renard is a lazy +tag spammer. I have discussed the matter on the Old Man Winter discussion page. Thanks WritersCramp (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Wanting something to be correct is lazy is it? Well I wish you were a bit lazier you might make some correct entries. Still not cited as the citations do not unambiguously support this definition. #3 seems like a mention not a use. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd say that personification is sufficient to cover all the cites, despite the (non-standard) usage of humanisation in two of them. We don't want to add second definitions to Mother Earth, Mother Nature etc. do we? Dbfirs 14:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Is this going to RFD as redundant or are we still wanting to look for cites first? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
As Canard has been informed and the three quotations at the definition support using "personification" and "humanization" are not redundant. Thank you WritersCramp (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @WritersCramp: Your above post isn't grammatical, and I can't make sense of what you're trying to say.
Past that, the distinction between personification and humanization, as used in the Old Man Winter entry, is completely unclear -- the two senses look entirely redundant. Without any clear distinction, there is zero utility in having two senses listed.
I move to delete the second sense. Whether or not it's citable is entirely beside the point -- as illustrated in the entry, the "humanization" of winter and the "personification" of winter are the same thing. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC
To attempt to reach a happy middle ground, I have combined the two definitions into one. Just to clarify how I see it the two definitions for Humanization: to represent as human and Personification: an imaginary person that represents a thing or idea; the practice of representing a thing or idea as a person in art, literature, etc. reflect the differences between the words, which supports the inclusion of both words in the definition. Thanks WritersCramp (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the difference, using those words, between a humanization of winter and a personification of winter; they both give winter human form, and winter is inherently a thing or idea.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • RFV failed: I see no quotations attesting a "humanization" sense as distinct from a "personification" sense. As per above, avoiding the word "humanization" in the definition and using "personification" seems to be supported by Renard Migrant, Angr, Purplebackpack89, Smurrayinchester, and Dbfirs; I also support this manner of closure. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)



I added this sense, but I wonder if it's "dictionary only" because I can't find actual usages, so I'm inclined to delete it unless someone else can verify that the word is actually used with this meaning. Dbfirs 08:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

One citation:
  • The circus band was elevated from strong-lipped windjamming to artistic renditions of classical overtures and standard selections
However, it looks like in the musical sense, it's usually written hyphenated. It also specifically seems to mean "playing a wind instrument badly" (possibly, it even refers to a specific fault that wind players make):
  • When he plays you hear no whistling and wind-jamming, none of the little mannerisms that ordinarily make flute-playing a trifle unpleasant.
  • Where Buescher True-Tone Instruments predominated there was a noticeable absence of that blatant wind-jamming that often makes the brasses sound a trifle unpleasant when amateurs play
  • This includes two French horns - played by troupers who are good - but the rest are all melophone or rain-catchers (bell ups) of the old style, and when they put on a wind-jamming contest you can bet the barking irons are there.
Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. (I obviously wasn't using the best search request in Google.) I'll leave the sense in the entry and remove the rfv.
... waiting until Thursday 20th in case anyone else wishes to comment here ... Dbfirs 16:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


b.g.c has some hits, but I doubt they are for the sense given. Some are seemingly misconstruals of nowadays. Keφr 08:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The adverbial usage is an archaic form of nowadays, and the only current usages I can find are in Indian English, plus Kurt Vonnegut in 1991. The OED has a number of archaic cites.
The adjective meaning contemporary seems to be in nowaday use. The OED has three cites from contemporary newspapers. Dbfirs 09:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

What about this?

  • 2007, Ralph Krömer, Tool and Object: A History and Philosophy of Category Theory, Springer Science & Business Media (ISBN 9783764375249), page 74
    There, he distinguishes between représentations (in nowaday's language: group homomorphisms) and homomorphismes (in nowaday's language: continuous group homomorphisms; p.11).

Does this warrant a separate noun sense, or an entry at nowaday's? Keφr 10:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

By policy Wiktionary excludes English possessive forms, though I don't know whether there was ever a case of only a possessive being attestable.
The usage above is clearly of a non-native speaker or his editor and a mathematician yet. DCDuring TALK 11:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I can find usage, but not current, of nowaday as a noun as object of prepositions like of and to. The ones that are clearly native are pre-1930. It would get an "archaic" label.
I think nowaday is also an alternative form of nowadays as an adverb. DCDuring TALK 11:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I consider that an error by a non-native speaker; note the (German?) surname. Equinox 13:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
We've excluded attestable but rare errors before: WT:CFI says all words in all languages, not all mistakes in all languages. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: In which PoSes is nowaday an error? Has it always been so? Why do you say so? DCDuring TALK 23:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't sure which PoS Renard meant, but I assumed that the noun PoS cite (Keφr's 2007 one) was the erroneous one, unless we can find other cites of course. We do have today as a noun. The adjective and adverb seem to be well-established in the OED. Dbfirs 09:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Some more instances of "nowaday's":

  • 1884, George Augustus H.F. Sala, Echoes of the year eighteen hundred and eighty-three
    Do many people, I wonder, nowaday's read Stillingfleet's “Essay on Conversation?” There are some excellent bits of advice in it.

One from a linguist(!):

  • 1987, W.J.Aerts, "Appendix: The Latin-Greek Wordlist in MS 236 of the Municipal Library of Avranches, FOL. 97v", Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1986 edited by Reginald Allen Brown, Boydell & Brewer (ISBN 9780851154763), page 69
    If so, it should be noted that ουντυγχάνω does not exist in nowaday's South Italian, and, probably, did not either in medieval South Italian (though it is not excluded, of course, because during the presence of the Byzantines in (Southern) Italy a greater influence of the Byzantine koine of that time can be postulated).

One in a thesaurus of sorts:

  • 2006, Robert Hartwell Fiske, The Dictionary of Concise Writing: More Than 10,000 Alternatives to Wordy Phrases, Marion Street Press (ISBN 9781933338125), page 361
    the present-day: nowaday's; the present's; today's. ■ Discoveries, innovations, surprises, and complexities of the present-day South multiply beyond what it seemed possible for him to cover. Discoveries, innovations, surprises, and complexities of the today's South multiply beyond what it seemed possible for him to cover.

One from an article by two authors, at least one of which is probably a native English speaker:

  • 2007, Zvi Nevo and Mark M. Levy, "Musculoskeletal", Stem Cell and Gene-Based Therapy: Frontiers in Regenerative Medicine, edited by Alexander Battler and Jonathan Leor, Springer Science & Business Media (ISBN 9781846286766), page 156
    As emerging from nowaday's hottest cell source, the stem cells in general and mesenchymal stem cell progenitors in particular, are enriched in bone marrow serving as a major vital fountain for progenitor cells of both tissues, cartilage and bone.

