Wiktionary:Requests for verification

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for verification

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
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 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/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.

Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, 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: This page is for disputing the existence of terms or senses. It is 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 citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic or "sum of parts" should be posted to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. Requests to confirm that a certain etymology is correct should go in the Etymology scriptorium, and requests to confirm pronunciation is correct should go in the Tea Room.

Adding a request: To add a request for verification (attestation), add the template {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new section 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 place to check, others are listed here (WT:SEA).

Answering a request by providing an attestation: To attest a disputed term, i.e. 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. (If this assertion is not obviously correct, or is challenged by multiple editors, it will likely be ignored, necessitating the following step.)
  • 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. (Many languages are subject to other requirements; see WT:CFI.)

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. Some editors strike out the discussion header at this time.

In some cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply "RFV failed" or "RFV passed" (for example, two senses may have been nominated, of which only one was cited).

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. This consists of removing the discussion from this page, and copying it to the entry's talk-page (using {{archive-top|rfv}} + {{archive-bottom}}). 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:non-lemma, Talk:accident-blackspot.

Oldest tagged RFVs

September 2015Edit


Is this attested in Classical Latin? Old Latin is a separate language on Wiktionary. —CodeCat 01:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Obviously this is Old Latin, but it appears that Cicero used it once (Epistulae ad Atticum —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
There is something that looks like "authemonis" in that letter, but there seems to be some doubt about whether it is "aut hemonis", Greek αὐθήμερον, or a corruption of something else. See the footnotes here: [1]. But I'm no expert. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat, Metaknowledge, Mr. Granger I've added a usage note as a disclaimer. As far as I'm concerned, it may be more valuable to keep the entry so that people can at least be aware of the possible existence of the word, despite the fact that it's merely one of multiple interpretations of a corrupted text fragment. The inflected forms beside hemonis may have to be deleted, though. Anyway, this has been here since the summer of 2015, probably good to settle this one at some point... — Kleio (t · c) 18:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

October 2015Edit


Latin. May be attested in New Latin to mean "moth", but I'm not sure what else. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

See Ancient Greek φάλαινα (phálaina), alt form of φάλλαινα (phállaina) ("whale, moth, monster"), related to Latin balaena (whale), cf. baleen whale. I don't know quite how to sort this out. DCDuring TALK 00:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
To start with, we don't have Ancient Greek sections in either of those entries. As far as I can tell, the one with the double letter is the original form, but it has been displaced by the later form with the single letter, which was also borrowed into Classical Latin, except the "ph" changed to a "b", for some reason. I think we're dealing with two different, but homographic words in Ancient Greek, with only the one meaning whale making it into Latin. The one meaning moth is used in taxonomic Latin, giving rise to the obsolete generic name Phalaena, and appearing in compounds such as Phalaenopsis. Even if this spelling exists, it should be changed to an alternative form of balaena, which was the only form common enough to have descendants among the Romance languages. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
So far I've only been able to find this and this. Note that both are discussing Ancient Greek word use in Ancient Greek texts. This is a mention in an English footnote that seems to say that phalaena is found as a variant in one manuscript that contains a fragment of a Latin text. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

I found the following on Google Books:

(moth): Appearances in a commentary (looks like just uncapitalised Phalaena), a quote (second hit), an entry about a mite, an endnote and in a translation (translating φάλαγξ it seems)
(whale): Appearances in a translation and several endnotes

The sense "whale" is quite hard to find. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2015Edit

holla backEdit

Two senses as a verb, I don't see any clear uses of either one on Google Books or Groups (some uses are describing a reply, but they are also literal holla + back, there's no use I see where it just means "reply"). There is a popular song called "Holla Back Girl" (which implies "holla back" should mean "to respond to a man's sexual overtures") but I don't see any citable use of that as a verb either (that one's not given in the entry, I just wanted to throw it out there before anyone asks about the slang def). I'm not sure about the noun defs 1 and 2 either, but not nomming them right now. WurdSnatcher (talk)

It's really common American slang, especially for hip hop culture. I'd be surprised if there are no cites because it's what one in ten American boys born in the 80's or later says if they want you to contact them later for any reason. "Holla back at me!" will be heard every ten seconds if you go to any big city, often with an affectionate nigga at the end especially if the speaker is a black man or a white teenager. AliHautala (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

cliff notesEdit

"CliffsNotes" seems to be a trade name for a provider of study notes. Can it be cited as a genericised term? This, that and the other (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

More common as "Cliff notes" or "Cliff Notes", but citeable.
  • 2014, CP Moore, Legacy of the Gods, CP Moore (ISBN 9781506191577)
    Well, of course there's more, a lot more. But that's the cliff notes of what faces us once we find Sanderson.
  • 2012, Gary Wayne Clark, The Devolution Chronicles: Rise of the Chimera, Lulu.com (ISBN 9780985343828), page 105
    Ryker stepped forward and blurted out the cliff notes of the current crisis.
  • 2015, Jack Fisher, The Escort and the Gigolo, Lulu Press, Inc (ISBN 9781483429977)
    “If this is you being serious, I'll just give you the cliff notes of the plan for tonight,” said Ray.
Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
That's very good, and I've put that in the entry. But the sense in these cites is different from what is in the entry now: "A summary of a much longer work designed to allow a student to quickly learn the key points of the longer work". Can that sense be cited? This, that and the other (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd just stick with the broader "summary of anything"-type sense. Purplebackpack89 23:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Given the citations, it seems to have entered the lexicon. I would prefer us to have Cliff capitalised (Cliff notes) like the first name it derives from; is that not more common than the lower-case form? Equinox 01:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
RFV-passed: the lowercase spelling is attested (see citations above), the uppercase version is now the lemma, and the definition is now broadened. - -sche (discuss) 02:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


I don't think any of these senses make it as English, but before converting the entry to Middle English (probably with a different lemma form), I thought I'd bring it here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It's just an alternative spelling of quede. Dbfirs 22:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
quede and qued should be merged. Since there is more at qued, I suppose it can go there (?) Leasnam (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I also believe that quede and qued should be merged, because these two are just two different forms of the same word, and in my opinion, they should be treated as such. Mountebank1 (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

"qued" spelt thusly is in Roget's Descriptive Word Finder page 141 by Barbara Kipfer, 2003, meaning "evil, bad". Sk4p (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

None of the OED's quotations at their entry for quede and its numerous alternative spellings show the qued spelling after 1450. This looks to be a Middle English-only spelling. DCDuring TALK 15:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

pack inEdit

One of the oldest requests for definition (open since 2009) is the use of "pack in" in American football. I can find no citations that are specific to American football - mostly I find things like "pack in the crowds", which is covered by another definition. Kiwima (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't think of a non-SoP US football sense, but I also can't think of any other non-SoP senses - and evidently others think they can. I guess I should just pack it in as an amateur lexicographer. DCDuring TALK 20:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it's generally ok to remove {{rfdef}} when there are other definitions and no citations. How are we supposed to guess what the other meanings are without even evidence to look at? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: Without the RfV we could be seen as asserting that there definitely is a US football definition, though we can't word it properly. Conversely, the RfV is a challenge to any US football definition. The citation search work for any US football sense is generally not too much more than for one.
An alternative is to have a comment (displayed or not?) in the {{rfdef}}. I lean toward allowing the RfV of a def line with only a label and {{rfdef}}. DCDuring TALK 13:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I've got a couple of cites from rugby (that's the same as American football isn't it? just not so much girlie protection) but I'm not sure that the vrbb is not pack plus the preposition in.
The first one is clearly just "pack" plus the preposition "in": The next sentance begins "Before deciding how to pack, ". The second one looks similar, but is not as clear Kiwima (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The citations do not seem to me to be using in#Preposition, but rather in#Adverb. That might make it SoP or it might be a phrasal verb. The citations make it seem that there might be a "technical" meaning for pack#Verb in rugby. DCDuring TALK 15:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)



Rfv-sense for Frenchman. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Just google for "žabar" "francuz" (with quote marks) and you'll find results that corroborate such usage. Fojr (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you provide evidence? I tried it and it gets tonnes of hits, but in Polish. Also Google on its own not an acceptable source. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Examples of usage with the sense "Frenchman", from the first couple of pages of Google's results : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Fojr (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Any CFI-meeting ones? Renard Migrant (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The number of occurences of that sense suggests a "clearly widespread usage". Fojr (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll take that as a no, then. Bare in mind it's not up to me. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "Mormon film industry"; @Keith the Koala, I know it's real but I see a lot of mentions and few (if any) unambiguous uses. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that they are mostly mentions, but some move more into the use territory, and the 2012 cite is definitely a use:
  • 2007, Brigham Young University Studies - Volume 46, page 142:
    LDS filmmakers had reacted against Hollywood's stereotypes but only succeeded in creating their own, and some detractors pejoratively dismissed the entire Mormon film movement as "Mollywood".
  • 2007, Robert Van Voorst, Anthology of World Scriptures, ISBN 0495503878, page 362:
    One exception is the Latter-day Saint church, which has its own motion-picture operation (nicknamed Mollywood).
  • 2012, Elisha McIntyre, Handbook of New Religions and Cultural Production, ISBN 9004226486, page 74:
    Mollywood is not an official Church institution, although the Church has been using film as a tool for religious education since the early twentieth century.
  • 2012, J. Michael Hunter, Mormons and Popular Culture, ISBN 0313391688:
    The fledgling movement had earned the nickname “Mollywood” and audiences who had flocked to God's Army and The Singles Ward now avoided anything with Mormon material.
  • 2013, Nadia Marzouki & ‎Olivier Roy, Religious Conversions in the Mediterranean World, ISBN 1137004908:
    Rigal-Cellard's comments about 'Mormon culture' demonstrate that, more than a mere religion, Mormonism indeed appears like a culture, a way of life encompassing all aspects of daily life. American Mormons have their own music (the Church-sponsored traditional Mormon Tabernacle Choir or non-Church sponsored Mormon boy band 'Evercleen'), are encouraged to dress 'modestly', and there is even a Mormon cinema ('Mollywood').
Kiwima (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure mention is strictly forbidden. CFI requires citations "conveying meaning" which could conceivably include mentions, provided they aren't "made-up examples of how a word might be used". Although all but the first citation might fall under that, the strongest cases are the 2013 and the two 2007 quotes, with the term nearly appearing as an appositive. I mean, how would we feel about the example given in CFI if it were slightly modified?
  • They raised a small sail forward of the mainsail (the jib) in order to get the most out of the light wind.
Is this substantially different from the one explicitly allowed? DAVilla 06:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Usages in brackets are still usages, but the 2013 quote has single quotations with it (books.google). The cites with quotation marks IMHO are just mentionings, but see also Shiaphilia, its version history and the talk page. As for the cite with "nicknamed Mollywood", I'm unsure about it, but I'd tend to "mentioning". The 2012 cite of Elisha McIntyre is a usage. If it is RFV failed, then the term could be added to Appendix:List of protologisms/G-P#M. -Ikiaika (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

December 2015Edit


From Bailey's An Universal Etymological English Dictionary (1721), via Webster 1913. Bailey does give this definition (though it's a bit longer and stylistically different) but no examples. Any usage? Equinox 14:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

What I get from this [2] is that Bailey's original definition was of writing that was unnecessarily great or prodigious. This would fit with the "monstrous" etymology of the word. Johnson's contraction of Bailey's wordy definition has somehow lost the original meaning and our entry has followed Johnson. It seems to me that there is a valid third meaning but it needs rewriting. Richard Kearney seems to think that this is a medieval term (study of monsters - all too credible for that era) and he is re-coining it with a new purpose;
  • This third approach I term—borrowing from medieval parlance—a teratology of the sublime in that it focuses on the "monstrous" character of God.[3]
  • ...I would identify a more recent and widespread tendency to remove evil from the realm of a properly human interpretation: what I call a postmodern teratology of the sublime.[4]
With "study, or writing, of monsters" as a definition, or even Bailey's "monstrous writing", there are more cites available;
  • Mieville's fictions as sublime backwash, inclusive of teratological angels and teratological shit, inclusive of the language of flowers and of the solar anus...[5]
  • In this way, this analysis has aimed at expanding gaga feminism by undertaking a critical teratology, that is, of course, the study of monsters.[6] (they're talking about Ladu Gaga!)
  • In Jack London's urban gothic, the city's teratological economy comes to light in grotesque animal allegories.[7]
  • A Final Teratology [8] (section heading)
  • Miranda Francus notes that in the West, the image of the fecund female has often been associated with monstrosity: 'misogyny and teratology have always met in the image of the maternal monster'.[9]
  • Despite being productive in embodying and critiquing human problems, however, teh incorporation of the cyborg into teratology overlooks one important aspect that distinguishes this cybernetic creature from the rest of the monster phylum: we are able to choose how to fabricate and use the cyborg.[10]
SpinningSpark 20:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

bosom friendEdit

Rfv-sense - sense "body louse". SemperBlotto (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added some citations to the citations page, but they're not particulalrly strong ones. SpinningSpark 23:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems like to just be a sarcastic usage of the first sense, not something idiomatic, and surely not 'slang'. — Kleio (t · c) 18:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


"The belief that human beings have a spiritual nature beyond the physical body characterized by in-dwelling Divinity." I can see the word in Google Books but it seems to mean something like a human-centred view (anthropocentrism). Equinox 10:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I found a few quotes:
  • 1866, John Quarry, Genesis and Its Authorship: Two Disserations, page 108:
    Such a representation would present a real difficulty, if we were obliged to understand all this in its strict literal import, implying, as it would, very unworthy conceptions of God on the part of the writer. The difficulty vanishes, however, when it is perceived that this is only and instance of a prevailing anthropism which charaterises the whole narrative.
  • 1992, David Kolb, New Perspectives on Hegel's Philosophy of Religion, ISBN 079141437X, page 67:
    Homeric, and to an extent Hesiodic, myth amounts to "perfected anthropism," depicting the divine-made-human
  • 2014, G. V. Loewen, Place Meant: Hermeneutic Landscapes of the Spatial Self, ISBN 0761864938, page 172:
    In transitioning from anywhere to everywhere, we must reinvent the means of reading the world as containing both an autograph—though we do not presume to attach it either to a divinity or to an anthropism—and an hermeneutic.
Although I have some doubts about the 2014 quote. Kiwima (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I found another one:
  • 1979, John Carew Eccles, The Human Mystery: The GIFFORD Lectures., ISBN 3540090169, page 2:
    I have seen the question asked "why should mind have a body?" the answer may well run "to mediate between it and other mind". It might be objected that such a view is undiluted 'anthropism.' To that we might reply, anthropism seems the present aim of the planet though presumably not its enduring aim.
Kiwima (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


A male given name. I seem to recall there was a guy called Egg in This Life (1990s sitcom thing) but I assumed it was a nickname. (Update: it was short for Edgar.) Equinox 09:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Short for Egbert ? Leasnam (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
@Equinox, Leasnam: I see sufficient citations at google books:"Egg said" to demonstrate that males goes by this name. One of the cites makes it clear that it's short for Edward, but the others seem to be ambiguous. What do you think we should do to the entry? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I think we should mention that it is also a surname (Thomas Egg, Joanne Egg, Rudolph Egg, et al.); and just mention that Egg as a forename (given) name can be a shortened version of Edward, and Egbert if that be the case Leasnam (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


Norman, by Embryomystic, from 2012. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Well, it is certainly defined on the BBC's vocabulary page as described. Also at OLDict.com

January 2016Edit


--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

A few cites?
Pretty sure these are the same POS. I did also find other POS'es, probably not the same one. AliHautala (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Are any of those durably archived? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Liberal RepublicanEdit

Rfv-sense: Does this term exist with this definition except as an alternative form of SoP liberal + Republican? DCDuring TALK 15:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Conservative DemocratEdit