Here it looks like a contraction of "nowaday is", but interesting nevertheless:

  • 2013, Martin Armstrong, Adrian Glynde, A&C Black (ISBN 9781448210916)
    The Lord knows what's come over you, Adrian. Why can't you pull yourself together, man? You never used to be like this. Being with you nowaday's as bad as being at a blooming funeral.

Keφr 10:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@Kephir: I've been looking at too many Google Books hits for nowaday and nowaday's. Nowaday's seems to be used most frequently not as a possessive of noun nowaday, but as an alternative form of adverb nowadays. Where it is used as a possessive it is invariably either in a work by an author who is probably not native, in a translated work (probably a non-native translator), or in technical literature with the author not determinable (probably not native). DCDuring TALK 15:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I think this is cited in all PoSes, including those not originally challenged.
Nowaday is, by my lights, a better form than nowadays or nowadays for adjective use, and seems to be more commonly used, except by apparently non-native speakers, than nowadays. DCDuring TALK 16:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The nominated sense passed, some were even added. Thank you, DCDuring. Keφr 21:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

gain groundEdit

Rfv-sense: "to become farther from another traveling the same course."

I think this is included in the sense of "make progress; obtain advantage", but there may be something distinct that I don't see. DCDuring TALK 13:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it is meant to be more literal, but I find it very confusing. If you are behind someone then gaining ground would mean getting closer, not further away. 03:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you are correct in being confused. I think the challenged definition would apply to the leader, though not the follower in a competition. DCDuring TALK 08:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

lose groundEdit

Rfv-sense: "To become closer to another traveling the same course"

Same as for #gain ground above. DCDuring TALK 13:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd say they are redundant, and, even if we keep them, the definitions are inadequate, since they depend on point of view (leader or follower). Dbfirs 09:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree, they sound citable as poorer version of definitions we already have. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


Stag's testicle. Possibly for food, but I'm not sure. It looks like it may be a "dictionary-only" word. --Type56op9 (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's a Middle English variant of doucet < dulcet, and "dowcet mete" is attested in 1440 to mean sweetbread. But generally it looks like a synonym for "sweet". --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 20:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


Supposed to mean "faeces". Any takers? --Type56op9 (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Cited. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


Dutch for rigid. An anon removed it with the edit summary “That's wrong.” — Ungoliant (falai) 19:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think difficult, tight, stiff, rough , but better to wait for a native speaker...those can be synonymous with "rigid" Leasnam (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The primary meaning is still "not smooth, not flowing/sliding freely" but this can be extended to meaning rigid in the sense of "difficult to move". It doesn't mean rigid in the meaning "not bendable". At least not literally; perhaps when referring to a person's willingness to cooperate, stroef and star may be close to synonyms (I'm not sure though). —CodeCat 23:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


Definition: "The extermination of Sunnis". Pass a Method gave two Usenet citations, one of which was for the adjective "sunnicidal" (perhaps a typo), and the other was a groaner which did not support the definition at all. Keφr 22:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I was expecting a sunnicide up pun involving eggs. I'm a bit disappointed actually. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
We need to get Baseball Bugs on this project, then. Purplebackpack89 18:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
You'll regret it if you do. SpinningSpark 17:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


I was able to find very few uses of this in running English text ([56], [57], [58], [59]) all italicise the term, and none supports the first definition. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


Tons of Google books hits, but when you click through, almost all of them are actually scannos of "post-disco" (and lots of them are actually from the same book of supposedly copyrighted Wikipedia-rips reuploaded hundreds of times to flood Amazon). I can only find one that's actually "postdisco": "Tina Turner, a veteran soul performer who had long fronted the band led by her one-time husband, the R & B and rock pioneer Ike Turner, refashioned herself into a postdisco diva" Are there any others? Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually there are a fair few unhyphenated occurrences in Google Books. Added two to the adjective, but they might apply to the noun too/instead. May look harder later. Equinox 13:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


I suspect that this is a protologism. A recent editor claims that he coined the word earlier this year. —Stephen (Talk) 12:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

As you suspect, IMO. This doesn't seem to rise to the level of "hot word", but I wouldn't be surprised if it were attestable in a year or so. DCDuring TALK 13:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Another problem is the definition. "Creation of actions" does not seem to mean anything more than "doing" or "implementing". Unless it has more meaning, I don’t see it being used by anyone else. —Stephen (Talk) 13:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I've only noticed cases like this of somewhat lame academic efforts to promote a word/concept. There must be similar cases that are not quite as lame.
But scholarly publishing is even worse than Usenet in terms of potential and incentive to engage in activity that, in effect if not in intent, games our attestation criteria. A secure researcher with graduate students or subordinates (in non-academic environment) or a 'school' of followers (former graduate students) can more or less compel the juniors to publish using the word/concept. Our 'independence' criteria are not usually interpreted in such a way as to catch such cases. DCDuring TALK 17:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Even so, it's a crap definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


I'm not sure about this spelling in Yiddish. --WikiTiki89 18:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like an error. Embryomystic (talkcontribs), what source did you use? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I can't seem to find a source, and it may be an error on my part, though there are a number of examples of it that come up if you google the phrase (and I don't mean just Wiktionary and mirrors thereof). If I've erred, feel free to remove the entry of course. I won't argue with you. embryomystic (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
If you found examples, what is your question? I checked, and it showed up on The Forward, and it's an entry in [60]. The non-Hebrew spelling reflects the Yiddish pronunciation. I was privileged to hear a friend last month, a week before his hasanah, do the complete song quoted in fragments at The Forward. And yes, his fluent-from-birth Yiddish pronunciations were distinctly non-Hebrew. Here are links to another song, along with this Yiddish spelling: [61] and [62]. The latter is a blog, but you can see it's quoting from a recording. Choor monster (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I looked it up in about 6 or 7 dictionaries, including Yiddish-Hebrew, Yiddish-Russian, Yiddish-German. Also, I looked up Chaim Grade Di Agune, since it has a big Simchat Torah scene. All of them had the Hebrew spelling exclusively. Choor monster (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Yiddish dictionaries all copy each other, so it could be a "dictionary-only" spelling. Where did you look up Di Agune? Also, what do you mean by the "Hebrew spelling"? Both spellings are used in Hebrew, but the one with the extra yud is by far less common. --WikiTiki89 00:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I've only seen it without the yud, so I assume that is the Hebrew spelling, and the with-yud version, based on this discussion was, I presumed, a Yiddish-only spelling. As I said, the with-yud version was not in the dictionaries, and not in Grade's novel. I looked up Di Agune, like all the dictionaries (other than the linked-to online dictionary), in a library. Choor monster (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so I misunderstood you. I have two Yiddish dictionaries, both of which are fairly prescriptive and spell it with the yud in the lemma, but give שׂמחה as an alternative form of שׂימחה. So I was referring to the with-yud spelling (the one nominated here) as the potentially dictionary-only spelling. --WikiTiki89 17:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I will point out that the library had four editions of Harkavy; I only checked the most recent. I will probably look again later this week. Choor monster (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The 1910 version is available online: .--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The 1910 one gives the spelling שמחת־תורה. --WikiTiki89 01:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

raon tionnsgalachEdit

Scottish Gaelic. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Its meaning is clear -- "industrial area" -- but I can't find any attestations online of that phrase. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 21:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Came across it in Lochgilphead [63]. --Droigheann (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
The given synonym, ionad-gnìomhachais, is clearly in use: a Google search turns up various Scottish tourist brochures, BBC news articles, etc. But, unhelpfully, there is nothing in Google Books or Usenet. I suppose if someone can find a physical book that contains a mention of either of these terms, that will be helpful (as Scottish Gaelic is LDL). This, that and the other (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "(slang, usually preceded by the big) orgasm". Isn't this always seen in the set phrase "the big O"? This, that and the other (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added four citations that support "O" by itself, outside of the phrase "the big O". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks; that settles it for me. This, that and the other (talk) 04:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

First AmendmentEdit

RFV the adjectival senses: "Of or relating to the US Bill of Rights" and "Of or relating to free speech in general". The second one should be relatively easy to do, but I doubt the first one is attestable at all. Keφr 08:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Relating not just to the First Amendment? I'd like to see both attested and as true adjectives in both senses, or even "of or relating to the First Amendment" as a true adjective. DCDuring TALK 11:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I have seen "First Amendment" used in contexts where there is no government involved at all, which means it cannot refer to the literal sense ("Congress shall make no law…"). Not that I like this usage, but I think it plausible that it can be demonstrated.
Also, does "attestation as a true adjective" mean that you require citations of predicative uses? Obviously "First Amendment" cannot be graded. Keφr 12:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you some kind of Constitutional literalist? I suppose you don't believe in a Constitutional right to privacy either. But seriously, [] .
I think we can find use of the noun applied to free speech of all kinds, even in a non-governmental context (eg, school or university rules, non-governmental public meetings, child-parent relationships), ie, there is a missing sense of the noun. If there is such use, then that also covers attributive use in that sense. But I'm more skeptical about First Amendment referring to the entire Bill of Rights, either as a noun or an adjective.
Predicate use is usually the most abundant true-adjective use, though it can be a bit tedious to sift through the raw hits to find the good ones.
WordNet supports the more general 'free expression/free speech' sense of the term with this definition: "an amendment to the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing the right of free expression; includes freedom of assembly and freedom of the press and freedom of religion and freedom of speech;" DCDuring TALK 13:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the de facto adjective test for English is gradable use, or non-gradable use where it cannot be a noun as no such noun exists. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Absence of gradability is not sufficient evidence that something is not an adjective. A sufficiently distinguished sense of the word when used attributively is sufficient to show something is an adjective. Use as predicate is less definitive because some uses as predicate of a word that is at least sometimes a noun don't feel (God help me!) like adjective use. DCDuring TALK 18:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, can you think of an example of a predicative use of a word that doesn't feel like an adjective? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
In "The sidewalk is cement", cement doesn't 'feel' much like an adjective to me, but I'd be interested in how others 'feel' it. DCDuring TALK 23:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • That looks to me like a predicate non-count noun, same as that blue thing is water or this food is fish. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
This adjective represent two of the six ever edits by (talk). Look at the other three in the main namespace. I'm sure we're wasting our time here and yet, due process. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
No, due process is the Fifth Amendment... ;) - -sche (discuss) 03:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


Added recently by an anon. I'm only aware of this term as w:Races_of_StarCraft#Protoss. I did a quick search of google books:"protoss" -starcraft -zerg and didn't see anything much that matched the entry here. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 08:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

set phraseEdit

2nd sense: "A common expression whose words cannot be replaced by synonymous words without compromising the meaning. " --- Isn't this the definition of "idiom" and actually a special case of the previous definition "A common expression whose wording is not subject to variation"? --Hekaheka (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Dictionaries that define set phrase often have idiom as the definition or as a synonym. DCDuring TALK 14:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
If we accept that "set phrase" and "idiom" are synonyms, we still need to judge how many definitions we need. The Onelook dictionaries which list "set phrase" use the following wordings:
  • Oxford: "An unvarying phrase having a specific meaning, such as “raining cats and dogs,” or being the only context in which a word appears, e.g., “aback” in “take aback.”"
  •, Rhymezone, Free Dictionary and Look WAY up: "An expression whose meanings cannot be inferred from the meanings of the words that make it up."
None of them has two definitions. I'm not convinced we should either. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
If "idiom" is an exact definition of one way people use the term and others use it to mean a particular type of idiom, to wit, "an idiom which allows no substitution of synonyms or insertion of modifiers" and both are attestable, how can we exclude one? Very few people would accept the second as a definition of idiom.
The Gang of Four above are using the WordNet definition, which is exactly the same as one of the WordNet definitions for idiom and indeed for any in the synset consisting of idiom, idiomatic expression, phrasal idiom, set phrase, phrase.
The Oxford definition is more like the narrower definition, but "unvarying phrase" abstracts from inflection and pluralization, one or both of which may be possible, eg, rain can inflect in rain cats and dogs but neither cat not dog can be in the singular. I didn't find WP much help. DCDuring TALK 23:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
It appears to be essentially the same as definition #1, which is undisputed. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Part of what adds to the confusion are the usage notes, which present in prose what should be in synonyms and hyponyms sections, once the distinct senses are recognized and straightforwardly defined. DCDuring TALK 13:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
'Setness' is something that is not quite as absolute as a naive user of the entry might think. Word order, inflection, grammatical transformations (eg, passivization), substitution of synonyms, insertion of determiners, and insertion of adjectives or other modifiers are all departures from the strictest sense of 'setness'. The set of phrases what allow absolutely no variation is relatively small. ('Kick the bucket' allows some verb inflection. Some proverbs might be absolutely invariant, but are not typical set phrases.) Some of the use of the term set phrase seems to include semantically transparent expressions that are nonetheless "invariant" because of their role as speech acts, broadly defined, or simply by dint of repetition, eg, catchphrases. Moreover, some uses of 'set phrase' seem to refer to expressions that do allow substitution of synonyms though one form is often significantly more common, especially in a specific time period and usage context. Rather than incorporate specific criteria such as "substitution of synonyms" into the definitions, we could use multiple (at least two) definitions as stakes that are not too specific, but near the boundaries of the range of meaning.
How about replacement of the definitions as follows?
  1. An common expression whose wording is not subject to little variation.
  2. Any idiomatic expression A common expression whose words cannot be replaced by synonymous words without compromising the meaning.
I know this is RfV, but I am not really happy trying to specifically cite the definitions as currently worded and I would like opinions before changing the entry. DCDuring TALK 14:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, your first definition corresponds to my understanding of the meaning. SpinningSpark 17:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