Analogous to above. DCDuring TALK 15:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  • DCDuring, these two terms have a set meaning, which encompasses parts (but not all) of the two words they are composed of. Liberal Republicans tend to be liberal on certain issues; conservative Democrats tend to be conservative on the same issues. I can produce stacks of Google Books citations that use the term (for example, search for "Liberal Republican" and civil rights); and I believe the terms should be kept, SoP or no. Purplebackpack89 15:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    I doubt it. Facts before arguments. Let's see the citations. DCDuring TALK 16:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    This isn't even an RfV, @DCDuring. This is just and RfD pretending to be an RfV. I will cite the definitions as written. SOP is not a question for RfV and I will not bother trying to meet your off-topic SOP threshold. Purplebackpack89 17:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    @DCDuring I have added citations for LR. Those citations bear out the definition as written. If they pass muster, I'll add citations for CD later. Purplebackpack89 18:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    Not one of the three citations offered at Liberal Republican is for the headword. Try again. DCDuring TALK 19:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    If you're complaining that they are for "liberal Republican" instead of "Liberal Republican", by god, I can just flip which is the primary and which is the alternative. Otherwise, the citations are valid. Purplebackpack89 20:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    Virtually no-one, bar a handful of ideologues, is liberal or conservative on every single issue. There are at least two groups of "conservative Democrats" in the US - social-conservative Blue Dogs and fiscal-conservative New Democrats (I can find cites calling both conservative Democrats). Not all conservative Democrats fit the definition given, it seems, and I'd be surprised if all "liberal Republicans" do either. Smurrayinchester (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    Well, I doubt they use LR and CD to refer to people who are 90-10. But you do concede that this definition is a valid description of some people, Murray? Purplebackpack89 20:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Do I think that there are Republicans who are (relatively) liberal and Democrats who are (relatively) conservative? Sure (as you can see from the citations I linked). Do I think that liberal Republican means anything more than a Republican who is liberal? No. Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
But, Murray, isn't your second question an RfD one instead of an RfV one? Purplebackpack89 23:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete, or move to RFD, then delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the only way to find out if this is SOP is to read every use of LibRep and ConsDem on Google Books and find out if, in practice, the terms are always used the way Purplebackpack89 has defined them. Let's do some researching! Khemehekis (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


It is given as ńīr- in George Starostin's Proto-Dravidian database, without the final vocal, but apparently with a palatalised (?) n. — Ivadon (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Starostin is definitely not reliable for something like this. @AxaiosRex might be able to help reference this reconstruction. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you know “A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary” by T. Burrow and M. B. Emeneau whence he derived his work? — Ivadon (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Given as “3690 Ta. nīr” in T. Burrow (1984). I see no difference in quality to G. Starostin's version, but at least there were no bad Nostraticists at work at that time! --— Ivadon (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

My memory is that Burrow & Emeneau put them under Tamil rather than actually reconstructing the PDrav roots (hence the Ta. above), weirdly enough. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it seems to have been a common practice to put Tamil on the same level as Proto-Dravidian, probably because of its long written tradition. — Ivadon (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


RFV of the Latin adjective's declension. Tagged but not listed. The reason given was "Please verify the declension. E.g. it should be more likely that the nominative neuter form is 'monoīdes' like it also is 'neuroīdes' (neuter noun) and not 'neuroīdēs'." — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I made an exhaustive check, and can confirm that neuroīdes is a hapax legomenon and is only attested in the nominative singular. AFAICT, the only evidence that suggests that the e in the ult is short is that it represents, etymologically, an epsilon rather than an eta. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Dictionaries mention words ending in -oides in different ways. Sometimes it's like "āeroīdēs, is (ἀεροειδής)" and sometimes like "nētoīdēs, es (νητοειδής, ές)". So in case of netoides it's said that the neuter form is short. In case of aeroides it might look like the neuter form is long (i.e. all nominative singular forms being the same), but it might also be short as it is in case of netoides and Greek νητοειδής. Furthermore:
  • In case of some words ending in -oides dictionaries state that the accusative (also) ends in -ēn (instead of -em).
  • Why should the neuter nominative plural end in -ia and not in -a and the genitive in -ium and not just in -um? In case of Latin adjectives it might be -ia, but Latin words derived from Greek aren't always declined like normal Latin words, thus normal Latin declension doesn't proof anything.
  • As for rhomboides:
    1. Googling for "rhomboidium" didn't seem to bring up any good results. In biological/medical terms that is a form of an adjective as in "Veryhachium rhomboidium". But I couldn't find any Latin usage of "rhomboidium". "rhomboidum" instead lead to an Latin sentence where it is used next to "rhomboidibus" and to a German example ("Theilung der Rhomboidum"; Germans once declined Latin words like Romans do, which includes the usage of vocative and ablative).
    2. Some dictionaries state that it is feminine, while others state that it is neuter. Maybe it's both depending on the author? Or maybe there are (older) text where the gender isn't obvious. In case of neuter gender, the plural should rather be "rhomboidia" or "rhomboida". Googling didn't seem to bring up a result for that. That is, the plural might be different (maybe "rhomboide" like it is pelage for pelagus), or maybe the plural for the neuter was never used, or maybe it never was neuter and some dictionaries are incorrect.
- 13:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
An interesting find:
  • diopetēs” on page 546/3 of the Oxford Latin Dictionary (1st ed., 1968–82):
    diopetēs ⁓ēs ⁓es, a. [Gk. διοπετής] Fallen from the sky.
So the OLD does explicitly make the length distinction in the neuter for that adjective. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
As the RFV is older than one year (! - by the intro it would have to be removed one month after the discussion ended) and as there is most likely no proof for any vowel length, I copied the note from isosceles (which information is fine, but maybe could be phrased a little bit better).
As for acc. sg. -ēn or -em: Greek acc. -εα (μονοειδέᾰ, ἰσοσκελέᾰ) would lead to *-ea (monoidea, isoscelea). So an acc. -ēn seems to be 'incorrect'. It should belong to substantive nouns in -oides (e.g. in Georges "amygdaloīdēs, Akk. ēn, m.") and it should come from first declension nom. -ης, acc. -ην; hence in Latin's first declension nom. -ēs, gen. -ae, acc. -ēn and sometimes in Late Latin also -em from the 3rd delension, as comētēs.
It seems like one can find "triangulum Isoscelen" in Frenchmen's New Latin and "einen Triangulum Isoscelen" in German (triangulum here being the accusative of the masculine triangulus). But this is rare, New Latin, might be an error (a grammatical error or a printing error), and "triangulum isoscelem" is more common though the masculine form is rarer than the neuter "triangulum isosceles". "triangulum isoscelea" seems not to be findable, thus also not attestable [making the distionction of "findable" and "attestable" here as a found could contain an error in some way and as one found most likely wouldn't be sufficient for attesting a completely new declension form]. In NL one can also find monoidem: "[...] ut diximus, monoidem seu unius spsciei [typo of speciei] vocant differentiam", "[...] quam dicunt Monoidem.", "[...] nominibus dictas recedendo, scilicet monoidem, dichotomum et amphicrytos [...]" (Alberti Magni De natura boni, Monasterii Westfalorum, 1974). So it clearly should be monoidem.
As for plural -ia/-a and -ium/-um: rhomboides is a substantive noun, and when adjectives become substantivised they can 'change' their inflection, like serpens meaning snake from the participle serpens originally has gen.pl. -ium and later also -um. But for rhomboides it might be more likely that people simply declined it like nomen (pl. nomina, gen. nominum). So that doesn't say anything about adjectives like monoides.
However, it seems like no neuter plural monoidia, monoidium (or monoida, monoidum) is attestable. But as isosceles has these forms it should be good enough. If every form would have to be attested, than many forms would be missing here. E.g. while one might say "o (stupid/good) dog" (vocative), it's leass likely that one says "o toilett paper". Thus many vocatives would have to be removed or marked with a star even though there is no doubt that it is the correct form one would use if needed.
To sum it up: The entry should be okey now. (If not, please re-tag it with RFV.)
- 04:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

2nd RFV: attestationEdit

The referenced authorities for monoīdēs (L&S and Gaffiot) both cite the preface to the fourth of Julius Firmicus Maternus's Matheseos libri VIII. However, Firmicus does not use monoīdēs (uniform) there, and nor does he anywhere else, it seems; the word Firmicus uses — a little later — is mēnoīdēs (crescent-shaped). See the entry for the genuine term as well as Talk:monoides#Requested cite for more information. Since that leaves monoīdēs without ancient attestation, I request the word's verification, with a view to discovering its date of first attestation. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym: The first request was for the inflection, this is for the existence.
The cite above - see "Alberti Magni De natura boni, Monasterii Westfalorum, 1974" wich is clearly a bad one because of a spelling or printing error - should attest it, at least for NL, or ML when it's quote of Albertus Magnus. And then there might be older NL usages.
As for ancient attestation: Dictionary references for monoides are "Firm. Math. 4 praef.", "Firm. Math. 4, praef.", "Firm. math. 4. praef. p. 85, 5 ed. Basil.", and for menoides "Firm. Math. 4 praef. fin.", "Firm. Math. 4", "Firm. math. 4. praef. extr.". So it might depend on the edition. I'd guess you used an edition by W. Kroll and F. Skutsch like "Iulii Firmici Materni matheseos libri VIII ediderunt W. Kroll et F. Skutsch. Lipsiae [in Leipzig], MDCCCXCVII [1897]" and not the "ed. Basil.". Some editions do indeed have monoides like "Iulii Firmicima terni iunioris siculi u. c. ad mauortium Lollianum Astronomicῶn [with Greek ῶ] Lib. VIII per Nicolaum Prucknerum Astrologum nuper ab innumeris mendis uindicati. Basileae [in Basel], mense martio, anno M. D. XXXIII [March 1533]" (google), p. 85: "Est itaq; ☽ [that's a moon form] aut synodica, aut plena, aut dichotomos, aut monoides, aut amphycitos, & p_ has mutatas formas cursus menstrui luminis complet." -q; and p_ are Latin abbreviations which I can't type.
So, as for ancient Latin one could add a note mentioning that it depends on edition. Maybe one could even state that old and incorrect editions have monoides while it's menoides nowadays, but I don't know if that's the case.
Maybe another example in ancient Latin: "uniforme, quod monoides Graeci dicunt" by Aphthonius (e.g. in Henricus Keilius's edition and in CGL's edition). Well, maybe one could argue that it's just a transcription and a mentioning, but some words used in similar sentences are included in dictionaries like L&S. And I guess in other similar cases the words can have clearly Latin endings, though I don't have any example at hand. So here the problem would just be that the neuter monoides has -es in nominative and accusative in Latin and in transcribed Greek.
Other examples in NL: "... aut monoidem, i.e. uniformem ..." (1710, J. Conr. Barchusen in reference to Firm.), "... cum luna primo est accensa et crescens et monoides ..." ("Museum für Altdeutsche Literatur und Kunst. Zweiter Band. Berlin 1811", p. 130, from Germans mentioning and quoting an old manuscript, so it could be ML and not NL), "In principio fuit Ecclesia quasi luna in defectu, quum appellatur Monoides." ("Spicilegium Solesmense complectens sanctorum patrum scriptorumque ecclesiasticorum anecdota hactenus opera [...] curante domno J. B. Pitra. Tomus secundus. Parisiis [in Paris], M DCCC LV [1855]", p. 66). From a German MHG dictionary: "wenn der môn aller smalsihtigist und sô er ze latein monoides haiȥt Megb. 442, 30.", thus monoides should appear in ML - and may it be erroneously in Firm.'s work.
So I guess an entry is justified, but it needs a usage note regarding Firm.'s work and references to it or usages based on it. - 18:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for "(Cantonese) quarter of an hour" sense. I was unable to find an independent source for this outside of the Unihan Database. Bumm13 (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bumm13 I don't know if this is how it's written (since it's a loan from English quarter), but it is used in Cantonese (pronounced as gwat1). —This unsigned comment was added by Justinrleung (talkcontribs) at 18:03, 23 January 2016‎ (UTC).
FWIW Cantonese Wikipedia has the relevant page named "". —suzukaze (tc) 05:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


English. Entered to mean (humorous) Expression of disturbance and confusion because someone has been running circles around them (see Etymology). --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Google Books has 0 hits. All uses in a regular Google search seemed to be either quotations from Blackadder (the program in which the word was introduced), or non-quoted borrowings from its lexicon by the show's fans for message board postings, blogs, or user names. I couldn't find any evidence of independent usage, and certainly nothing to suggest that the word is ever used for its literal meaning, which is hardly surprising, considering that 1) there would be few occasions in one's lifetime where such a term would come in handy, children on a playground notwithstanding (they're unlikely to know such a word); 2) only fans of Blackadder would have the slightest idea what the user was talking about; and 3) since combobulation means "arranging, composing, or organizing", pericombobulation actually means the opposite of what it's supposed to, thereby making the term even less useful and more confusing (although not quite arising to the level of being discombobulating). P Aculeius (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
google books:"pericombobulation", google groups:"pericombobulation", pericombobulation at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
All of which translates to zero usability. Just because Google Books turns up a book doesn't mean the word is in it. If you search the text of the listed books, you won't find "pericombobulation" in them. Even without looking I can state without fear of contradiction that it does not occur in The Cat in the Hat. If the word were used in any of the books, there would likely be a quoted passage for each one showing the usage. The only hit is "Urban Dictionary", which as we all know is a perfectly useless web site for establishing that a word has an established, independent usage. All of the message board hits appear to be direct quotations of the dialogue in "Blackadder". The online dictionary search turned up zero hits in real dictionaries; the only hit was for "Urban Dictionary". So we're exactly where we were before. P Aculeius (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The searches I posted are for convenience of whoever tries to attest the term, including a search that includes Usenet. Of course, not every hit found in these searches meets WT:ATTEST. A similar helper template generates pericombobulation - OneLook - Google "pericombobulation" (BooksGroupsScholarNews Archive). --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I believe it is attestable from Usenet, and have just added 3 cites (one for the plural). It always appears to be used self-consciously with the knowledge of its Blackadder origins, though not always as a direct quotation. Our definition might be too specific. Equinox 18:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
According to WT:ATTEST, "Attested means verified through: 1) clearly widespread use, or 2) use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year...." We're definitely not talking about a word in widespread use, so it must meet all of the criteria in the second clause. Does the word "convey meaning" in the example sentences?
  • Example 1: "We have identified an anuspeptic [sic], some would say phrasmotic [sic], phased paradigm shift in the market of interphrastic proportions. It's causing much contrafribbilarities [sic] and indeed much pericombobulation in the ABC1 sector. Frankly, we're Donald Ducked." The preceding sentence makes clear that this example was deliberate nonsense intended to confuse an audience. The word was not used to convey meaning.
  • Example 2: You'll have to excuse Justin's hypersyllabic pericombobulations. Someone dropped a thesaurus on his head and he's still a bit dizzy. Here the writer apparently meant peregrinations, but used the wrong word. He was describing someone using very long words (hence "hypersyllabic" and the reference to a thesaurus), not a state of disarray induced by being run circles around. Probably the writer did not have a clear idea of what the word meant and did not care, as long as it sounded very complicated and would not be recognized by his audience, consisting of fans of the Toronto Blue Jays.
  • Example 3: Oh come now, I for one am quite phrasmotic for the pericombobulation Paul has suffered, and can only wish that in future he will have the sense to complete his assignments more interphrastically. The sentence makes no sense, as its meaning depends not just on the term in question, but upon two other nonsense words from the same source, neither of which has any known definition. It is possible for the word to have its alleged meaning in this sentence, but out of context we have no idea what it means, or whether the unfortunate Paul has been run circles around at all, and since the rest of the sentence is nonsense, it seems highly improbable that the word was used for its ostensible meaning.
  • Example 4: I hope this is not causing the poster any pericombobulations. It is not apparent from the context whether the word is being used for its alleged meaning here, or if the user simply meant "discomfort" or "difficulty" and chose the second cousin once removed of the word intended. Searched all of the posts on the message board with the title cited, and found none by the alleged author. Searched all of the author's posts in that forum for the whole year, and could not find the word. Given the average length of his posts, it seems unlikely that he meant anything other than "distress"; he was not using the term for its specific meaning.
Lastly, the uses are supposed to be independent. Example sentences 1, 3, and 4 are all patterned directly on the original Blackadder dialogue; the first sentence combines five nonsense words from the program; the third uses three of them, and both the third and fourth parallel the original's statement of remorse for having "caused you such pericombobulations." They're not direct quotations, but somewhat of a paraphrase, but they're certainly not independent. So what we really have here is a word that's seldom if ever used independently of references to Blackadder, and so far there are no other instances in which it's used for its purported meaning; generally it seems to be used solely to confuse or befuddle the audience, or imply general discomfort, without any sense of discomposing people by running in circles around them. P Aculeius (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Seems just barely attested, but that's enough. But delete example 2 which is for a different sense, the remaining 3 have the same general meaning. The uses are independent of one another, which is what is meant by the attest criterion. Yes, they are allusions to BA, but still independent uses - otherwise we'd have to take out every coinage of Shakespeare's. Also, I suggest we remove the stuff about running around in circles, that is not supported by the citations. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


"Someone who pretends unity with an oppressor or the oppressed. A scab who crosses the picket line is a wannabe hoping for crumbs in exchange for treachery." Really? What do they "want to be"? Chambers has no such sense. Can we also confirm/deny the newly added synonyms bootlicker and suckup? Equinox 19:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Those synonyms seems more like hyponyms coordinate terms (perhaps not all wannabe's go to such an extreme...). Prob better to list them under that heading or 'See also' (?) Leasnam (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I would say that second sense (if verified) is dated...it reminds me of the mindset of some from the 1940's and 1950's in segregated America Leasnam (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
We could probably find missing definitions for large numbers of words if we could find a corpus of leftist English-language newspapers. But the oppressors have made that impossible. 21:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. I'd say the usage example is just sense 1, but nevertheless, there are some promising hits (although the sense would be better as "Someone who aspires to join or assimilate with an oppressor or the oppressed")
  • 1991, Nancie Caraway, Segregated Sisterhood: Racism and the Politics of American Feminism, Univ. of Tennessee Press (ISBN 9780870497209), page 95
    Contemporary Black women remain victimized by — and often perpetrators of — the "wannabe" (as in the "I wannabe white" phenomenon dramatized in Spike Lee's film School Daze) ideology that contributes to their own and their Black sisters' oppression
  • 1994, Carol Camper, Miscegenation Blues: Voices of Mixed Race Women, Sister Vision Press (ISBN 9780920813959)
    What I never want to hear again: "Mutt" "Half-breed" "Heinz 57" "Wannabe" I never want to face another door opened by a mother who calls the child of her own body racist names.
  • 2014, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, Outlaw Woman: A Memoir of the War Years, 1960–1975, Revised Edition, University of Oklahoma Press (ISBN 9780806145372), page 261
    I'm part Indian but don't know anything about being Indian. I've tried to talk with the Indians here but they called me a wannabe when I told them about my background.
Arguably, there are two separate senses here, with one being a derogatory term for someone of mixed race. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I feel like those citations definitely cite something, but I can't figure out what. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for "a wooden chopping block" sense. This sense is used in the Unihan database but isn't showing up in any other online dictionary source that I've looked at. Could be in the Kangxi dictionary as I haven't checked there yet (not in English). Bumm13 (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Although the ctext page mentions that in the Unihan definition field, the Kangxi simply says that pronunciation 頹/堆 is "coffin cover" and pronunciation 敦 is "withered" (reflecting the current content at 橔#Chinese). It's tricky - even zdic says it in the English, but the English is generally less reliable since it's Unihan-sourced. Nibiko (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "hawthorn". Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 22:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  • The Japanese variant form appears in the term 山査子 (sanzashi, hawthorn). The Chinese equivalent appears to be 山楂 (shānzhā, hawthorn; rose hip), as given at online Chinese dictionary MDBG, with that entry clearly listing 山查 as a variant spelling, using this same character. As such, I'm inclined to think the hawthorn sense is valid, but that might just be me.
@Wyang, @Kc kennylau, @Anatoli, other ZH editors: can any of you shed more light on this? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Eirikr: [11] says 查 zhā 2. 同“楂”, which means that 查 and 楂 are equivalent. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
In case you need another confirmation - in Pleco: 查 or 査 with the Mandarin reading zhā, Cantonese caa4 is same as 楂 as in 山楂.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Not caa4, but zaa1. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016Edit


Rfv-sense: (obsolete) To make a fool of, to cause to look ridiculous.

Only cite is from Shakespeare. Two more needed. DCDuring TALK 05:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Considering how widely-read Shakespeare is, that there are whole dictionaries devoted to words used by Shakespeare, and that there are far fewer published works from the Elizabethan era that can be drawn on for evidence of a word's existence, shouldn't we include Shakespeare's writings under some sort of a notability criterion? I'm aware that there is no such criterion for English, but it seems odd to me that someone (like me) looking up a word they found in Shakespeare wouldn't be able to find it in Wiktionary because of our rigid CFI. This especially considering how many times the play from which the quote used to illustrate this sense is included in compilations of Shakespeare's plays, or reprinted in some format (see here).
As a side note, I'm fairly sure senses 2 and 4 are identical. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
There used to be a criterion like that, but it was removed by this vote. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 05:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The well-known work exception to the requirement for three cites from well-attested languages allowed all Shakespearean, Joycean, and Pynchonic nonces to be included. With only a single use how is one supposed to determine what the "conventional" meaning of the term is? DCDuring TALK 13:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Senses 2 and 4 are certainly identical, but I'm not sure sense 3 should be distinguished from sense 2 either. If they're combined, then only one more citation would be needed. P Aculeius (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure about any of these, but what I found was this: Another, but different Shakespeare reference with the same (or highly similar) sense:
  • 2002, Carol Chillington Rutter, Enter The Body: Women and Representation on Shakespeare's Stage, ISBN 113476779X:
    'O heat, dry up my brains,' says Laertes, facing a sister 'anticked' 'in deed' by madness that Hamlet only 'played'.
Another transitive use of antic as a verb with what looks to me like a similar sense:
  • 1964, Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts:
    Whether one's surroundings were anticked up or not, one often felt one was living in another century at Roque.
And finally (and most dubiously)
  • 1982, The Picturesque Tour, page 25:
    Surtees became a friend of Walter Scott and played a very "anticking" joke upon the author.
Kiwima (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


Looks weird without a space. Google Books finds mostly a nickname "Pizzaboy". Equinox 02:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Groups gets some valid results. Surely not all of them are amateur speakers. --Romanophile (contributions) 02:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense - an employee of IBM. Any takers? (I've only ever heard of IBMer) SemperBlotto (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

  • User:Bgoldnyxnet and I have added several quotations, and I think the form "Beamer" is now adequately attested. The form "beamer" only has two quotations, so unless more can be found, I suggest moving the sense to Beamer. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
And User:Bgoldnyxnet has made the move I suggested. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
And the move was undone by someone at some point. And the lowercase form now has two citations; can we find one more? - -sche (discuss) 03:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


Sources are needed for this accented variant. The word exists in Italian (language typically used for musical dynamic indications) only in its non-accented form, and it is unclear how can one infer the existence of an accent while claiming that it is " used [...] in its abbreviated form f " --Gengis Gat (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

If it's attested, I'd call it a misspelling. In fact, I predict this misspelling is more common for forte in the sense of 'strength, talent' than in the musical sense. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've added another sense (with quotations) to the entry, and converted the rfv to an rfv-sense as a result. For the challenged sense, I've only been able to find two citations [12] [13], of which one uses quotation marks and the other uses italics. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
While not being a French speaker, I'd argue that even the use of forté in the sense of "strong" could be considered a (possibly common) misspelling, as the word does not exist in French. After a quick search in various online dictionaries I was only able to find it in the Urban Dictionary, which I guess is not an authoritative source. Anyway, I am only sure of my opinions for what concerns the musical meaning. (Disclaimer: I've come here because of today's xkcd comic). --Gengis Gat (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I found a third quote: [[14]]. In addition, there are a few that are the same basic idea, but not really an adjective: [This] is a noun, [[15]] simply calls it a musical term, and [[16]] describes a stop on an organ. Kiwima (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


Scientist. Seems to be creole or learner error. Equinox 14:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

[17], [18], [19], [20]. That’s just the singular. --Romanophile (contributions) 14:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I went through the Google Books results. The best label for the current sense is archaic since it’s primarily obsolete but occasionally used in modern fiction. There also seems to be a distinct sense used in Afro-Caribbean religions. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016Edit


google books:"la chichevache" seems to get two valid hits for Chichevache both of which seem to refer to Chaucer's works directly (one a translation of Chaucer, one a reference to him). If we find a third citation, I suppose we need to move to Chichevache and gloss as Chaucer, we raises the possibility that it's a fictional-universe only word, and might not meet CFI even with citations. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

If the only English-language use is in Chaucer, it needs to be moved to Middle English. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "Organized gymnastics, dance and yelling at team games." How is this different to "A physical activity in which people (usually women) organize elements of dance, gymnastics, and tumbling for judgment or to cheer on a team"? ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's obviously the same definition restated with "yelling" added in place of the implied "cheering", which really doesn't improve the entry. However, I think that "for judgment" in the existing definition ought to be stricken. Cheering for a team (an athletic team, not the chess team or the debate team) is the primary function of cheerleading, even though teams of cheerleaders occasionally compete against one another. Also, male cheerleaders aren't rare, especially in college, even though they don't wear the same uniforms or perform the same routines. They're often needed to assist the female cheerleaders with the most physically-demanding activities. So the definition could stand to be tweaked, but the new wording isn't the kind of improvement it needs. P Aculeius (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, the nature of cheerleading has changed over time. It used to be men standing in front of the bleachers and yelling through a megaphone. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Move to rfc or tea room as existence is not being disputed. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

north by northeastEdit

"The compass point between north and northeast."

  • Synonyms: north-northeast
  • This direction does not appear in w:Boxing the compass, which presents traditional (prescriptive?) terminology for the 32-point compass rose as well as others, including 128.

A related wordreference.com discussion including this: "Thanks, panj, for the link. So wiktionary is wrong then?"

A following post had: "I don't know what the philosophy of Wiktionary is, but most modern dictionaries follow the practice of reporting actual usage, and "north by northeast" does indeed seem to have been used when speaking of the direction between north and northeast, as can be seen in a Google search here, where I have limited the search to books written before 1900."

There are morphologically quite a few possible compass points (and their abbreviated forms) using by (eg, NNW by NW and NNWxNW).

If we can't maintain quality on such definitions by having citations, we shouldn't have them. DCDuring TALK 13:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The fame of the movie w:North by Northwest suggests to me that, if we can only attest a limited number of these, north by northwest should be one of them. DCDuring TALK 13:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

east by northeast seems to be the only other entry we have in this form. Keith the Koala (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Is west by south missing anything useful? Should anything be dropped? I have added the corresponding images to the 16 standard "by" compass point entries, but not all of the other things. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure why we are wasting our time on a usage this common, but I added three cites. Kiwima (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
What we are looking for attestation of a specific meaning, ie, "north-northeast". Or is it just used to sound like a what a mariner, explorer, etc would say, even though it is not a standard way of referring to any direction. The citations would support the latter more than the former. DCDuring TALK 22:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The sentences in the citation don't provide enough context to tell what the meaning is, other than "a direction". DCDuring TALK 22:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
There are book sources on technical subjects [21][22][23][24][25][26] that explicitly define north by northeast as synonymous with NNE. The term is also used by many other reputable sources that are clearly not just trying to sound nautical, for instance Monthly Weather Review. SpinningSpark 17:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The sense is wrong. There are two points between North and Northeast - NxNE and NExN (northeast by north, and north by northeast). This is very old, a 32 point compass (there is also a 128 point compass in which each point gains a "by half" to either direction.) - Amgine/ t·e 18:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

craptacular Edit

Supposedly British sense: "Intended to be perceived as spectacular, but actually perceived as extremely poor quality". (Not the US sense, which just means spectacularly crap.) Equinox 00:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a candidate for Cat:English autological terms... Chuck Entz (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The first citation is a mention. The others don't seem to clearly distinguish which sense is intended. The 2003 cite seems nearer to the more pejorative British sense, and the Simpsons one to the more positive US sense. — Pingkudimmi 05:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


French section. Needs cleanup and formatting if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It's remarkably hard to cite because of the number of hits for the English word 'average'. But if you follow the links (copy and paste as they are unformatted links) there are two citations for the word 'average' already in the entry. http://www.atilf.fr/dmf/definition/average provides adequate information to cite it in Old and Middle French. http://www.anglo-norman.net/D/average confirms it just refers to our definition #7 of average. Personally I'd just detag it. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Except it's a French entry, not Old French or Middle French. Two cites won't do for modern French, especially since only one is a use, as far as I can tell. There's also the issue of whether any usage that could be construed as modern French might be construed instead as Norman. This can all be cleared up, but the entry as currently written appears to be wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
English definition 7 must belong to a different etymology. DCDuring TALK 00:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it does. I've split the English entry into two etymologies based on the Middle English Dictionary and on the Bosworth/Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. You may notice that it's the result of Norman Old French derivational morphology used on a word of Old English origin, so it's a bit hard to pin down exactly what the language was (which is normal for that time and place, I guess). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I checked the SOED (1993) which links that sense to Medieval Latin averagium and the other senses to what we have in the entry. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
You'll notice in the MED entry I linked to that it gives the origin as both "AF and AL". I suspect the Anglo-Latin has pretty much the same origin as the Anglo-Norman, or is from the Anglo-Norman. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

[27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]

This is too damn easy. --Romanophile (contributions) 14:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but that can be remedied: those are all cites of an arithmetic sense, equivalent to what's now Etymology 1 of the English. It looks like that should be added. The rfved sense is equivalent to what was definition #7 and is now Etymology 2. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
And it gets even more complicated: see the footnote on the last cite. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
In ... statuts et coustumes..., suggestion 1 by Romanophile, the section title includes "Des pasturage ..." and in Annales du Midi, suggestion 6 by Romanophile, "de donner à mégerie et cantal de l'average des boeufs, juments, asnesses et autres bestiaux" both seem to describe types of rent from tenants to seigneurs.
In Droit anglais..., suggestion 3 by Romanophile, the section title is "De Le Moyenne (average)" and looks to me like a French explanation of the English term. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

[33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] --Romanophile (contributions) 23:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The footnote I referred to earlier: "on entend par averagi les brebis en général et le droit de pâture en certains lieux". Since the word footnoted is average, I think "averagi" is an error for that word. At any rate, it looks like the uses in Provence, at least, refer to grazing animals and some sort of right to pasturage for those animals. That means the first and last of your first batch (the rest are the arithmetic sense), and all of your second batch.
It looks like there really is a French word, but all the original cites which use the rfved sense are mostly something to the effect of "this is what they used to call it in England", which look like mentions to me, and all of your cites are for other senses not found in the entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Determiner. An example would be something like "How often did you go there?" / "Couple times"

I haven't found it called a determiner in OED or the OneLook dictionaries that use 'determiner' as a word class. We need to have citations for our claim that it is a determiner. DCDuring TALK 19:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

We have coupla as a noun, which it clearly isn't. DCDuring TALK 19:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

"couple times" is AmE. It is not valid in BrE. This should probably be noted against any definition. My impression (as a BrE speaker) is that "couple times" is a shortening of "couple of times" that has no grammatical explanation or justification. 20:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
It's somewhat informal in AmE. I'd not be shocked to find it in the wild in UK, etc. DCDuring TALK 20:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
If it did occur in the UK, it would, according to my understanding, be interpreted either as an Americanism or as a mishearing or misunderstanding of the phrase "couple of ...". 20:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Some recent examples from Google News::::For example: "Miraculously, after a year out, Hutchinson decided to return to the game, re-signing with Chelsea and featuring couple times in 2011-12, including his first Premier League start,"
Rory McIlroy (UK): "I guess the last couple times I've played here I've done pretty well, so I'm sort of going for three in a row in Dubai with winning here last year and then with the DP World at the end of last season," McIlroy told reporters in Dubai on 3 February,
About a death in Manchester: "Still remember the couple times I made sure you got home ok either with or without Ze Ze Solomon."
None of these are durably archived, but they do suggest that the Queen's spoken English includes determiner couple. DCDuring TALK 21:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Americanisms (as well as errors) do arise in BrE. However, they remain Americanisms (or errors) until such time, if ever, as they are generally accepted. I am not sure about Northern Irish English (yes, I know it is part of the UK). 23:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
It's not exactly mainstream AmEng either. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Couple things: 1. It's exceedingly common in speech and in newspapers, especially in interviews. 2. It could be analyzed as an aphetic pronunciation of a couple. 3. Coupla can be analyzed similarly and looks more informal, though it honors the memory of of with an extra syllable. DCDuring TALK 22:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The very conservative AHD includes:
adj. Informal Two or few: "Every couple years the urge strikes, to ... haul off to a new site" (Garrison Keillor).
Their usage note includes: "The of in the phrase a couple of is often dropped in speech, but this omission is usually considered a mistake. In 2013, 80 percent of the Usage Panel found the sentence A couple friends came over to watch the game to be unacceptable."
Some style manuals rail against a couple of, which is at least obviously grammatical, because of its imprecision. Since precision is not a requirement and may be an impediment in normal speech, speakers have simply ignored the "rule" and gone further to eliminate the obvious, but cumbersome, grammaticality of a couple of in favor of (a) couple (adj.) and (a) coupla. DCDuring TALK 22:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I suppose couple could be a determiner ("two or a few; a couple of") of the quantifying variety. But it still needs cites. DCDuring TALK 22:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
    I have added a definition for determiner and one for adjective. There is no semantic difference, but there is a grammatical difference. The citations illustrate the difference, I hope. Could someone take a look? DCDuring TALK 23:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