Attestable?! Has anyone ever said this? It sounds like a joke made up for a book of tongue-twisters. Equinox 22:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a definite known regional phrase, maybe in rare usage nowadays? (Actually, it was only recent that I've heard of this, so I thought I'd put it on Wiktionary.) Anyway, I've put a cite on the page, but I'm not sure if that's enough as I'm struggling to find it used in the media or books. CokeHanx (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think anyone who actually trying to transcribe the Yorkshire dialect (instead of just making a joke) would ever write this as "tintintin" though. It's "'t i'n't in t' tin" (although perhaps with fewer apologetic apostrophes), which means exactly wha i' says on't tin (sorry!). Anyway, found a couple of citations that could fit, but one is immediately explained afterwards and in both cases, the context is "Don't those Tykes speak funny?" 1 2. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I've added one of those citations (2004), but the other is a mention, not a use. CokeHanx's 2011 citation is likewise a mention, not a use. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm a Yorkshireman and it looks like baloney to me. The pronunciation's fractionally off, and more importantly I see no reason anyone would ever write it that way. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, as another Yorkshireman, I agree that it's a mis-spelling and a misrepresentation, though it might well appear as a puzzle or joke. Dbfirs 17:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm finding it hard to understand how this could be a mis-spelling; I thought it were another one of those eye dialect spellings, like (laik = lek = layk) or (thissen = thee sen) for example. The way I see it, there's no standardised form of spellings such as these (as I choose to write them as 'laik' and 'thissen'). It seems alot easier to write it as 'tintintin' rather than ''t i'n't in t' tin' though, even when pronouncing it as just 'tin tin tin'. CokeHanx (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Well Yorkshire spelling if fairly well standardised in the use of apostrophes, so I repeat my assertion that "tintintin" is both a mis-spelling (in that it doesn't follow established conventions), and a mis-pronunciation in that it sounds like a Southerner's attempt to imitate the dialect. Dbfirs 10:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


Improbable alt form of "egg salad". When citing, please avoid the obvious early Google Books result which is a non-standard modern poem ("Eggsalad with the President", I think it was called). Equinox 02:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added seven quotations. A few of them are pretty weird, but hopefully among the seven there are at least three that are adequate. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 03:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Cited I'm not sure what they are talking about in the first and last. The next to last is not great, but it looks like at least four good ones to me. DCDuring TALK 04:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto for "neutered cat". I can't find anything on Google Books, Tekstaro, or Google Groups, but there appears to be some interference from Finnish and romanized Japanese, so I may have missed something. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto for "steer" (castrated bull). Nothing but mentions on Google Books, Tekstaro, and Google Groups. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto suffix supposedly meaning "neutered". I couldn't find any uses of "ĉevaluko(j)(n)", "bovuko(j)(n)", "katuko(j)(n)", "kokuko(j)(n)", or "porkuko(j)(n)" on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro, and a search for the string "inuko" on Tekstaro found no results. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Google Groups and Google Books turn up only mentions for me too, in Usenet posts dating back as far as 1993, and PMEG (1985) (disaparagingly) mentioning it (giving ĉevalinuko, kokinuko, porkuko, bovuko, maskluko, an inuko as examples). One of the Usenet posts is an inquiry what "samideano Eikholz" meant by the affix, so perhaps someone named Eikholz used it somewhere, whoever that is. Seems perhaps amusing, but pretty useless. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


I suppose this can be kept, can't it? But I think there should be a note saying that it is marginal and that 'navigable' is preferred for all uses.

I see no evidence for the alleged specific meaning 'navigation of electronic media or web sites'.

I see evidence to the contrary: "the world's highest navigatable lake", "navigatable and unchartable territories", "Rivers were made navigatable". All from the first 20 hits on Google Books. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I've added four quotations to the entry and changed the definition to "Alternative form of navigable". I hope that resolves the concern about the definition being too narrow. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Could I push you to nonstandard form of? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to change it—I don't have strong feelings about it. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 01:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
It is not common enough to appear in COHA and occurs about 0.1% as often as navigable and about the same recently as navagable, which is an uncommon misspelling. Navigable is a word that has declined by a factor of 10 since the early decades of the 19th century, when inland water transport, including by canal, was revolutionary and important. Navigatable seems to be a sign that navigable may be drifting out of use for some, who probably haven't heard or read it and are producing a term suitable for their meaning from navigate. How does that make it nonstandard?
Etymologically, it is clearly not an alternative form of navigable, which is from a Latin adjective, not navigate. DCDuring TALK 15:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I thought I preferred "non-standard form of" since Wiktionary is the only dictionary in which the word appears, and, though the word is certainly used, it is still extremely rare compared with "navigable" and doesn't seem to convey a different meaning. On the other hand, it meets our criteria for a newly-coined word. How can we determine whether those writers intended to coin a new word, or just made an error? Perhaps just a usage note would be appropriate. Dbfirs 09:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I find it hard to call something non-standard when someone uses a valid, productive English morphological process to produce a readily understandable word. A usage note that indicates that people will look askance at one's evident lack of reading if one uses navigatable rather than navigable might be appropriate, though it is hard to find evidence of authoritative disapproval. I can find mention of the navigable-navigatable doublet in lists of such doublets (appreciable/appreciatable, demonstrable/demonstratable, tolerable/toleratable, 'comparable/com'parable, reparable/repairable, operable/operatable, divisible/dividible/dividable) in books on morphology. The tolerable/toleratable pair illustrates that the accretion of meanings in the older form may make the purer morphological derivative yield a clearer meaning. Given the strong association of navigable with words like waters, rivers, waterways (navigable waterways having a legal meaning in the US), it would not surprise me that navigatable might come to be used where effortful navigation by a person needed to be conveyed. DCDuring TALK 16:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I've added a usage note to take into account this possibility. Please adjust it as you think appropriate. Dbfirs 21:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't read as very dictionary-like, but that might be a good thing, inviting contributions and striking a more explicitly descriptive note than we usually do. DCDuring TALK 22:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I was trying to avoid the use of prescriptivist "non-standard" without misleading readers about usage. The OED has operatable and demonstratable (and repairable of course). I've added our two missing words just as alternative forms because the shades of meaning are too subtle for me to distinguish reliably. Dbfirs 10:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that whatever the subtle differences in meaning, if indeed there are any, they are hard to identify, at least in the case of navigatable/navigable, and quite likely others.
But in some cases, if they are indeed novel coinages using a productive morphological process, the meanings are likely to be limited to those corresponding to the most common, possibly the more literal, senses of the verb from which they are derived. DCDuring TALK 14:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that we need to examine each case on its merits. For the two words that I added, the coinage was long, long ago. Personally, I would use the longer form only if I wished to specially emphasise the direct connection with the verb, but historic usage doesn't seem to have been so selective.
In the special case of reparable/repairable, the two forms remained in parallel use for 140 years (1830 to 1970 approx) but the latter has now become the standard form, occurring three times more often than the shorter word in 1990 according to Google Ngrams. Dbfirs 22:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The word appreciatable is not common. Some usages seem to be in error (where appreciable is intended), but others carry a distinct meaning. I'm wondering how to show this in an entry. Dbfirs 22:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I tried using the context tag to indicate the limited context in which it is used. I hope we don't have "misspelling of too" as a definition line in [[to]]. DCDuring TALK 23:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that looks about right. Dbfirs 23:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
We have a large number of "able" forms that are doublets of more common "ible" forms, some with variations in the root. See User:DCDuring/words ending in -ible. DCDuring TALK 01:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
See also User:DCDuring/words ending in -table. DCDuring TALK 11:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I've added a less US-centric definition. The term is used outside the USofA! Sorry, the usage worldwide seems to be just sum of parts except for a British Act of Parliament. I'm checking. Dbfirs 23:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your clarification in the entry. Dbfirs 08:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense. French: to agree. The usage example is for ça marche which means 'it works; it functions', which in fact I think is best translated by 'ok' or 'all right not 'I agree'. Does marcher ever mean to agree, which is what the definition says it does? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