I think it's a misspelling of berserker, not an alt form. I tried a search in Google Books but it only seemed to turn up the other spelling. Equinox 13:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, looks like a misspelling. Wouldn't make sense, etymologically, without the r, so it seems unlikely to be a historical variant. P Aculeius (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but there are alt-forms that started out as misspellings, and even some main forms (pea, for instance). We need to see if it's made that transition. It would seem to me quite normal for speakers to simplify a cluster like "rs" between vowels, especially since the "ber" has lost its connection to "bear" for most speakers. It may very well be that the drift from berserker to beserker is inevitable, given enough time. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes; compare beserk, which constituted one in every fifteen or so uses of the word (beserk,berserk) until around 1985, per Ngrams, and which has made its way into various translation- and other auxiliary- dictionaries (google books:beserk dictionary). "Beserker" itself is around 1/40th as common as "berserker". Lammas: Celebrating Fruits of the First Harvest by Anna Franklin and Paul Mason is one book that uses "beserker(s)" several times and doesn't use "berserker(s)". (In books that use both spellings, it's more likely that the nonstandard spelling is a misspelling, but in books that consistently use one spelling, it's more likely to be an intentional, albeit nonstandard, spelling.) - -sche (discuss) 04:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

allied artsEdit

allied means "related"; this occurs in phrases like "architecture and the allied arts", i.e. those related to architecture. I don't believe it's a thing on its own. Perhaps suitable citations can prove me wrong though? Equinox 16:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Equinox It can easily be cited without the word "architecture", if that's what you mean. Purplebackpack89 21:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
It is just an example: X and the allied arts means "X and other arts allied_with/related_to X". DCDuring TALK 21:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  1. This is another one of your hybrid RfD/RfVs. If I find three citations for "X and the allied arts" or "X and allied arts", the other words in the sentence are irrelevant because it still passes RfV, but...
  2. I believe that there are plenty of citations for "allied arts" that are not constructed in the forms "X and the allied arts" or "X and allied arts" Purplebackpack89 22:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Two citations (spanning 50 years) for "allied arts". I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to have a third citation of the form "X and the allied arts", and then this RfV can be closed. Purplebackpack89 23:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Cited: Entry now has three citations. This is not the place to discuss SOP. Purplebackpack89 23:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The first two citations look good to me, but the third citation doesn't seem to mean "fine arts and related disciplines". Rather, it seems to mean the SOP sense of "related arts". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • [after e/c] The first two citations seem to establish "arts allied to each other" or "arts allied to something that everyone knows they are allied to". The third does not IMO. It seems to be clearly an SoP use of the term. Can you find another like the first two? It would be nice to have three citations that allowed us to look at the context. It would also be nice if we had three unambiguous citations for at least one of the definitions I gave, because they seem quite different to me. I note that no other dictionary at OneLook has the purported expression, so we apparently cannot rely on authority, but rather our own lexicographic skills, however meager they may be. DCDuring TALK 00:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
    Consider this from Encyclopedia Americana 1924:
Those, then, of the decorative arts which are applied to the beautifying of useful objects, may properly be called the industrial decorative arts. (See Interior Decoration). Under this classification would be included all decorative weaving, textile work and basketry; decorative metal-work in iron and bronze, silver and gold, etc., applied to the adornment of implements or furniture; decorative woodwork in furniture, including wood inlay; and all decorative pottery and ceramics. When, however, any of these arts is applied to the decoration of permanent or immovable structures instead of movable objects, they become ancillary to architecture, and are often called "the allied arts" or "the accessory arts,* along with mosaic, ornamental carving and stained glass.
That is a mention rather than a use, but it offers a clear definition and suggests that the term means or meant something different in the context of architecture from what it means in education as the Encyclopedia definition does not fit correspond to the definition in the entry. DCDuring TALK 00:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@DCDuring@Equinox@Mr. Granger I have added an additional citation which I believe does not apply to the SOP definition, giving us three "non-SOP" citations, even though SOP is not an RfV issue. Purplebackpack89 01:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The 2014 cite is SoP. The cite from the J of the AIA belongs to a separate definition, as explained above. DCDuring TALK 01:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Will you stop bringing up RfD policies in an RfV? And I hope you three realize how you guys are coming off. I write an entry, you say it's SOP. I add citations, you say they're not good enough. How 'bout less, "this isn't good enough, this is SOP, Purplebackpack do it over", you actually try and find a citation yourself to replace the one you claim is SOP? Purplebackpack89 04:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm simply describing what the cite seems to support. For most multi-word expressions there is at least one, often many, SoP interpretation. The first job of a citer is to exclude those. You don't seem to have been doing that.
If you don't understand the difference or notice the difference in the meaning of the cites, then you shouldn't be wasting your time or ours pretending that you know how to define a word and cite the definition. DCDuring TALK 10:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@DCDuring You're not improving how I think of you with that comment. If you're wondering why this project burns out users, it's processes like this one and comments like that one. And if you consider adding an entry that has at minimum two implacable citations a "waste of time", you give me pause on thinking you're actually here to build the project. In the time you have spent criticizing me here, you could probably have found that third citation. So get to it! Equinox tries to make me a dancing monkey; now it's your and Equinox's turn to dance! Purplebackpack89 13:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Appropriately selective burn-out is not necessarily a bad thing.
The time waste is in your apparent inability to discriminate among citations. I don't believe that the challenged definition in the entry is worth saving, so I'll wait for the next dance. I would stipulate that the collocation allied arts is abundantly attestable, but not the definition under challenge. We need much better citations than we have. DCDuring TALK 13:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, so you admit that you neither care about adding new editors nor about adding this entry, even though it's at most one citation away from passing RfD. OK, glad we're clear on that. You also admit your unwillingness to do any work on it; which I continue to believe is completely disingenuous with holding me in scorn for the work I have done. Finally, lest you forget, there are at present two definitions (counting the one you added last night), and as you forgot to convert the RfD into an RfD sense, both of them are technically at RfD right now, with the one you created closer to failing RfD than the one I created, as the one you created has only a single citation. Purplebackpack89 13:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the oversight. Would you like to challenge the architecture sense? It seems marginal and it's probably dated. It might even be US only. But there I go again, splitting hairs. DCDuring TALK 13:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
This is "Request" for verification: no one is obligated to do anything. The normal practice is that anyone who feels like it provides cites, and any perceived shortcomings in the cites are pointed out until either a consensus is arrived at that they're adequate or the rfv fails. The creators of the entries have an interest in not having them deleted, so they typically do a good part or all of the work. It's nice if people pointing out problems with the cites help in finding better ones, but they don't have to. Some nominations are disingenuous and/or unnecessary, but that's for the process to sort out. The only thing out of the ordinary here is your histrionic tone and demands on those who have the temerity to question any detail of these obvious manifestations of your brilliance. I know you're sincere about this, and not intentionally playing any games- but it's a bit much. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I'm not convinced that any of the meanings are justified by the citations given. Sense 1 isn't even a definition; if the other two fall, then the whole entry should go. Sense 2 has two citations: the first one appears to use the phrase to mean "humanities and the allied arts" (i.e. arts related to the humanities) while the second one is vaguer, but seems to mean "arts related to each other" in the context of an artist colony, and is sum-of-parts within that context. The use given under sense 3 means "arts related to architecture". The fact that the American Institute of Architects has or had a "Committee on Allied Arts" doesn't give the phrase a specific architectural meaning, any more than its "Committee on Publicity" gives publicity a special architectural meaning. In each example cited under both senses, allied arts means nothing more than "arts related to whatever topic is under discussion," and is therefore sum-of-parts. P Aculeius (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
    You may be right about the architecture definition. I viewed the Encyclopedia's definition as suggestive rather than conclusive. But there seems to be or have been some institutional reality to the association between any of several decorative arts and architecture. DCDuring TALK 18:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be some implication to allied that is not in the words related or connected. Architecture seems to be dominant with a changing cast of decorative arts. Are they all in common cause under the leadership of architecture?
The following made me doubt my intuition: "to say nothing of those near neighbors and practitioners of the allied arts, Fan Dancer Sally Rand and Philosopher John Dewey." DCDuring TALK 18:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@P Aculeius The last time I searched for citations, to avoid the SoP you and others are concerned about, I asked Google Books to exclude any references to "and the allied arts" or "and allied arts". Purplebackpack89 19:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that all of these examples still read like sum-of-parts to me, because the only way you can tell which arts are allied is by reference to the subject under discussion. And then all it means is "whatever arts are similar to or involved with the main topic." For instance, with the architectural journal, it probably means arts related to building; such as tile or mosaic laying, carving decorative figures such as cornices or molding, design of lighting fixtures, plumbing fixtures, decorative woodwork or ironwork for stairways, elevators, grates, railings; painting, wallpapering, paneling; design of carpets and rugs, furniture and other accessories that may not be integral to the building's structure or overall layout, but which might be coördinated to match or compliment those things. There's not going to be a fixed list; it just means any art closely related to architecture. If you see an article describing the "allied arts" of architectural design, you might see a dozen different categories listed; but another article using the same phase might give only 9, and only partial overlap; or maybe 15; and over time some might not be important enough to describe, while others might. For example, the design of gas jets and gas lighting fixtures might have been considered an allied art in 1890, but not in 1920; while electrical fixtures and outlets might just have been a minor matter in 1890, but an allied art in 1920. P Aculeius (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
In the context of US primary and secondary education there might be a group of subjects of an artistic nature which are allied in the common cause of seeking restoration to the curriculum from which they have been driven by the w:Common Core State Standards Initiative (Common Core). DCDuring TALK 21:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the phrase "allied arts" is used on its own, without any context that would limit or identify which arts are meant, to mean a specific and regular group of arts? In all of the examples given, there is context: the humanities, an artists' colony, an architectural institute. I don't believe that the phrase is synonymous with "fine arts", or any other identifiable subset. Its meaning always seems to depend on the context in which it is used. P Aculeius (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


"Judaism; Semitism". Religious isms are -教, other (political, etc.) isms are -主義. —suzukaze (tc) 09:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the core issue here is that the entry creator doesn't appear to know either Japanese or Wiktionary conventions very well. This particular Japanese term does exist, but the meaning is more like Semitism or Zionism -- Judaism refers more to the religion, which (as you rightly note) would be ユダヤ教 (Yudaya-kyō) instead. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Poking around, it seems that Mekikin (talkcontribs) has made several hundred edits on the JA Wikt, mostly on Hebrew entries, but they have never responded to posts on their Talk page there. Perhaps it's not that their Japanese is weak, so much as their English? Or perhaps both? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Eirikr: I think we can count this as RFV passed based on the fact that citations can be found, but it wouldn't hurt to add them to the entry. More importantly, could you please come up with a better definition (and maybe a gloss)? Thank you! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Eirikr: Re-pinging so this can be closed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I wonder why no dictionary has as a suffix. Looking at w:ja:Category:宗教, it definitely deserves to be defined as such. Nibiko (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


As an adjective: It's merely attributive use of the noun. Donnanz (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I think hairpin can also be a short form of hairpin bend (in motor racing?), but that needs to be verified. Donnanz (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

A portion of a road, path, route, etc is not exactly shaped like a hairpin, though the metonymy is obvious to most of us.
We could add a definition like "Any object, especially any kind of path or route that resembles a hairpin when represented on a map." to make the attributive use more obvious. This would accommodate all likely attributive use not covered by the other noun senses. The existing definitions already accommodate more direct physical resemblance. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Added the noun for a road bend. Equinox 12:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Most of the time, it looks like an attributive noun to me, but I did find the following:
  • 2001, Dornford Yates, She Fell Among Thieves, ISBN 1842329804, page 95:
    Into and out of a valley, with the fall and rise of a lift...slow round a very hairpin, and then all out at a hill like the side of a house ... round to the left, to find a furlong waiting, straight as a rule ... and then a four-tier zigzag, to bring the needle from eighty to seventeen...
  • 2007, Roy Vincent, Listening to the Silences, ISBN 1847474721, page 98:
    The road over the Shu'uff mountains was very hairpin-bendy, and very hair-raising in a truck with bald tyres and a body that indisputably had a detached life of its own, as the tailboard hung over a precipitous drop, while we edged and reverse, edged and reversed around any one of the many hair-pins.
  • 2011, Rue Green, Cisco Unified Customer Voice Portal, ISBN 0132660377:
    If the intercluster call is not hairpin/looped back to the same cluster, the former behavior of location based CAC logic applies.
  • 2014, Gerald Seymour, The Untouchable, ISBN 1444760408:
    Beyond Banja Luka the road deteriorated. It was hairpin and cut out of a rock wall beside a fast river.
Kiwima (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how to check the references you've dredged up, but one of them is actually "hairpin-bendy", a rather informal-sounding adjective, not "hairpin". Try Googling "hairpin-like" and "hairpinlike" which are relatively common. Hairpin is still not an adjective in my opinion. Donnanz (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • And I think "hairpin/looped" should read "hairpin-looped". It checks out on Google, as well as "hairpin loop". Donnanz (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
    They strike me the same way. At best they are rare metaphorical uses, all of which are readily understood in context by likely readers.
    In addition, the first cite strikes me as using very (true) (adjective), which is consistent with the literary-dated language throughout the work. DCDuring TALK 13:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
    I wonder whether government would pass this test: 'her style is very government'. It seems to me that nouns actually can be qualified with 'very'. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hopefully that will remain a hypothetical question. Nobody has been daft enough to make an adjective out of government. Donnanz (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually Wiktionary:English adjectives#Tests of whether an English word is an adjective does say that others parts of speech can be modified by too/very. For example I found a hit for very FBI. So being used with 'very' doesn't make it an automatic adjective. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
* Only the 2014 cite of hairpin is an actual adjective; the 2001 is a noun (where very = real, genuine, utter, total). I agree hairpin is only a noun used as a modifier, and since we have entries for hairpin bend/curve/turn, there's no need for this adj def - which cannot be freely applied to other nouns. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


RFV for the chess sense, please. The chess sense seems to be a literal translation of the English term. But even though it's a correct literal translation from English to Latin, that doesn't mean that this Latin sense exists.
(The Latin term here for king for example is also a literal translation of the Spanish, French, German term, so it's more likely that it exists.) - 19:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I've run it through the Gaffiot which has post-Classical Latin as well as Classical, and it doesn't have it. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Primary sources for Latin chess piece names:
  • De Ludis Orientalibus Libri Duo is in Latin, uses the word Scachorum and Scaccarium, mentions several names for chess pieces and has "Caroli Magni. / Rex / Regina / Sagittifer / Centaurus / Elephas / Pedes". Later the text contains the word "Episcopus", but it could also refer to the etymology or to religious bishops.
  • Scientiarum omnium encyclopaediae (1649): "Atque hic est ludus scacchiae, de quo circumfertur versus: Turris, Eques, Pastor, Regem, Regina sequatur. Quae nomina sic ferè exprimuntur: Rex, βασιλεὺς : Regina, [Greek] : Turris, seu Elephas, [Greek] : Sagittarius, τοξότης : Eques, ἱππεὺς : Pedes, seu Rusticus, [Greek]."
Secondary sources:
  • In A. v. d. Linde's Quellenstudien zur Geschichte des Schachspiels it is "Rex, regina (= Amazone), sagittifer, miles, elephantus turritus." which should refer to chess pieces.
  • A van der Linde, Der Roch. Zur wissenschaftlichen Entscheidung einer Heraldischen Streitfrage, p. 8f.: "Sein tükischer Sprung machte ihn zum Auflauerer (explorator, speculator, insidiator) und dann später zum Schützen (arcer, arcifer, sagittifer, sagittarius – Vida 1525 sagittifer, Rabelais, um 1550?, und Gruget, Paris 1560, archier; Gustavus Selenus, Leipzig 1616 Schütze)" and "Ein unbekannter lateinischer Dichter des Mittelalters hat die Schachfiguren sogar astronomisch gedeutet: Rex est Sol, pedes est Saturnus, Mars quoque miles, Regina virgo Venus, Alphinus Episcopus ipse est Jupiter, et Roccus discurrens Luna."
  • Antonius van der Linde, Geschichte und Litteratur des Schachspiels. Zweiter Band: After "Die Figuren heissen" Latin names should follow and it should refer to Latin texts related to Chess.
  • H. F. Maßmann, Geschichte des mittelalterlichen, vorzugsweise des Deutschen Schachspieles, p. 40: "wie der Läufer bei Karl dem Großen sagittifer hieß"
  • Chess Player's Annual & Club Directory 1890 has a table with several names. It could have "Rex / Regina / Turris, or Rochus / Sagittarius, or Calvus / Eques / Pedes" and "Turritusfit / Scacchum / Mattum".
So Latin episcopus should be attestable, but sagittarius and sagittifer should be more common. -Ikiaika (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

huat ahEdit

Supposedly English. The example sentences are all "mentions" (use the term in quotes). SemperBlotto (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