Ungoliant (falai) 01:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


Rfv tagged but is not listed. -- 21:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

baruhu baruh shemóEdit

Ladino term. Even google:"baruhu baruh shemó" finds close to nothing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that there is a more common spelling that is attestable, but this certainly isn't it. I would try things like "baruh u uvaruh shemo" or "baruch hu uvaruch shemo" (the latter is also one of the common transliterations of the Hebrew phrase, so it would be hard to attest as specifically Ladino). --WikiTiki89 17:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


Spanish for BS (bullshit). Any attestation? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


Any attesting quotations for this lowercase spelling of would-be English word? If "Batcape" as opposed to "batcape" is attested (Citations:Batcape), this can be moved to Batcape, or deleted otherwise. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added three quotations of the lowercase spelling to batcape and four quotations of the uppercase spelling (two of which were originally at batcape) to Citations:Batcape. It's pretty clear from Google Books that "Batcape" is the most common spelling, so I think the main entry should be there, and batcape should be an "alternative spelling of" entry. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • RFV passed; attesting quotations at batcape, thank to Mr. Granger. Someone may yet want to turn batcape to alternative capitalization, form or whatever words we use in that situation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


Romanian: honeysuckle. Any attestation? (Tagged for deletion by a native speaker as a misspelling of caprifoi.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


I think it might be attestable, but I am not sure. I found something which looks like a mention:

  • 1812, Antoine-Vincent Arnault, Fables, page 134
    (29) En oût ce fut tout autre chose. J'ai cru pouvoir écrire oût au lieu d'août, et en cela je suis autorisé par l'usage. On dit aussi communément oût qu'août. Ce mot oût est employé dans les campagnes pour le mot moisson. La fontaine s'en est ...

Keφr 17:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's just about attestable as an archaic spelling of août. I've seen it attributed to Jean de La Fontaine in La Cigale et la Fourmi (i.e. The Ant and the Grasshopper). Renard Migrant (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the French Wiktionary has two cites from Jean de La Fontaine's Fables, and also mentions Émile Littré's, Dictionnaire de la langue française, 1872-1877. Dbfirs 17:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Side question: Kephir's citation suggests that in 1812 oût and août were pronounced differently. Is the modern pronunciation of août actually a relic of oût? --WikiTiki89 17:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
[64][65][66][67][68][69]. Wyang (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
No it's suggesting that oût is a phonetic rendering of août because people had already stopped dropping the initial 'a' sound. I think the Old French aoust would be pronounced /a.ust/, see w:Old French language#Phonology. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


A Spanish word meaning BS (probably bullshit)? Any attestating quotations? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I also think it's probably bullshit. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014Edit


rfv of the English section


  1. (US, dialect) Used to show disagreement or negation; no.

This sounds pretty implausible, but I tried to check, anyway. It's apparently a term in Indian philosophy, and it's real hard to filter out all the Latin text, so I bogged down after going through a hundred or so Google books hits. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I've added two noun senses and converted the RFV to an RFV-sense as a result. I can't find any attestation for the challenged sense. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 03:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
It must be a hoped-for alternative to negatory#Adverb. Why is it under a Particle PoS header? DCDuring TALK 15:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (slang) attractive, popular

I've come across this exactly once: in the movie Mean Girls, where it is a slang term invented by one of the characters which doesn't catch on. Google Books results for "so fetch", "totally fetch", "fetch outfit" etc find nothing useful, and the only relevant Google Groups hits are discussing the movie Mean Girls. So, is this just fancruft, or has someone made fetch happen? Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