As a Singaporean, I'd say this term has not been fully assimilated into English. However, because it is an interjection and thus not used within a longer sentence (e.g., *"She wished him huat for his examinations"), it is going to be virtually impossible to tell from quotations in print whether the speakers were speaking English or Hokkien (Min Nan). — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I suppose the person who added it believes it to be Singapore English when used in English contexts. I added four citations for the interjection to the entry. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, of the ten quotations currently in the entry and the citations page, the three from 2015 are the only ones that are durably archived. Two of those are from the same author, Howie Hau B.H., so we only have two independent durably archived citations. We need one more to keep the entry. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay - have added more cites - from Google Groups.Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

April 2016Edit


Is this used in Chinese? Also, Unihan gives gòng, but it's currently nū. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a Korean creation. See w:Talk:Gugyeol. —suzukaze (tc) 06:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Of the three Google Books hits, I can't find it in two (but they're Japanese, anyway), and the character Google OCRs as 莻 in the third one is actually something else. zh.Wikt's entry has only ever been edited by bots. Does anyone from this Wiktionary notify our colleagues at zh.Wikt when we find spurious entries like this? We should. - -sche (discuss) 14:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
It is not spurious. Korean-made characters have corresponding pronunciations in Chinese too, which can be used when the characters need to be used in Chinese (e.g. (shí) in zh:李世乭). It is used to represent the native Korean syllable (neuj, root of 늦— (neut-, “late”)) and may be read as , nǎi, nūxi or gòng. See this page for some historical usages. Wyang (talk) 09:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


Can this be considered an English word? None of the examples are really in English. "mee siam mai hiam", "Laksa, mai hiam", "Mee pok Ta hiam jio zway zway." aren't English phrases. When people speak multiple languages they tend to mix words, but this doesn't make the result valid in any particular language. I suggest the article for deletion. 16:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

(If it makes it easier to judge the [non-]English-ness of the quotations, FWIW mai means "I don't want" and ai means "I want".) —suzukaze (tc) 17:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Every one of the quotes currently at that entry illustrates quite plainly that this term is not considered to be "English" by the authors themselves. I see no reason why we should disagree with them. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree. There is no evidence that this is an English word. I don't know what it is. Delete (even though this is RfV) SemperBlotto (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Admittedly, those citations are most transliterated Chinese. But Google Groups has one that reads "Chef's specialty: Sambal fried rice, mega hiam, $4" - where it means 'spicy', which is a start. And the citation that reads "For example, ‘Laksa, mai hiam’. He could have said, ““May I have a bowl of spicy noodle soup without chilli please”, had he wanted to use Standard English" is English at a stretch. Nevertheless, most examples seem to be of "mai hiam" (i.e. hold the chilli, when ordering a dish) - which may be Singaporean English, but it is unclear if that matches the definition given. There seems to have been a lot of discussion at one point around a Singaporean politician saying "mee siam mai hiam" - i.e. mee siam (a type of noodle dish) hold the chilli - though apparently he actually said "mai hum" which is some type of profanity. Not that any of this helps with the actual sense here. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I just searched for "very hiam" on Google and there are lots of hits - enough to suggest it is in common use in Singapore English. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Of the first page of hits at google:"very hiam", only one stood out as definitely applicable (towards the bottom -- a blog post entitled "Meeeeeeeeeeeeeee very Hiam"). There were a couple instances of people described as "hiam" ("I not very hiam about it", or "But she very hiam"), which makes me wonder if this might be a different word altogether. All told, Google reports only 245 hits for the whole web, quite a small number really. Paging through, this collapses to just 39. The evidence for this collocation is quite scant. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, scant perhaps, but 39 suffices CFI, does it not? Given that the query here is about the word 'hiam', so not restricted to the collocation 'very hiam' - I just had searched for that as it is a good way to locate adjectival uses. But, more important here is the meaning, as it is defined as spicy in the taste sense, but there is also a fig. sense, as in hot/good-looking/etc. - so that'd need sorting out as well. Hopefully, I'll be able to get around to it sooner rather than later. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Re: CFI, yes, 39 suffices -- provided that enough of these 39 are actually 1) English, 2) from this same Singaporean etymon, 3) used to express the same part of speech, and 4) used to express the same meaning. Raw googit counts don't actually count for much (pardon the pun). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I think that the following examples from Google are all good cases of hiam used in English contexts. There is little on Google Groups, but that is only because Google Groups does not contain much Singlish.
* but quality a bit not consistent... sometimes very hiam..... sometimes not tt hiam........ Chelzea.
* Had kacang-ma from the leftover last night.I don't quite like it very hiam, gonna eat those kind of stuffs during confinement next time.
* Most Teochew people would cook in white wine…very “hiam”.
* Very hiam but so very good.
* oic. even if ruyi oil is not very hiam, also cannot?
* Very hiam. Essence of chicken.
* Pepper for adults, but not very hiam.
* Cause forum people say till like very hiam nothing much to eat like this.
* cos my mum happy happy accepted the box of mooncake and quickly put in the fridge and my papa share his very "hiam" rojak with him
* That makes sense, actually. Kim chi - very 'hiam' one. (Very chilli).
* Wow the laksa very hiam man.
* You need this after your very hiam looking lunch.
* Sambal fried rice, mega hiam, $4
* I hear there are two types of ginger – the clean ones not so hiam and not so wangi.
* bluey, xx, the not so 'hiam' version of ruyi oil brand is bao xin an.
* hehe spicy level 3.. my friends say not so hiam..
* Will there be a girl in Singapore who will be content with char kuey teow extra hum extra hiam ($5)
* White Carrot Cake extra hiam $2
* Come and pick me up and bring me out for Jewish food (sorry but I like my mee pok dry with extra hiam)
* "When ordering, always go for extra hiam, extra chor, extra lard. Extra yums!"
* I like it black, no eggs, cut in small pcs, extra hiam, chye poh oso extra chang.
* With extra hum, extra tam, extra hiam.
  • Considering this evidence, I would like to suggest that the word is common enough to pass CFI's "in widespread use" criterion - which it is in Singapore English. Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)



  1. punitiveness

There are thousands of Google Books hits, but most of them are scannos of impunity or the result of "im-" at the end of a line/page and "punity" at the beginning of the next. There are a few legitimate examples of a noun with this spelling- but not with this definition. If someone would add a definition corresponding to that usage, this should be changed to an rfv-sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

[39] [40] [41] [42] [43]. Google can’t file for bankruptcy soon enough. --Romanophile (contributions) 03:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

When I won the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes the guy delivering the check tracked mud on my carpet. - TheDaveRoss 18:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@TheDaveRoss: the difficulty in finding terms isn’t some trivial inconvenience, but is extremely important to any search engine. The scanners will frequently confuse letters for numbers or other letters, confuse unrelated words for compounds (even in modern texts), misinterpret paragraphs, and will even insert foreign characters into perfectly native texts. Some pages are only partially scanned and are missing words, search options can eliminate completely valid results, the scanner’s interpretations are sometimes replaced with the pages theirselves, and sometimes even an exact phrase won’t appear in the results, but will in the pages theirselves. On top of all this, we have hundreds of books printed entirely in Latin but still have no way to search for Latin books—never mind minority languages. The technology is so shoddy that it could have been designed in the 1980s, just like Google’s closed captions. (Even the ones on my old television were more circumspect.)
Google—an opulent corporation—could solve all of these problems if they desired, but they have decided not to. --Romanophile (contributions) 09:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Romanophile: I understand that it is not perfect, however there is a good reason we don't all use Bing Books as our first search which questioning a word. Google has probably put more legal resources into Books than they have development resources. Mostly what I am saying is don't look a gift horse in the mouth; we are far better off with Google Books, warts and all, than we would be without it. - TheDaveRoss 11:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

added cites and tweaked def accordingly.Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


Always scannos, I think. Has to be spelled penny-ante with hyphen or space. Equinox 10:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Mostly scannos, but I found genuine uses in Computer Privacy, Why Me?, and National Right to Work Newsletter. Also, The Littlest Stowaway has both pennyante and penny ante (where the latter is a question by a character who presumably does not recognize the idiom in the first instance). Kiwima (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
RFV-passed, but I made the apparently-more-common hyphenated form the lemma. - -sche (discuss) 02:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Latin countriesEdit

In some cases I don't doubt that these names are used, but that there are durably archived Latin sources. For example, Finish Nuntii Latini and German Nuntii Latini don't seem to be durably archived but might use some of these New Latin country names. -Maggidim (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  • @Maggidim: This is a rather counterproductive thing to do. I know for a fact that some of those are citable, and you didn't even check. Try Google Books and please remove the ones that can clearly be cited (which, I suspect, is most or all of these). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I didn't search for all of these at google books, but I searched for some and wasn't able to find any results. Now I've searched for all and removed those which I was able to cite. Kenia and Tanzania can be cited. With some good will and turning a blind eye to some doubts one could say that Quataria and Tzadia exist too.
  • Chilia gives many results and might exist. But I wasn't able to find an example.
  • Searching for Dzibutum gives two results. One is in Latin and has "in urbem Dzibutum (Gibuti, Djibouti)". That could attest Dzibutum as a name for a city, but not as a name for a country. But Dzibutum could also be the accusative of Dzibutus like one can find "in urbem Romam" where Romam is the accusative of Roma.
    In another Latin text one can find this: "[...] Somalia Gallicam cuius urbs primaria (Gibuti, Djibouti) appellatur Gibutum, i, n." The text might include more Latin terms related to Africa like Somaliensis (Adj.), Mogadiscium (Mogadishu), Congus (i, f.) or Congus Leopoldopolitana (a Congo), Chenia (Kenya), Chenianus (Adj.), Nairobia (Nairobi), but is from 1964 and doesn't seem to have Tanzania or Tansania (the country was founded in 1964).
  • Searching for Iracum gives some results. But Iracum could also be the accusative of Iracus like Iraci could be the genitive of Iracus, and in "in urbe Iraci persici Qom" which should mean something like "in the city Qom of the Persian Iraq" Iraci or Qom has another meaning as Qom is a city in Iran.
  • Searching for Irania has too many non-Latin results and adding other Latin words gives results with OCR errors for ironia.
  • Omania often gives results for "om- nia". In a 21st century results one can find "Omania", but according to the book title "Documentos medievales del Reino de Galicia: Doña Urraca, 1095-1126" it's related to the Middle Ages and thus it should have another meaning.
  • Searching for Papua-Nova Guinea one can find "atque Papua-Nova Guinea Apostolicum Delegatum" in a text which should be related the Catholic Church. That might refer to the country, but is spelled differently anyway.
  • Searching for Quataria gives few results. One is in English and could refer to the country. One is in Latin and in a section entitled "Exercitia militaria americanorum" there is "Americani in Quataria exerci- [...]". It's just a snippet, so I can't read the whole text. That could refer to the country, but I can't verify it.
  • Even simply searching for Swazia didn't have any Latin result.
  • Kenia and Tanzania brought up a Nuntii Latini text (in the 1990s some of the news were printed) in which one can read "in Kenia et Tanzania sunt". That should be ok. But if that's the only source, shouldn't there be any note informing the reader that the word is rare and was coined in the 1990s?
  • Tzadia brought up a Nuntii Latini text in which one can read "In Tzadia, quae civitas Africana desertis [...]". It's just a snippet, but could be ok.
-Maggidim (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
@Maggidim: Well, I am of the opinion that three cites should be required for Neo-Latin, but we don't actually have an official position on that yet. Regardless, it appears that you did not bother to search for inflected forms. Searching google books:"Iraniam" haec shows that Irania is easily citable. I've removed the easily cited ones from your list below. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm ok with one cite, but IMHO recent or modern New Latin (20th/21st century) with just one cite should have a note.
In some cases I also searched for inflected forms, but not in all cases and not for all possible inflected forms.
  • Iraquia: Ok. That can be found in 20th/21st century Latin. And there's also Vietnamia, Afganistania.
  • Chilia: I'm not sure if that can be found in classical New Latin (like 15-19th centuries), but in the 20th/21st century it can be found, and one can also find Aequatoria, Uruguaia. But it would be interesting to mention dates. There are classical New Latin terms for Chile. So Chilia could be classical New Latin too, or it could be a modern New Latin invention most likely from people who didn't know the older terms.
  • Swazia: One can find the name Suazilandia. So it might rather be spelled Suazia instead of Swazia. But there could be many other forms using u, v or w and using s or z.
  • Irania The word Irania can be found in those results. But what about the meaning? Old texts from the 19th century obviously do not refer to the modern Islamic republic. The entry Iran mentions two English meanings. So Irania could refer to all "regions inhabited by Iranian peoples" or a geographical region, and not necessarily to a country or political state (be it an old monarchy or a modern Islamic republic). dictionary.com states: "In 1935 the government of Reza Shah Pahlavi requested governments with which it had diplomatic relations to call his country Iran, after the indigenous name, rather than the Greek-derived Persia." That makes it more likely that Irania refers to something like "regions inhabited by Iranian peoples" and not to a state. Also in old lexica one can find definitions of Iran referring to a geographical region which includes countries like Afghanistan and Persia. That meaning might be the same as the second definition in Iran#English, but might also be another meaning. One can find Irania (or Iraniam) in 20th/21st century texts too and there it might refer to the country. But the google books results don't seem to convey any meaning.
  • Iracum: I don't know what you searched for and I don't know your results, but here could be to problems: 1. Iracum might be the accusative of Iracus, and some inflected forms of Iracum could be inflected forms of Iracus too. So one needs a result with the nominative or a result which indicates the gender. 2. Similar to Irania, Iracum could have another meaning. In older lexica one can read that Iraq or Irak was a geographical region, maybe partly or at some times a province of Persia. With that one can explain the example "in urbe Iraci persici Qom". It says that Qom is a city in a certain region, and does not refer to the country Iraq.
So while the words Irania and (nominative?), Iraci, Iraco, Iracum, Iraco exist, I can't see a cite for the meaning Iran (country) or Iraq (country) respectively.
-Maggidim (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Niger (as a country)Edit


Papua Nova GuineaEdit








In the entry there was this rfc tag: {{rfc|Are all these senses real?}}. By the comment it's not a matter of rfc but of rfv.
For me the senses seem to be be valid, though some senses might be dated nowaydays like linguistics should be the usual term and glossology or glottology should be rare and dated nowadays.
Garner's Modern American Usage, Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 897 (books.google) still mentions some of the senses, but uses the words "old-fashioned" and "rarely". -Ikiaika (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

RFV is for disputing existence not whether 'glottology' is more common nowadays or not. The glossary sense seems to be easily attestable on Google Books, google books:"glossologies", the medical one seems harder to cite but real and I think the linguistics sense is real as well. Let's put it this way, it definitely means something as there are thousands of Google Book hits for it. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I've found two for the tongue one though they both refers to the same person, Benjamin Ridge, one by him and one by another author (and I don't know who specifically) commenting on his work. Both from 1844 so far so not spanning a year yet either. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Maybe you misunderstood me. This wasn't really my rfv request, and I know that rfv is unrelated to the commonness of a word.
Thanks. Maybe here is a third cite:
  • MacBryde's Signs and symptoms, 1983, p. 118: "Indeed, by 1844, glossology had become so important a part of the medical art that a physician named Dr. Benjamin Ridge proposed the fantastic theory that the viscera were represented by definite areas on the tongue and that an abnormality in a viscus was reflected in this predetermined area." — It refers to Benjamin Ridge too, but should be a usage and not a mention.
  • The essence and scientific background of tongue diagnosis, 1989, p. 4: "Moreover, the Classic of Internal Medicine recorded that tongue diagnosis, or glossology, can be used to predict the prognosis of a disease."
Greetings, Ikiaika (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter whether you tagged it with rfv or it was someone else; it still needs citing (this is true of anything apart from an obvious bad nomination, like where thousands of citations are easily available). It looks like the medical definition needs a usage note or context label to say that all the usage refers to one person. Which by the way, doesn't mean it's not valid usage for CFI purposes. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
I have cited for every definition with at least three quotations. Kiwima (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Passed. Thanks very much! — SMUconlaw (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


In addition to the Marvell quote there appears to be one more: "Neither was Verbatim when it said: "Your adlubescence at this romp-through should be undiminished, and that's no fadoodle."" but I am unsure of the context or if this is a quote from some other work. DTLHS (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

A quick search on Google Books suggests that Marvell is the only person to have used the word as anything other than an example of a linguistic curiosity. All of the others, including the quotation above (from 1978) seem to be listing it among other weird and wonderful words that aren't actually used by anyone. The quotation appears to be a silly example of two such words being used for no other purpose than to give an example of their use in a work mentioning or discussing them. That said, knowledge of the word is widespread, even if usage is not; the meaning is well-known, and it isn't something recently coined. It seems unlikely that there are three actual uses of the word outside the realm of "here are some strange words you've never heard of!" But is there an appendix for words like this? P Aculeius (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
The word does appear in the OED labelled as "rare", and adds the following usage note: "App[arently] revived from dictionary record." In addition to the Marvell quotation and the 1977 one from Verbatim, there is one dated 1656 and an album review from "New Rec." in 1981. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@P Aculeius Appendix:English dictionary-only terms DTLHS (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk to SageGreenRider 02:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad there's an appropriate place to keep it, but those "citations" really don't satisfy me, since every one is either a definition of the word, or an example made up for the express purpose of using the word in a sentence. Only Marvell seems to be using it in any sense other than, "I bet you've never seen this word before!" P Aculeius (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
RFV failed, moved to appendix.__Gamren (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

May 2016Edit


This was marked for speedy deletion by User:Fumiko Take on the grounds that "Furansu is not normally written in hiragana". Given that the entry has been there for 8 years, and that there are hits in Google Books, I didn't think this merited speedying. Of course, hits aren't necessarily actual usage, especially since Google has problems with non-Latin scripts and with languages without clearly-visible word boundaries.

Note: if this passes, there's the possibility it could be challenged in rfd as a rare misspelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

All the previewable Google Books results are of children's textbooks (except for this one bizarre "Glossika" result), and all of the same sentence. Katakana is one of the basic Japanese scripts alongside Hiragana, and I'm guessing the textbooks are for children who haven't learned it yet. It is as legitimate a spelling as English FRENCH or french. —suzukaze (tc) 03:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Meh. Attestable, albeit not very common. It's valid, and there's no harm in us retaining this. Keep. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I said "not normally" which means some authors do use the hiragana form for ruby in certain ways in their writings. It's not a "normal" (=commonplace) practice though. ばかFumikotalk 03:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

じゃんぷ, ぽーるEdit

suzukaze (tc) 04:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

RFV failed. ポールダンス, anyone?__Gamren (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


Nibiko (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


suzukaze (tc) 04:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


No Google Books hits unlike ふらんすご. —suzukaze (tc) 00:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete all where hiragana is used instead of katakana in country names. These can only be used as a sorting parameter, when Lua doesn't do it automatically. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

よーろっぱ, ゆーらしあ, おーすとらりあEdit

suzukaze (tc) 02:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

にゅーよーくしゅう, うるどぅーご, じきてーぷ, こーんうぉーるごEdit

(these are currently hard redirects due to page moves) —suzukaze (tc) 02:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

chanter en yaourt has a better chance of meeting CFI. Equinox 20:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I do like it when someone cites a source that suggests the word may not exist: "There's nothing available from Gallica, nor from wordreference.com, nor from the Dictionnaire de l'Académie Française, so (pending asking Francophone friends) I need to fall back on general web search." Renard Migrant (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Even better it's in the Dico des mots qui n'existe pas (Dictionary of words that do not exist). Renard Migrant (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The complete title is Le Dico des mots qui n'existent pas (et qu'on utilise quand même): Dictionary of words that do not exist (and are used nonetheless). Lmaltier (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

It's actually used. Here are a few examples:

    • Et il programmait la plage aussitôt, repartait, one, two,three, four ! en yaourtant avec son accent épouvantable. (Stéphane Daniel, Si par hasard c’était l’amour, 2010)
    • On a fait comme dans le local, et Jo a repris le micro pour yaourter en english. (Maud Lethielleux, J’ai quinze ans et je ne l’ai jamais fait, 2011)
    • Je yaourtais, comme on dit, et quel plus bel hommage rendu à la langue américaine que cette maladroite singerie ? (Juan Goytisolo, ‎Jean-Marie Laclavetine, ‎Michel Le Bris, Je est un autre - Pour une identité-monde, 2010)
    • Voilà des semaines, des mois que j’écoute leurs titres en boucle, que je me réjouis à chaque nouvelle possibilité de les voir sur scène, que je m’acharne à yaourter sans honte sur leurs chansons et je réalise que je n’en ai jamais parler ici ! (lesmusicovores.fr/wordpress/tag/the-weasel-and-the-wasters/)
    • On ne comprend rien à ce qu'elle dit mais ça me fait penser à ces télés-crocheteurs qui chantent en anglais et qui bien souvent doivent yaourter sans que je m'en aperçoive. (forum.lixium.fr/d-1855365107.htm)

Lmaltier (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The first person past historic and future of that entry give a pronunciation /e/ for ⟨ai⟩. Is that correct? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes (in principle), but past historic is almost never heard. For future, I would say that ai is very often pronounced ɛ. Lmaltier (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


Latin verb "to measure". Not in Lewis and Short, who do have emodulor (I sing or celebrate). Needs formatting if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Added some cites, although I cannot verify the meaning. DTLHS (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Should be cleaned up now, but shoud be checked if it really is.
The third cite at Citations:emodulo has the word "Sirenes" in it. That should be the plural of Siren, a mythological creature known in English as siren. So the cite could refer to their sining and could have the word ēmodulor (deponent, translated as "to sing, celebrate" in Lewis & Short) in it.
-Ikiaika (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


Lasch gives this word as ewi, which is proved correct by the reflexes later recorded. This form on the other hand is not clearly reflected in later reflexes, nor do I see how it would come into existence. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat Projecting the Cat-signal into Gotham's sky. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Does Koebler's dictionary have anything? —CodeCat 20:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Ten minutes of futile navigation attempts and two search engines later, he only lists the word with a single consonant. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Two observations:
  1. The etymology for euwi is copypasted from the entry at eowu, with "Old Saxon ewwi" replaced by "Old English eowu", but otherwise unchanged (notice the position of Dutch in both).
  2. Philippa's dictionary at etymologiebank.nl (here) mentions both ewi and euwi, which, if I'm not mistaken, should be sufficient attestation for a less-documented-language term according to CFI, though one could quibble about the lack of a list of accepted sources at WT:AOSX. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if euwi is a typo for 'ouwi' on etymologiebank. For one, I think 'euwi' violates Old Saxon phonotactics (lack of umlaut) and for the other Old Saxon 'euwi' would become Middle Low German 'uwe', which isn't recorded. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

etlich, einigEdit

"er ist etlich" and "der etliche" (with der as article and not as relative pronoun) shouldn't exist, "ein etlicher" might exist but should be colloquial or dialectal. Similar "er ist einig", "der einige" and "ein einiger" shouldn't exist for the sense "a few". Note however that "einig" also means "united" as in "ein einig Volk von Brüdern" (Rütlischwur) which is missing in the entry. Maybe compare with [www.canoo.net/services/OnlineGrammar/InflectionRules/FRegeln-P/Pron-Indef/Pron-einige3.html canoo.net].
Also the masculine or neuter genitive singular of both words should be cited with at least one quote as it could also be "einiges" and "etliches" (compare with jeder, manch and adjectives which could or can have both endings). - 13:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary's entries on words like this are often messy; compare the words described at User_talk:-sche#German_ordinal_numbers, many of which still need to be standardized as to the placement of the lemma and the labelling of the part of speech. Bare etlich is attested in older works (google books:"etlich und" has many citations well into the 1800s; citations ostensibly from more recent centuries seem to all be quoting works from the 1800s or earlier), but the lemma form where the content is should probably be etlicher, based on modern usage. Bare einig with a relevant meaning is similarly (infrequently) attested but obsolete (Citations:einig); the lemma should be einiger, reflecting modern usage. The Duden reaches that conclusion in both cases, though it prefers forms with -e rather than -er — I have no strong preference for one or the other, but Wiktionary's practice has been to lemmatize -er rather than -e when not lemmatizing a bare form. - -sche (discuss) 19:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
The examples with einig seem to mean one: einig und zwanzig, einig und dreißig, einig und sechzig, that looks like ein und zwanzig or einundzwanzig etc., that is 21, 31, 61. Well, it could also mean "twenty and a few more". But then ohngefähr in "ohngefähr einig und zwanzig" could be pleonastic. As one can also find "etlich und zwanzig" etc., it might actually mean twenty and a few more. "ohngefähr einig und zwanzig" then could mean twenty and a few more, maybe just ten and some more, maybe even thirty and a few more, like 15 till 35 and not just 21 till 29. However, after searching for "einig and zwanzig" etc. these phrases should be very rare and just barely attestable.
einig as in "wir sind uns einig" is still common, so it shouldn't be moved. Maybe it should be split like einig as an adjective meaning united and einiger as a pronoun meaning a few. In any case there should be two different declension tables. Adjective: das Volk ist einig, ein einig(es) Volk, das einige Volk; pronoun: einiger Wein, einiges/einigen Weines, pl. einige Weine, einiger Weine, and no der Wein ist einig, ein einiger Wein, der einige Wein.
Regarding einiger and einige: Other sources might use the plural as the plural is more common and as the singular is used in "special" cases like with singularia tantum, material nouns, uncountable nouns, abstract nouns. By semantics, "some" and "a few" are in the plural. einiger Wein (Wein as material noun or uncountable noun comparable to water) means a little more amount of the liquid wine, while einige Weine (Wein as an appellative and countable noun) means a few bottles of wine or a few different kinds of wine.
As for etlich, it should be a pronoun etlicher, but as with mancher and manch there is also etlich (eg. "Von etlich[en] anderen vierfüßigen wilden Thieren", "Nachdem sie sich etlich[e] Tag[e] erquickt", "noch etlich[e] Meilen sey geritten"). The declension should be like etlicher Wein, etliches/etlichen Weines, pl. etliche Weine, etlicher Weine, and no der Wein ist etlich, ein etlicher Wein, der etliche Wein. - 10:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense - Latin noun. Not in Lewis and Short. Needs headword correcting if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not really a Latin word, it's an Aramaic word in Latin transliteration. Many English translations also use "raca" in Matthew 5:22, but that doesn't make it an English word either. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, strictly speaking, it's a Latin transliteration of a Biblical Greek transliteration (ῥακά (rhaká) of an Aramaic word (ריקא (reika, empty one)). My Vulgate spells it as racha and my Peshitta spells it as ܪܰܩܰܐ (raka)/רַקַא (raka). Chuck Entz (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
In Latin there's also āmēn, which can also be found in dictionaries. So raca could be Latin too.
Georges' dictionary has raca, see raca in Georges' dictionary at www.zeno.org: "raca (see note below), eitler Wicht, ein Schimpfwort, Vulg. Matth. 5, 22. Augustin. de doctr. Chr. 2, 11, 16.".
Some Vulgates have the spelling raca, like Latin Vulgate (Clementine), others have racha, like Wikisource's Biblia Sacra Vulgata (Stuttgartensia) and Nova Vulgata.
So the word should be attestable in Latin. However, gender and declension could be unknown. -Ikiaika (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Some additions:
  • Note to Georges' text quoted above: The Semitic characters at www.zeno.org are different from the characters in Georges dictionary. They seem to be similar to but different from ריקא.
  • Augustinus Hipponensis - De Doctrina Christiana libri quatuor - Liber II spells it Racha. Other editions have it as Racha or racha, often with italics or quotation marks, but there could be an edition with raca.
    BTW: Different spellings of the other foreign words in this example are: Amen, Halleluja (Halleluia, Alleluia), Hosanna (Osanna).
  • Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur contains "et raca". Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte has the same example (though it has Geennam and not gehennam) and mentions a source: Hieron. adv. Jov. II, 20, which can be found at Hieronymus - Adversus Jovinianum Libri Duo - Catholica Omnia (PDF page 54, column 328). Latin text: "Qui fratri dixerit fatue et raca, reus erit gehennae (Geennae)".
    Is this the same word? Georges has another raca, see racana: "rācāna (rāchāna, rāchēna, racēna, rāca od. rāga), ae, f., eine Art Oberkleid, bes. als Mönchstracht". Without reading the text and just by the context with Gehenna, i.e. Hell, I'd guess it also contains the word meaning idiot. This English translation translates it as: "He who says to his brother, 'thou fool,' and 'raca,' will be in danger of Gehenna."
  • This Latin text seems to dicsuss the word Raca.
-Ikiaika (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


--Dixtosa (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Added some cites, so it should soon be RFV passed. -Ikiaika (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Of the six cites in the entry, three (2008, 2014, and 2007) are mentions and two (the two from 2002) are of the spelling M17N. I only see one use (2009) of the challenged spelling. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 01:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


The "adjective" - just a noun modifier, isn't it? Donnanz (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so. Also, the given citation is for cocktail music, which seems to be a term of its own. Equinox 16:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh right. You could move the quotation perhaps? Donnanz (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  Done Equinox 20:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
However, there does appear to be an obsolete adjectival meaning - from the cites I find I think it probably means something along the lines of dashing or ostentatiously sophisticated:
  • 1830, Sporting Magazine:
    It looks very cocktail to be seen riding through the streets of London in a scarlet coat ;
  • 1840, The Sporting magazine:
    The Prince had nothing particular about him but a monstrous smart whip with a gold stag for a handle, which was pronounced a very cocktail looking instrument by the Leicestershire farmers, with whom His Serene Highness is no favorite
  • 1998, Boulevard - Volume 14, page 137:
    A model dressed in a Santa's suit: red crush, white cuffs and collar, a stocking cap. A Very Cocktail Christmas.
  • 2008, Christine Kelly, Mrs Duberly's War: Journal and Letters from the Crimea, 1854-6, ISBN 0191579912:
    She always goes about with a brace of loaded revolvers in her belt!! Very cocktail and no occasion for it
Kiwima (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
It meets attestation standards, but it follows a general pattern by which many (any?) noun meanings can be exploited in the way we call an adjective. IMO it adds no value whatsoever to early-stage learners, ESLers living in an English-speaking country, or native speakers. It's too uncommon for an early-stager and the others can decipher this kind of thing and put it in its insignificant place. I suppose there may be some others who find this useful. DCDuring TALK 21:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Are we not to follow the adjectival criteria that you have long advocated for? I don't understand your objection. DTLHS (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that isn't being used as an adjective in those citations. I'm arguing that the adjective sense is trivial. For example, any proper noun can be used this way, eg, This argument is so DCDuring. [He] went to a grammar school and then to a university, very red brick and provincial. DCDuring TALK 22:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Seriously? I find nothing trivial or obvious about the connection between a scarlet coat or a brace of pistols or a huge whip --- and a cocktail. If you see such a connection, perhaps we need another definition of cocktail as a noun. Kiwima (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Have you ever heard of connotations? Do you think all connotations should be rendered as definitions? DCDuring TALK 21:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
It's hard to know what obsolete sense is meant in those quotations and we shouldn't jump to conclusions. I agree with DCDuring. Donnanz (talk) 08:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

With regard to what the sense of these might be, it might be considerably less positive than currently defined: Century defines cocktail as a noun with these senses: (1) a certain bird, (2) a certain insect, (3) a horse which is not thoroughbred, hence an underbred person (citing Macmillan's Magazine, "But servitors are gentlemen, I suppose? A good deal of the cocktail about them, I should think."), and (4) an American drink. The old Imperial Encyclopaedic Dictionary likewise defines it as (1) a half-bred horse, (2) a poor half-hearted fellow, (3) a kind of compounded drink, (4) a kind of beetle. Most if not all of the citations above seem more likely to mean "lacking in manners" than "festive". - -sche (discuss) 14:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "To lay open; to expose to view; to examine or exposit." What does this actually mean? It is not mentioned in the OED. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it refers either to laying some physical thing open to view with the eyes, or to revealing something, as opposed to the other sense (to explain and lay a topic open to understanding with the mind). I can find some citations where the object of the verb is a physical thing rather than a concept, but even there it seems to refer to "explaining" the thing, not the RFVed sense. For example:
  • 1639, Michael Jermin, A Commentary: Upon the Whole Booke of Ecclesiastes, chapter 9, page 343:
    One such righteous man, one such wise man, is able in danger to deliver a City, for so it followeth. [...] They who expound the city to be the body of man, expound this poore man to be synderesin & dictamen rationis, [...]
- -sche (discuss) 17:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
The usex in Webster's 1913 had the object of the sense in question being "both his pockets", ie, something physical, not a topic of discussion. The sense was labelled obsolete. But even Webster 1913 didn't use the verb exposit in the definiens. DCDuring TALK 12:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
RFV-failed. Webster was apparently referring to a quotation of some Hudibras, "He expounded both his pockets." - -sche (discuss) 03:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)



  1. naturism, nudism, social nudity.