I would argue that cross-sectional is the correct spelling, and that this entry should be relegated to secondary status, providing this spelling can be verified. Donnanz (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This is very easy to cite. Crossectional does seem to be hundreds of times rarer than cross-sectional, so I'd support the move. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Move main entry per SMurray, retaining citable crossectional as secondary. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Detagged as not being disputed. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
You may be right, but isn't the detagging premature?? Donnanz (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
crossectional at OneLook Dictionary Search shows that we are the only reference to have it there. It could easily be considered a misspelling, which raises that question of whether it is a "common" one. Retagged. DCDuring TALK 17:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
[[crossectional]] now appears as the alternative spelling, but is not cited. I hold it to be an uncommon misspelling. Prove me wrong. DCDuring TALK 17:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • RFV passed; plentiful attesting quotations available at google books:"crossectional". As for whether this is a misspelling and a common one, we have RFD for that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
    They aren't in the entry. We are the only reference that has it. It needs citations. Or it can be promptly RfDed as a uncommon misspelling. DCDuring TALK 22:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
    Skipping the un-preview-able books which use it in the title (where it is impossible to tell if it is a misspelling, typo or even scanno / OCR error), the first three books which use "crossectional" in their text also use "cross-sectional", which is the sort of evidence we've traditionally taken as suggesting that the books' uses of the otherwise-unrecognized spelling might be misspellings and/or typos. (The three books are Fouling in Silicon Microchannel Designs, ISBN 0549478116; The ULTIMATE Tesla Coil Design and Construction Guide, ISBN 0071497374; and Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium, ISBN 1566771137.)
    This page is the usual and correct place to ask for citations of use, and to determine whether particular 'citations' show the word/spelling in (intentional) use and thus satisfy CFI, or are misspellings and don't satisfy CFI.
    Tangential: another rare spelling which deletes one of its parent (lemma) spelling's "s"s is transexual. It was described as a misspelling until an IP changed to "alternative"... but in that case, the IP is correct that the rare one-"s" spelling is an alternative rather than a misspelling, since the first two Google Books hits it gets specifically discuss "the use of transexual with one s" (How Sex Changed, ISBN 0674040961) and gloss "transsexual" as "transexual" (Gay, Straight, and In-between, ISBN 0195054075), respectively, before they go on to use the one-"s" spelling.
    - -sche (discuss) 01:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    Other trans- words in that category are tranship and transhipment; this shouldn't happen to trans-Siberian (I wonder whether Trans-Siberian should be changed) though. Donnanz (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
    Looking at them, I think all of those books are compilations of scientific papers, where each chapter has a different author. It's not surprising that they contain both forms, although it indicates lazy editing. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
A bit hasty maybe, I just believed what the other editors were saying, e.g. that it's abundantly attested. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
That's one of the reasons why we like citations in the entry (or on the citations page). DCDuring TALK 22:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Not in CFI though, it doesn't mention attestations in the entry just attestations. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
As we can't legislate that citers have more time, energy, or consideration of others to insert cites in the entry for ease of inspection by others, we would have to settle for rules that do not let RfVs close prematurely without citations, especially when no other dictionary has a similar definition or the term is a misspelling. Those are the cases, I think that benefit most from citations in the entry. DCDuring TALK 19:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Cited IMHO. There are many more cites available, almost entirely from technical works, many by authors whose name suggests that they may not be native speakers. I'd consider it a relatively uncommon misspelling. One article used three different spellings. The others used only this spelling multiple times. DCDuring TALK 23:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • RFV passed 2, now also with approval by DCDuring, it seems; striking out the heading. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, Dan, I approve of the cites that I took the trouble to actually insert in the entry for the benefit of those who might wonder about the validity of the entry and the quality of Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 19:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Removed the RFV. I think it's OK this time... Donnanz (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


RFV of the noun sense "A deliberately misleading explanation." and the verb sense "To give a deliberately false interpretation of." It's not in the OED, but it is in M-W. Anyway, it would be nice to have quotations. --WikiTiki89 15:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The OED has "to veil in specious language". This is the same sense, isn't it? This sense seems to be derived via both etymological routes. Dbfirs 16:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)



I don't think this satisfies WT:BRAND. Also, the entry here uses different capitalization than the company itself -- the proper brand name is apparently CyberKnife (c.f. google:cyberknife). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems to have been genericised to some extent:
  • 2007, György T. Szeifert, Radiosurgery and Pathological Fundamentals, page 47:
Typically, this latter approach is realized with Gamma Knife, with linacs that use the mulitple static noncoplanar converging arc technique (gantry moving during treatment with a beam shaped by an additional circular collimator) and with cyberknives.
  • 2007, Stephen J. Withrow, David M. Vail, Withrow and MacEwen's Small Animal Clinical Oncology, page 207:
Radiosurgery may use technology similar to that for IMRT or may be delivered with a cyberknife.
  • 2008, Yawei Zhang, Encyclopedia of Global Health: Q-Z, page 1463:
This technique uses gamma knives and cyberknives to specifically irradiate specific portions of the brain tumors.
  • 2010, Connie Yarbro, Debra Wujcik, Barbara Holmes Gobel, Cancer Nursing: Principles and Practice, page 298:
This technological combination enables the cyberknife to overcome the limitations of older frame-based radiosurgery equipment such as the gamma knife and LINAC.
  • 2011, Francisco Contreras, Beating Cancer: Twenty Natural, Spiritual, and Medical Remedies That Can Slow--and Even Reverse--Cancer's Progression, page 7:
"Meanwhile, even as I write these words, new technologies such as lasers, 3-D imaging devices, proton therapy, robotic surgery, DNA laboratory exams, cyberknives and fiber-optic cameras are assisting physicians in the field.
  • 2013, Jeff C. Bryan, Introduction to Nuclear Science, Second Edition, page 177
As a type of IGRT, cyberknife machines collect diagnostic images during therapy to optimize location of the beam.
I'd recommend moving this to lowercase cyberknife, and maybe having Cyberknife/CyberKnife as alternative case forms. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


Is this attested in use in the middle of an English sentence as an English word, ideally without italics? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I've added four quotations, for a total of five. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


Is this attested in use in the middle of an English sentence as an English word, ideally without italics? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Added a few citations. The top three all seem to be from books that italicise some foreign words, but not tovarich. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


The "Zero Force" sense specifically (set theory sense should be easy). Keφr 18:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Cited. Equinox 18:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The citations look rather adjectival; maybe the definition should be changed to "zero-force" (and put under an "Adjective" header)? Keφr 19:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


smaryy. Leasnam (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deleted as vandalism. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "A dish, based on Japanese cuisine, the chief ingredient of which is raw fish; sashimi."

I'm well aware that sushi is often defined by its fish component (same thing in Sweden), but that seems to always be in a context where sushi is actually served. People are clearly aware of the rice component, but are not aware that it actually defines it as sushi. However, going from that observation to creating a separate dictionary definition for the minor misunderstanding is making a lot of assumptions. And then to also define it as a type of synonym of sashimi just makes the argument both speculative and circular.

I'm all for adding a note about the confusion of fish vs rice, btw. But I'm against adding it as a separate sense unless it's described that way in other dictionaries.