There's been a sort of half-edit-war between User:Xanderox and User:Dmol over this. Obviously, naturism and naturalism aren't the same thing- but that doesn't mean that some people don't use the one term for the other. If they do, we have to include it, but we might tag it as proscribed, or the like. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Whether it's right or wrong, it does exist, and fairly commonly. As you say, it could be marked as proscribed, or a usage note added. --Dmol (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

How does one mark "proscribed" or add a usage note? I'm not sure how "fairly commonly" can be defended... Ex: http://www.wikidiff.com/naturalist/naturist User:Xanderox (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Also: https://sites.google.com/site/emilyrussavage/prescriptivism

We have a template for labeling things: {{lb|en|US|UK|proscribed|nonstandard|etc.}}. For usage notes, you just put a "====Usage notes====" section after the definition and say something like:
Usage notes
  • Referring to nudism as naturalism is often considered an error, since the primary term for that is naturism, though some people do use it that way.
As for evidence: there are a couple of mentions in reference works here and here, and actual uses here, here, here and here. See our Criteria for inclusion for details on our requirements.

As for evidence that the "couple of mentions" are just that - a very small proportion of "improper" usages - please note this section from the Google Sites page I listed earlier:

"There were 1888 total tokens for the word "naturist" in Googlebooks. The word came into the corpus just before the 1900s and has since enjoyed increased popularity, especially in the 1920s, the 1930s, and the 1990s. Early on, most of the tokens dealt with the religious sense. It wasn't until 1937 that naturist came into the corpus meaning "nude". It actually came from a direct translation of a German magazine "Nackt Leben". The next usage of the word "naturist" referring to nudity came in 1959:

    "One such setting is the British Sunbathing Association, in which several members recently fomented division by proposing that "naturist" be used as a substitute term for "nudist."  

It wasn't until the late 1970s that "naturist" became frequently used as "nudist", but now the term is almost exclusively used for practices of nudity.

There were over 300,000 tokens in Googlebooks for the term "naturalist". The usage for "naturalist" has decreased slightly over the last 200 years, but still remains constant. In the first 100 tokens for the 2000s, 97 referred correctly to art and/or nature. The remaining three, however, dealt with the incorrect use of religion." Xanderox (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


This word is variously cited as Vulgar Latin and Late Latin, sometimes giving the seventh century as a date. It is not classical and I am not sure where to find an example if it is indeed Late Latin. If it is Vulgar Latin, the Romance language etymology citations ought to be changed, and the word ought to be moved to the appendix for VL. reconstructions. I am not sure that the nineteenth century German dictionary implies there is an actual Latin source, but the word is also referenced as Late Latin here: https://archive.org/details/etymologicaldict00diezuoft The word is also described here thus: `spoken Latin camminus, first documented in Spain in the seventh century.' (hyperlink: https://books.google.com/books?id=8c2k5GSn8eAC&pg=PA6&dq=camminus&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjioKfY8-TMAhXMK48KHSiGBysQ6AEIQTAF#v=onepage&q=camminus&f=false ) I do not know if spoken implies not written. Isomorphyc (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I cannot judge the context of these cites, so they may be invalid.
1663, Johannes Heringius, De Molendinis[44]:
Rudiergo & simpliciori secule camminorum usus fuit incognitus.
1804, Jacopo Durandi, Notizia dell'antico Piemonte Traspadano[45], volume 2:
[] et dictum Jacobum Vidalis certos nuncios et ambaxatores universitatis ad petendum et recipiendum a vobis securitatem camminorum, et ad tractandum vobiscum ea pedagia []
1716, Sancti Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis[46], volume 12:
Christiani enim secundum Evangelium spiritus prompei sed carne infirmi, a sacrilega contaminatione camminorum reperto compendio suas animas rapuerunt, imitati presbyteri Raziae in Mechabaeorum libris exemplum: nec frustra timentes.
DTLHS (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for looking. The first and third are misspellings for caminorum. The Johannes Hering citation itself corrects the double-m spelling to caminis in the chapter heading and camini in the passage numbered 28, which also speaks of smoke and fumes. Saint Augustine is talking about pyres, and in other texts the spelling is caminorum. In the Italian and Spanish translations the words are roghi and hogueras (regrettably I can't find an English translation).
Where the translations speak of `imboccata la scorciatoia' and `encontrado el atajo,' that is, `taking the shortcut,' this is for `reperto compendio,' not a sense of `camminus.' Of course it would be more than surprising to find Augustine to use it in the fifth century.
The second citation seems to be a genuine mediaeval usage; the text offers the date of the cited document as 1268. One would not be surprised by this usage, though it is far from Late Latin. I would like to mark the sole definition as mediaeval and offer this text as a citation, with a pointer to the seventh-century comment in the references, if this seems reasonable to others, and pending earlier citations.
Isomorphyc (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "Particularly pleasing or agreeable.". "Peachy" maybe. I don't see any evidence that something agreeable can be "very peach" or "more peach" or any other common adjectival collocations. DTLHS (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It possibly should be classed as a noun modifier if anything (see noun sense 4). In fact Oxford doesn't list an adjective, not even for the colour [47]. Donnanz (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
A noun, yes - "His goal was a peach." not "His goal was peach."   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 10:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
"I was just peach to deal with" ? [48] Siuenti (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
"Balotelli's goal was just peach, an absolute stunner." [49] Siuenti (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Here's a third one:
2000, Marc Behm, Afraid to Death, ISBN 1901982653, page 174:
'That'll be just peach with me.'
Kiwima (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Neither of Siuenti's examples are "durably archived". DCDuring TALK 10:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "to dispose of". Other dictionaries do not seem to recognize this sense and the only citation does not appear to support the definition: "Here are blank warrants of all dispositions; give me but the name and nature of your malefactor, and I'll bestow him according to his merits." --Hekaheka (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC) Also the sense "give in marriage" seems to be missing from other dictionaries. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The marriage-related sense reminded me of sense 3 of give away in marriage, which at least some dictionaries have as a distinct sense. MWOnline, for example does not have it as a distinct sense as the identity of the subject (eg, father), object (bride, object's relationship to subject, or the name of the bride) and "in marriage" amply restrict the way in which give and away can be interpreted. DCDuring TALK 17:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I found a quotation from Shakespeare to "give in marriage" -sense, and consequently removed rfv-tag from that sense. Sense "to dispose of" remains. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
bestow in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 has both senses, each with a single citation. Webster 1913 had the same citation for the marriage sense, which I am about to add to the entry. I still have trouble seeing the marriage sense as not just a trivial specialization of other senses of bestow. DCDuring TALK 21:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
A further consideration: should the two senses be labeled "archaic" as they are missing in current dictionaries? --Hekaheka (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
The "dispose of" sense seems obsolete to me, The marriage sense seems SoP and dated.
The "dispose of" sense makes etymological sense as directly from be- + stow, the other senses seeming to be developments, but I can't base it on our "Etymology" as we don't have definitions for the Middle English terms or entries for them. DCDuring TALK 05:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense -- this doesn't make sense, novae have all sorts of luminosities, saying 1000x times the luminosity of a nova does not make sense. -- 11:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

2013, Koutarou Kyutoku, The Black Hole-Neutron Star Binary Merger in Full General Relativity, page 11:
This event is named a “kilonova” in [55], because it is brighter by a factor of ~103 than a nova.
This suggests that scientists might be willing to informally use both nova and kilonova as measures of the brightness of typical astronomical events of the type mentioned. That this use might be imprecise is not a problem to them and less so to us. DCDuring TALK 12:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Although that sounds reasonable, the only cites I can find refer to the event rather than the luminosity. Not being a physicist, I am not always sure, however. Here are the questionable cites I found:
  • 2013 November, V Paschalidis, SL Shapiro, “A new scheme for matching general relativistic ideal magnetohydrodynamics to its force-free limit”, in Physical Review D:
    Moreover, during merger neutron-rich matter can be ejected that can shine as a kilonova due to the decay of r-process elements [2–13].
  • 2013 December, YZ Fan, YW Yu, D Xu, ZP Jin, XF Wu, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, volume 779:
    The observed energetics and temporal/spectral properties of the late infrared bump (ie, the "kilonova") are also found to be consistent with emission from the ejecta launched during a neutron star (NS)-NS merger and powered by a magnetar central engine.
  • 2015 January, R Fernandez, D Kasen, BD Metzger, “The effect of black hole spin on winds from neutron star merger remnant accretion disks”, in American Astronomical Society, AAS Meeting #225:
    Disk winds generally contribute to a ~week long transient peaking in the near-infrared (kilonova), although an optical precursor can manifest as a signature of delayed black hole formation or high black hole spin.
  • 2015, R Fernández, D Kasen, “Outflows from accretion discs formed in neutron star mergers: effect of black hole spin”, in (Please provide the book title or journal name):
    This component can give rise to an ≲1 d blue optical 'bump' in a kilonova light curve, even in the case of prompt BH formation, which may facilitate its detection.
Kiwima (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm with you. We certainly don't have any unambiguous evidence that it is used that way. I saw some uses that referred to the radiation pattern rather than the hypothesized cause. I'll leave citations to the astrophysicists. DCDuring TALK 22:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


This isn't an Italian word, but a Venetian alternative spelling. IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) 18:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Isn't the Venetian word something like "góndoƚeta"? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
If there's no evidence for usage in Italian, we can convert it to a Venetian entry. Either way, there are thousands of Google Books hits, so we can't delete it. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the correct spelling in Venetian would be gondołéta or gondoƚéta, but since there are so many hits, I propose a conversion as a Venetian alternative form linking to the correct spelling. IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) 12:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
RFV failed. If it is a Venetian alternative spelling or misspelling, it can be reentered as such. Beware that Google sometimes fails to distinguish characters outside of the narrow set used to write English.__Gamren (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

June 2016Edit


Rfv-sense: "A small hand tool or material-handling implement specialized for specific types of processing such as is used in the kitchen or a laboratory." Seems redundant to the first definition: "An instrument or device for domestic use, in the kitchen, or in war." BTW, the OED only lists the one sense. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I've revised def 1, added a new def 2 and would delete def 3 as redundant to 1 & 2, ie, treat it as an RfD matter. DCDuring TALK 09:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
My impulse would be to keep def 3 and get rid of 1 & 2 as overly specific. But I agree that this is an RfD matter, not an RfV matter. Kiwima (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Definition 3 is about twice as long (in syllables) as a typical definition of a competing monolingual dictionary. Many competitors only have sense 1. Some have both senses. I have not yet found one that has a definition as long-winded as definition 3. DCDuring TALK 19:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Incidentally, MW Online has an exemplary discussion of the "synonyms" tool, implement, instrument, appliance, and utensil. I wish Wikisaurus had something similar. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


What kind of "Egyptian" is this? Where is it used? ばかFumikotalk 12:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Knowing the IP that added it, this is from Bing translate. It's easy enough to find raw Google Books hits for it, but I suspect those are transliterations of foreign terms. Someone who knows Japanese will have to sort through them. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
TL;DR version: エジプシャン (Ejipushan) on its own seems to be often used to refer to the Bangles song, “Walk Like an Egyptian”, per the Kotobank entry from Daijisen and a cursory look at google:"エジプシャンは". Past there, it's the first element in a number of compounds borrowed from English, such as エジプシャン・マウ (Ejipushan Mau) from Egyptian Mau (a breed of cat).
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Google search throws up a few seemingly "native" uses of エジプシャン, for example (just one at random), 最初にベリーを始めたとき(5年位前かな)、先生がエジプシャンだった。("When I first began belly dancing about five years ago, my teacher was Egyptian"). However, my Japanese is not good enough to tell whether this is normal usage or something special or different. 11:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Eirikr: Can you comment on what 86 found? Fumiko is champing at the bit to get this deleted, but I'd prefer to save the entry if it's actually used. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
RFV failed ばかFumikotalk 13:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @ばかFumiko -- Um, no. The term エジプシャン (ejipushan) is clearly used to mean Egyptian, which a very minor modicum of research clearly uncovers. There are definite restrictions on its use, which the entry should include in a ====Usage notes==== section, but this does not constitute a failure of the RFV criteria ("durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question"). Μετάknowledge asked specifically about Google Books, and google books:"エジプシャン" provides more than enough instances. Fumiko, you can read Japanese. You have no grounds for closing this as failed when a simple search provides ample evidence that this entry is valid, if somewhat lacking in detail. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Lol, no I don't read Japanese. I can only decipher some text from manga and anime that I've already known the meaning, or at least the context, of. That's why I never claimed to be a ja user (if anything, only a newbie learner), why my "translations" can be very flawed, and why I requested for verification for this entry, which is not working for a month. Why don't you provide the required citation if you're so sure about it being Japanese? I'm totally dubious about the use of transcriptions such as エジプシャン as "Japanese". They might just be mere pronunciation guides, not true Japanese. It's probably similar to a situation where a Vietnamese keeps saying things like "I don't care", but no sane Vietnamese would call that "Vietnamese": it's just an English phrase those young A-holes've adopted from a Korean song. There are such things as "foreign words used in native contexts" you know, and as far as I know, they don't qualify as "loanwords" either. It's kinda hard to see the boundary between such words and loanwords in Japanese though, because all of them are written as transcriptions with kana. ばかFumikotalk 02:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Aha -- it would be great if you could clarify that with a JA-1 or JA-2 box on your userpage. You currently don't have anything for Japanese, and from your involvement in editing JA entries, I had misjudged your ability. It looked like you were offloading the work of finding citations because you didn't want to do it, rather than because you can't do it.
Now that's cleared up, I'll see about adding citations. Please note that I am unfamiliar with our Citations infrastructure and formatting conventions, so this will take me some time -- and given how busy I have been lately IRL, please don't expect immediate results. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Eirikr No dude, I seriously can't do it. I don't read or speak Japanese, let alone find citation in complicated sources. My best buddies are mostly manga, which have very clear contexts that can be used to deduce the meanings of the dialogues (not to mention available translated versions everywhere). I understand why you misjudge my capability since I've been committed to Japanese entries a lot, but I've never said I was a JA user, hence the lack of JA-1 or 2 or whatever. ばかFumikotalk 10:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
@Eirikr So how about those cites?__Gamren (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "to fill a tooth". Wiktionary seems to be the only dictionary which has this sense. I tried to look for usage in Google but with no success. E.g. "tooth was inlaid" produces one hit of a Fiji tribesman whose tooth was inlaid in the club which killed him. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I have added four cites, but found many more. I would, however, suggest adding "dated" to the entry, as the cites are all rather old. Kiwima (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
From the citations as presented one couldn't tell whether inlay refers to a special technique, a standard technique using different/non-standard materials, or to filling teeth in general. I suggest that we keep this in RfV until this question is resolved or that we remove the definition. DCDuring TALK 10:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
inlay#Noun implies, but doesn't clearly state, that an inlay is something that is formed outside the tooth and inserted into it. That differs from filling#Noun. Presumably the nouns' semantics transfer to the verbs'. This 1922 dental dictionary (p 152) makes it clear that the formation of the inlay does not occur in the mouth. The same source's definition of filling makes filling seem either a hypernym of or a technique distinguishable from inlaying. DCDuring TALK 10:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with DCDuring. That is what I picked up when I was huntin for cites. Kiwima (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