Peter Isotalo 00:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The following quotations were added just recently:
    • 2002, Philip M. Tierno, The Secret Life of Germs: Observations and Lessons from a Microbe Hunter, page 144:
      "Never eat raw fish?" outraged sushi lovers will cry.
    • 2009, Roy MacGregor, The Complete Screech Owls, volume 3, page 16:
      I thought you'd have known all about sushi, Nish,” said Jenny.
      “What is it?” snarled Nish. “It looks alive!”
      “It's raw,” said Sarah. “Raw fish.”
    • 2012, Alison Acheson, Molly's Cue, page 26:
      'Can't eat sushi?' I said. Then Mom said, 'You can't eat uncooked fish when you're pregnant' as if I'm the one stupid enough to go and get pregnant!
The first one I simply removed outright since it doesn't imply anything other than that sushi usually contains raw fish. The third quote is pretty much the same thing. The context of the second quote can be found here.[70] A few sentences on, it describes the dish as "a little roll of rice with small, green sprigs of vegetable around it".
I'm getting the sense that this definition is there solely because people like focusing on a minor cultural misunderstanding. It smacks of proscriptive smugness. You know along the lines of "hahaa... well, I believe you actually mean sashimi". That's not a definition of words. It's more of an attempt to pretend you can read people's minds.
Peter Isotalo 08:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not about a "minor cultural misunderstanding" or prescriptive smugness, it's about sushi being used to describe meals that contain raw fish, even in contexts where no rice is involved:
  • I ordered the sushi burrito on the top of the menu: salmon, tuna, tempura shrimp, fried wonton strips, guacamole, radish sprouts, jalapenos, pickled sunomono, green onions, wasabi mayo and habanero sauce.
  • The wait is perhaps the most brilliant ploy conceivable to tease their customers, as the hammered and hungry must stand and watch others get their raw fish fill first. The novel sushi sandwich — fish wedged between crispy tempura chips — is a first for many and a must-try.
  • Maybe it was because I'd been eating too much pizza, or maybe I am just a sucker for bold flavors, but I could have eaten a lot of Morimoto's sushi pizza. He used a crisply grilled flour tortilla, topped it with an eel sauce, raw tuna, red onion and and jalapeno slivers, fresh tomatoes, and cilantro, and then finished it with an anchovy aioli and some Tabasco sauce.
The split in meanings is not unlike that which burger underwent - the word can denote either any type patty, or the sandwich around it (even though the original German dish has little to do with bread rolls or flat patties). Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, all of those examples are clearly compounds. It's "sushi <food>" in every instance, not just "sushi". "Burger" is very different, since that word can mean both patty and the sandwich it's included with. Not so with "sushi".
Again, I see no problem in adding more info on the rice/fish confusion, including association with tortillas, pizza and whathaveyou. But the noun "sushi" by itself does not mean "sashimi" since any attestation is based on personal assumptions of the reader, and a heavy dose of semantic proscription. There are tons of these misunderstandings, but that doesn't mean that we list Switzerland as a synonym for Sweden (happened all the time when I was in the US) or that "dollar" is a synonym for "currency".
Peter Isotalo 12:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The fact remains that a lot of people simply mean "raw fish" when they say "sushi". It may be technically incorrect, but that's the usage. Semantic change doesn't always make sense- nice used to mean ignorant or stupid, fond meant foolish, glad meant smooth or slick, sad meant heavy. Strictly speaking, gorillas aren't monkeys and specie isn't the singular of species- but I hear people use them that way all the time. In the real world most people who talk about sushi have never eaten it, and have no clue what sashimi is. Relegating the vast majority of usage to a usage note is what's proscriptive. I may not have cites handy, but a lifetime of hearing people use the word has to count for something. Actually, I do have a few: this, this and this clearly show that the writers are aware that most people think sushi means raw fish. These are proscriptive attempts to correct common, existing usage. I would even go so far as to say that this passes as clear widespread usage. Or how about this and this? Although they're clear about sushi containing rice, they also rely on "raw fish" being an essential part of the concept of sushi. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Sashimi is a specific type of dish just like sushi. It's "slices of fish" in the same sense that steak tartare is limited to "raw minced beef". Sashimi is served in a specific manner wich sauces and whathaveyou. And it's actually not even limited to fish, but can also include various mollusks, beef or even horse.
You pretty much have to see actual sashimi or at least be aware of it to literally identify it as "sushi". That calls for extremely specific attestations and none of the ones you've provided here comes even close. Most of of them are used in contexts where the language user clearly knows the distinction and is merely pointing out differences. The rest belong to the vague "ugh, raw fish is strange"-category of statements. That doesn't qualify as a separate meaning or language shift that comes even close to "sad" or "burger".
Peter Isotalo 06:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
It's pretty clear to me that sushi, to many English speakers, means a dish including raw fish.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Chuck that this is in widespread colloquial use. I humbly admit to having had the same the misunderstanding some decades ago.
@Peter Isotalo: re: "Well, all of those examples are clearly compounds". Well, they look like attributive use of the noun sushi. Attributive use counts for the semantics once something has been established as a noun. OTOH, SMurray's first cite contains a picture that shows that the product being described in fact has rice in it.
It is easy to add to Chuck's documentation of widespread acknowledgement of the popular misunderstanding, for example:
  • 2011, Judi Strada, ‎Mineko Takane Moreno, Sushi For Dummies:
    When we say “sushi,” what do you think? Raw fish, right? Think again! Sushi actually means vinegared rice, which is the key ingredient in every sushi recipe.
  • 2008, Lauren McCutcheon, A Virgin's Guide to Everything: From Sushi to Sample Sales:
    Sushi: Vinegared rice. (We know, we know, most of the world thinks sushi means raw fish. No reason to be like the rest of the world.)
It's harder to find documentation for an identity between sushi and shashimi, but not as hard to find assertions of identity between sushi and raw fish"
  • 1991, Eileen Nauman, My Only One, page 36:
    "Sushi? What is that?" He went back to his seat behind the desk and took the cover off his tray. "Raw fish. Everyone eats it over in Japan, and it's all the rage in the States now."
  • 2009, Anthony Horowitz, Return to Groosham Grange: The Unholy Grail:
    “What's sushi?” Eileen asked. She was feeling quite carsick. “It's raw fish!” Mildred explained enthusiastically.
  • 2012, Diana Palmer, Merciless, page 200:
    “Sushi is raw fish,” Markie said with his blunt honesty, and made a face.
I suggest that we strike sashimi from the definition and substitute raw fish. DCDuring TALK 04:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
That's a very good point. "Raw fish" seems to be the definition we've actually been debating.
Peter Isotalo 18:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


Symbol: "The fourth transfinite cardinal". I find it quite implausible. The fourth transfinite cardinal is a relatively dull mathematical object, and whenever one does need to refer to it, ℵ3 suffices; there is no need for this notation.

In fact, I doubt it is attestable in any consistent sense at all. On arXiv I could only find this paper (on page 43), which looks like an ad-hoc definition, and an astrophysics paper (page 9), which is not even a use, but a mention. Keφr 07:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A while ago, someone asked if was ever actually used, and User:Prosfilaes was able to ask the Unicode list, and someone there was able to dig up old paper records of why it was added to Unicode. Perhaps Prosfilaes can ask about this character and get some pointers to where it may have actually been used. Alternatively, perhaps User:Msh210 knows something about it. - -sche (discuss) 03:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


Alt form of lesbo, i.e. slang for lesbian. Equinox 18:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

As an Australian I hear this from time to time, usually used as derogatory slang among youth. I can find some hits on Google Groups, mostly on non-Usenet Australian groups, but they aren't really helpful in citing the term (and since they aren't Usenet groups, not relevant in any case). I'd be surprised if there isn't more out there, since this definitely exists in some circles. This, that and the other (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It's likely that this is confused with Lebo, another Australian slang term. I've definitely heard "lebo" being used to mean "lesbian" but maybe that is just the youth of today hearing the word "lebo" and assuming it is a shortening of "lesbian", when originally it was a shortening of "Lebanese". This, that and the other (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Ha, there's an old joke about that... [71]. - -sche (discuss) 02:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

organised loiteringEdit

Nothing in Google Books. Nothing in Google Groups. About 20 hits in a Web search, and even those are mainly mentions. Equinox 19:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I tried Googling organized loitering and got a few hits, including "I think baseball is "organized loitering". Donnanz (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


One strong citation for this on Google Books:

The situation is about to get a googolfold worse.

The only other one I can find there is absolute word salad, which I don't think can be used to cite anything:

Mickey King Kong was a vampire, who was minutely one of the more than supermillionfold, millionesque, submillion, googolesque, googolfold, googolplexesque, and googolplexfold quasi-reincarnations of the great cone and Janie Seymour, being combinations of supervampirism, superlyncanthropy, super-O, superstigmata, piezoelectricity, superelectricity, tertiary abiogenesis, superabiogenesis, tertiary carmot, and supercarmot.

No sign of any adjectival use (e.g., no "googolfold increases"). Can anyone help? Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Usenet yields a couple of results: [72], [73]. There’s also one for googlefold: [74]. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've added three citations for the adverb sense, including the first Google Books quote that you gave above. I note, though, that the Google Books quote uses a hyphen ("googol-fold"), but the hyphen occurs at a line break, so it's unclear whether the intended spelling is "googolfold" or "googol-fold". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


Pursuant to the post in the TR, I couldn't find anything in BGC that was actually the exact word "allotroph" once I clicked on it that wasn't in fact a mention or the second sense, although I'm RFVing the whole thing since I'm not sure the second sense should be included either, as it is not exactly a misspelling but certainly not accurate, either. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

WP treats allotroph as a redirect to w:Heterotroph.
Our definition seems silly: where else would energy come from, the nuclear reactor one was born with?
I see apparent uses of allotroph more often in German scholarly works, with a meaning something like heterotroph, I think. I must leave that to someone with better German and biology/biochemistry than mine.
I saw English use at Google Scholar of allotroph where allotrope seems to me to be what was meant. DCDuring TALK 01:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The definition might be simultaneously silly and true. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Would you like to wager that the definition in German would not translate to ours? (Not to say that one would not be able to see the source of the error.) DCDuring TALK 00:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


Tatar in Roman letters. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Some comments. We have deleted (after some failed RFV's) a number of Tatar entries in Latin spelling.
  1. Officially and most commonly, Tatar (Volga Tatar, not Crimean Tatar, a similar but a different language) is written in Cyrillic.
  2. The correct Tatar romanisation of "Бангладеш" is "Bangladeş", not "Bangladesh".
  3. There are some "efforts" to move Tatar, Kazakh and Kyrgyz spellings from Cyrillic into Latin on corresponding Wiktionaries, often helped by Turks. It happens before Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tatarstan (a republic in Russia) officially adopted Latin. The change may eventually happen (as with Uzbek, Turkmen and Crimean Tatar) but I think it's unhelpful to use the alphabet, which is not in common use.
  4. The changes are made by nationalists, not linguists, so there are many inconsistencies and mistakes. Turkish (-Tatar, etc.) dictionaries use incorrect forms and are full of mistakes. In most cases, the words cannot be verified. The artificial Tatar Latin spellings usually follow Turkish, English, Crimean Tatar or other spellings. The conversions results in a loss, e.g. letter "ь" is often ignored in the Roman spelling.

--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

  • This is RFV; it should only matter whether this spelling is attested in Tatar writing. It should not matter what is official and what is not. The fact that this is Tatar in Roman letters is not sufficient for removal via RFV, as per WT:CFI#Attestation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    No rule against discussing entries on this page Dan Polansky. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    Just making sure we go by attestation, not by "this is not the official script", for which, as you know, there have been some tendencies around here despite English Wiktionary's being a descriptivist dictionary. Also making sure that, after this fails as unattested, it is not used as evidence of practice of going by an "official" script. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    By all means, Dan. There is no harm in giving some background. I'm interested to see how much (Volga) Tatar is written in Roman, which may affect Tatar entries in Roman letters. Previous RFV's showed that a number of Tatar written in Roman were actually Crimean Tatar or were copied from from Turkish-Tatar dictionaries with no attestation, some were just made up and could not be found. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    Exactly, sometimes you have citations but it's unclear or disputed in what language they actually are. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


A Hawaiian name for a small town in Chile? And one with an impossible syllable structure for Hawaiian (the glottal stop ʻ, like all consonants in Hawaiian, must be followed by a vowel)? I'm skeptical. Hawaiian is an LDL so a single mention is sufficient. Google has nothing but us and mirrors. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The same editor added some other translations of Pichilemu that don't seem to turn up any Google results outside of Wikimedia projects and mirrors—I've added some of them below, but there are others too. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe there was an Old English entry as well, which, if memory serves, failed rfv. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Picelemu. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi there guys. I don't recall where exactly this spelling was obtained, probably from my IRC chats back in 2010 (?). Anyways, if there is no source for these spellings, best thing should be to delete them. I have no worries about that. Regards and, everyone keep up the good job at keeping Wiktionary as a correct tool! --Diego Grez (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


Lithuanian and Serbo-Croatian. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


Latin. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


Azeri. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


Latin. This one is harder to search for, since it's spelled the same way as the English and Spanish words, but I can't find anything durably archived that looks like Latin. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)