I'd like to RFV both senses of Gatorade

  1. A Gatorade sports drink.
  2. (by extension) Any sports drink.

There's a RFD of the 1st sense taking place (WT:RFD#Gatorade) but I'd rather use the RFV process. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  • The self-referential definition is just plain stupid and needs improving. I don't think the second definition is correct. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @SemperBlotto Why do you think the second definition is incorrect? Is there any evidence to say it isn't, or is that just your gut? Purplebackpack89 14:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I tweaked the self-referential definition. I suppose you could use quotes like the following for it:
  • 2009, Connie Strasheim, Insights Into Lyme Disease Treatment, ISBN 0982513801:
    I may also recommend that they take Peltier Electrolytes from Crayhon Research, which is kind of like glorified Gatorade, but which works well to replenish some of the cell's missing elements.
  • 2010, Anne Canadeo, A Stitch Before Dying, ISBN 1439191417, page 50:
    I like to say it's Gatorade for the soul.” Phoebe turned to Lucy.
  • 2013, Sydney Finkelstein, ‎Jo Whitehead, & ‎Andrew Campbell, Think Again, ISBN 1422133370:
    It seems highly likely that Smithburg's brain was “imprinted” with an ability to recognize a Gatorade-type situation: a category leader in a fast-growth niche with potential for further development.
As for the second definition, it's hard to show in a quotation that the word is referring to a generic sports drink, rather than Gatorade brand, but I figure the following quotes work because they are talking about a homemade concoction:
  • 2001, Mary Hance, Ms. Cheap's Guide to Getting More for Less, ISBN 1418535796:
    We figure that we save nearly $200 a year in mixing our own Gatorade,” she boasts.
  • 2002, Ronald J. Mikos, Dragon's Breath, ISBN 0595260306:
    I had lots of homemade Gatorade, two big burgers and a few minutes later I was cruising like the machine again.
  • 2011, Suzanne Boothby, The After Cancer Diet: How To Live Healthier Than Ever Before, ISBN 0983839557:
    Add a splash of lemon or lime and a hefty pinch of a high quality sea salt and you've just created a homemade Gatorade without all the extra sugars, neon colors, or added ingredients.
Kiwima (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@Kiwima Another thing to look at is the term "Gatorade bath". In American football, especially college, there exists a phenomenon where a coach is showered with sports drink upon winning a big game. It is invariably referred to as a "Gatorade bath" or "Gatorade shower", even if the type of sports drink used cannot definitively be proven to be Gatorade. Purplebackpack89 14:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
That's just evidence that "Gatorade bath" and "Gatorade shower" may be idiomatic, not that Gatorade is a generic term. For one thing, it doesn't have to be sports drink that's used: it can be just about anything handy of sufficient quantity that's cold and wet- even the contents of an ice bucket (see w:Gatorade shower). Chuck Entz (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Re "mixing our own Gatorade": the makers of liquid Gatorade also sell Gatorade powder, which users can mix with water on their own to make what is IMO lexically the same (branded) drink. "...without all the extra sugars", in turn, is making a drink which is being likened to Gatorade (brand drink). - -sche (discuss) 01:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The "like glorified Gatorade" example looks to be a comparison of the other sports drink with brand-name Gatorade. It does show that the author expects their readers to be familiar with Gatorade, but that doesn't make Gatorade a generic term- just the name of a well-known brand. The "Gatorade-type" quote is an example of someone referring to Gatorade as a brand, and is more about marketing than about Gatorade. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


suzukaze (tc) 02:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Another early entry by the same editor as above. This one looks to be easily citeable from Google Books- as an uppercase proper noun. It's only been edited once by a human between its creation in February of 2005 and your edit today, and there was a conversion script that moved everything to lowercase in June of 2005- so I've moved it to uppercase and changed it to a proper noun. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • RFV passed after cleanup (no cites provided, but it is demonstrably citable in its current form). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


No use. DTLHS (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

A mere handful of older texts refer to "apic acid", apparently a component of bee-stings. Equinox 17:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
apic acid is easily citable, although noone bothers to define it. A Google Books search for "apic" is flooded with some business jargon bullshit, and "apic" "bee" gives many books on bees with "J. Apic. Res.", whatever that is.__Gamren (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

misandristically, misandricallyEdit

No use. DTLHS (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

"Misandristically" could definitely pass from Usenet newsgroups [50]. The other one I doubt. Equinox 18:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I've added two quotations for misandrically, but I can't find a third. For misandristically, it's true that there are lots of results on Google Groups, but the ones I looked at were all by the same author. I added one of them to the entry, but I can't find any by other authors. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)





  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Discussion moved from the Tea Room [51]. DonnanZ (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

So far, I've only looked for westside. As is stated in the Tea Room discussion, most hits are (Capitalized) names for neighborhoods in certain cities, but there are also some uncapitalized uses, both as a noun meaning the west side of a region, and as an adjective (or possibly the noun used attributively?):
Adjective (or attributive noun) uses (the 2012 quotes are, IMO, the most convincing):
  • 1983, K. Leroy Dolph, Site index curves for young-growth incense-cedar of the westside Sierra Nevada:
    Estimated heights of dominant and codominant trees where site index and breast-height (b.h.) age are known for young-growth incense-cedar of the westside Sierra Nevada.
  • 2012, H. Jesse Walker, Artificial Structures and Shorelines, ISBN 9400929994, page 124:
    During periods of no dredging, choking of the entrance channel is rapid and a hooked spit develops at the westside top of the breakwater at Blankenberge.
  • 2012, Paul Madyun, The Candidate, ISBN 147714871X:
    Apaullo entered the bank's westside revolving doors, and followed the arrow directing him down to the lower level vault, which housed the boxes.
  • 2013, Rod Gragg, The Illustrated Gettysburg Reader, ISBN 1621570738:
    When he reached Gettysburg on July 1, he was greeted with blunt news: General Reynolds was dead, and he was now the senior Federal commander on of Gettysburg's westside ridges and General Reynolds's “bold front”—as Howard put—had given the Federal army the advantage of choosing the battlefield.
  • 2013, Dave Aquino, Personal War, ISBN 1771430540, page 37:
    “I live in the westside 'hood of Paradise Cottages,” Eddie replied.
  • 2013, William J. Chandler, Audubon Wildlife Report 1989/1990, ISBN 1483215830, page 138:
    Although environmentalists may see the westside old growth in danger of being liquidated because of extremely high cutting rates in 1987 and 1988, the industry claims that many trees cut in the past few years were originally scheduled for logging in 1981 or 1982.
  • 2014, Dr. Larry H. Spruill and Donna M. Jackson, Mount Vernon Revisited, ISBN 1467121843, page 63:
    After 100 years, the older southside and westside houses were in disrepair.
  • 2014, Lowell Cauffiel, Masquerade: A True Story of Seduction, Compulsion, and Murder, ISBN 9049980201:
    They signed the lease for Casper and the same day enrolled in a westside methadone program called Private Health Systems.
  • 2014, David R. Butler, Fire Lookouts of Glacier National Park, ISBN 1467131148, page 113:
    The westside photographs provided coverage along Lake McDonald from roadside points one and two; much of the forest on the west side of Lake McDonald burned in the Robert Fire of 2003.
  • 2014, Tom Snyder, Pacific Coast Highway: Traveler's Guide, ISBN 1466868341, page 41:
    Redondo Beach and other westside beach cities first opened up as resort areas when the Big Red Cars of Pacific Electric began making weekend runs.
And, for rounding things out - the noun usages for the west side of an area:
  • 2012, Henry F. Diaz, Climate Variability and Change in High Elevation Regions, ISBN 9401512523:
    These watersheds were selected because they are reasonable representations of altitudinal cross-sections of the westside and eastside of each park, and also have sufficient longterm climatic and hydrological databases to provide input for modeling.
  • 2013, Treasure Blue, Fly Betty, ISBN 1936399318, page 186:
    When Betty had taken care of all her business, she'd simply spend the rest of the day gaining her strength back by usually walking around Central Park, that stretched from 110th Street all the way down to 59th Street from Eighth Avenue on the westside to Fifth Avenue on the east and back around.
  • 2013, Dana Coyne, Be Well, Detroit, ISBN 1481759981:
    Detroit is Mexican Village and Greektown and the eastside and the westside and Woodward Avenue.
  • 2014, Poketa L. Moore, Through These Brown Eyes: A Novel, ISBN 1499064802:
    I went over to his apartment over in Learing Homes on the westside to work out some details.
  • 2014, Bruce Russell, Chinatown County: The Sell-Out of Marina del Rey, ISBN 1304850943, page 37:
    Santa Monica is the dominant city on Los Angeles County's westside and the decision of the Outlook owners to close the newspaper because of a drop-off in advertising left the city without a voice.
  • 2015, Christopher Noxon, Plus One, ISBN 1938849434, page 208:
    But even Alex had to accept that the westside had one thing the east just didn't: All the good doctors.
Kiwima (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Virtually all of those quotations seem to be from American sources, and I guess the same would be true with the other three. This is what I suspected in the first place. I have gone ahead and created east side, west side, north side and south side as alternative forms for the time being, but they could be upgraded to main entries. DonnanZ (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


Needs verification. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

In clearly widespread use. Siuenti (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
It's more like a candidate for RFD, why don't you try that? Siuenti (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

is this true?Edit


Looking through several Google search result pages, [52] seems to be the only clear usage of this name. —suzukaze (tc) 23:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


There's a temple by this name, but I can't tell if it has use as a surname... —suzukaze (tc) 23:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


Google finds one 山田 華実子 but seemingly no other people. —suzukaze (tc) 23:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


Google finds many people with this name. Strucksuzukaze (tc) 23:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


Not a single usage found on Google. —suzukaze (tc) 23:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


According to the Google results someone once wrote a blog post about getting spam from "中山実母沙"; no other usage. —suzukaze (tc) 23:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


Appears to be unused. —suzukaze (tc) 09:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


Google finds usage in only one person's name. —suzukaze (tc) 09:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


Not a single usage found on Google. —suzukaze (tc) 09:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


Google finds usage in only one person's name. —suzukaze (tc) 09:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


Not a single usage found on Google. —suzukaze (tc) 23:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


Not a single usage found on Google. —suzukaze (tc) 09:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


Not a single usage found on Google. —suzukaze (tc) 04:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


Appears to exist... —suzukaze (tc) 04:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@suzukaze-c Would you like to reexamine this? BTW, User:4RM0 has previously added Japanese names that failed verification, see Talk:汐実子, so it may be worthwhile to examine all their contributions.__Gamren (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
If https://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=特別:検索&search=実名子 is anything to go by, this one is OK. —suzukaze (tc) 21:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


Not a single usage found on Google. —suzukaze (tc) 23:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


Not a single usage found on Google. —suzukaze (tc) 23:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


According to the Google results there is one Facebook user by this name; no other usage. —suzukaze (tc) 23:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


Not a single usage found on Google. —suzukaze (tc) 23:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


Not a single usage found on Google. —suzukaze (tc) 23:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


Not a single usage found on Google. —suzukaze (tc) 23:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

suzukaze (tc) 23:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

double auntEdit

Doesn't this definition imply some kind of odd incest? Also, I found a book with a different definition: "eventually a double aunt as she was her father's sister who married her mother's brother". Does not seem a common term anyhow. Equinox 01:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I think there are definitions that have yet to be added. There are several ways to become a double aunt or uncle Leasnam (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I wrote a new definition. We hardly need to list every possible way of being a double aunt. One example is enough. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Current definition seems overly watered down: anyone's aunt will be one parent's sister and the other's sister-in-law, as long as their parents are married. --Tropylium (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The usual sense is siblings marrying siblings. However, marital status does not confer aunt-ness; that is, the parents of the child need not be married but the sisters of both mother and father are still aunts. Marriage of the parents' sibs to otherwise-unrelated people can confer aunt-ness, so a marriage of an existing aunt to a parental sib would 'double' that connection. - Amgine/ t·e 22:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


Hard-to-type character in computing. This comes from the Jargon File, many of whose terms are quite unattestable. Equinox 11:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Cited, I think. They're all clear uses, but two are "cokebottle", one is "coke bottle" and one is "CokeBottle". The sources are a little fuzzy, since they come out of snippet view; I put Adventures in Microland on order, but that would probably be better verified from the Byte magazine, which I believe can be found online.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I have Adventures in Microland... somewhere. But I did a Usenet search and found a third cite for the spelling "cokebottle", as well as many more. "coke-bottle" and possibly "CokeBottle" are also citable. (Try "cokebottle emacs" at Google Groups to get mostly this sense.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

นักพละ Edit

Such term does not exist. Gymnast is called นักยิมนาสติก in Thai. --YURi (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I have rarely seen นักกายบริหาร, นักกายกรรม, นักพลศึกษา that also mean the gymnast. นักยิมนาสติก is used in sports. นักกายกรรม is used in shows. However, never seen นักพละ. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
+Perhaps นักพละ is the shortened speaking of นักพลศึกษา --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


The correct term is นักพนัน. --YURi (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@YURi: Thai entered to mean gambler. Entered by User:Alifshinobi, who declares himself to be th-3. นักการพนัน found by Google translate. Apparently found at google books:นักการพนัน in space-free blocks of text. Are you sure the term does not meet WT:ATTEST? We are not here concerned with "correctness", merely with attestation in actual use.--Dan Polansky (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Put differently, how do you explain all those hits at google books:นักการพนัน? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Here's one example from Google books I was sort of comfortable with (can't guarantee a good translation):
เขาเป็นนักการพนันตัวยง  ―  kǎo bpen nák-gaan-pá-nan dtuua-yong  ―  he is an expert gambler
source--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • นักการพนัน is used among Thai-speaking people. นักพนัน and นักการพนัน are both "correct", although the former is used more often than the latter. Just because one form is used more often than other forms, doesn't mean that the other ones are not used at all and therefore are "incorrect". --A.S. (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@Alifshinobi If you can find citations satisfying WT:CFI, please add them to the page. Otherwise, it is liable to deletion. I also deleted the word above; but again, if you can find cites, do feel free to readd it. If you are unsure what constitutes sufficient attestation, there are many whom you can ask.__Gamren (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


Does this non-erhua form exist? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Doesn't seem to be any shortage of this on Google books, unless I'm missing something. But 個 is normally 4th tone... Siuenti (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016Edit


Not many Google hits, and almost no Books hits, most of which are (the same) mentions. The English Dialect Dictionary has a few citations of other spellings. - -sche (discuss) 03:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

axle tooth with a space looks more promising. Equinox 04:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Added 2 citations, with all the different spellings a third seems likely somewhere. DTLHS (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Now cited, although you may want to move it to a different title. DTLHS (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


One citation given. Otherwise, I can only find errors for lactonization, or something to do with the Laconian variant of Greek. Equinox 15:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


Rfv ばかFumikotalk 02:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

There are some occurrences but the spelling ギニーピッグ (ginīpiggu) is much more common and matches the English pronunciation closer. Rename to "ギニーピッグ" - easily verifiable. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


From economy: slang: "Mass-produced and made to be affordable, with no regards to quality or craftsmanship." Equinox 21:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I have added two quotes, but can't find a third, unless you want to count related terms such as ecky-beckey or ecky thump. Kiwima (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
ecky thump doesn't seem to have a related meaning. Equinox 13:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Isn't it an ancient Lancastrian martial art? Chuck Entz (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
No, it means something along the lines of appalling. Kiwima (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

come to the foreEdit

Rfv-sense: "to assume a leading position". Is this sense real? I don't find it in other dictionaries and the usex "The winner didn't come to the fore until the race was nearly over" could as well be of the first sense. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It is surprising how difficult it can be to find unambiguous examples here. I have added three quotes that use the phrase in the sense of becoming prominant rather than becoming obvious. Kiwima (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
This seems like an SoP entry, by the way: e.g. "bring to the fore" is also common. Equinox 18:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree. "at the fore" is also attestable, and we have an entry for to the fore too. I think this is just a figurative sense of fore. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)



  1. Pronounced wěi? (archaic) a type of reptile (similar to a lizard)
  2. Pronounced wèi? (archaic) long-tailed monkey (similar to a macaque but larger). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)



Is this attested in modern English? —CodeCat 20:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is. You can find it in A dictionary of archaic and provincial words page 13. You can find more than a dozen examples of it in A dictionary of Archaic and Provincial Words by Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O. It's still quite rare though. Mountebank1 (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
However, it mostly occurs in the form "ac" in there. Mountebank1 (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
It can also be found here An Etymological Dictionary of The Scottish Language under AC. Mountebank1 (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Also here The Dictionary of Obsolete and Provincial English Containing Words from the English Writers Previous to the Nineteenth Century Which Are No Longer in Use, or Are Not Used in the Same Sense; and Words Which Are Now Used Only in Provincial Dialects. Mountebank1 (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Another one The Glossary of Archaic and Provincial Words. Mountebank1 (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
You will need to provide uses that aren't from dictionaries. DTLHS (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The best I can do is the early to mid 15th century stuff, so it's Early Modern English at best.
P.S. It is a dictionary word (attested in oral form). It is only found in dictionaries. Mountebank1 (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I have removed it. If you want you can migrate the entry to the Middle English section. Mountebank1 (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I have done so. DTLHS (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Early to mid 15th century would qualify as Middle English Leasnam (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
While we're here it would be nice to have citations for the sense from Maori. DTLHS (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I cannot find any proper citations for the sense from Maori. It would appear that Archdeacon Williams in his "Dictionary of New Zealand Language", said thatː Ake,ake, ake meant for ever and ever. It looks like just another dictionary word for which no dictionary provides any correct citations. The whole thing was best summed up by pegggi on collinsdictionary.comː "How ridiculous. This is not a word. All your examples are typos for take and ache".
However, for ake (as in ache) there are plenty of citations here. Mountebank1 (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

clue cardEdit

Rfv-sense: A printed card with basic entries listed for a global distribution system. I'm not sure what this means and I can't find citations for it. DTLHS (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Created by User:Dmol, who adds plenty of aviation stuff and presumably works in the industry. Can we ask him? Equinox 01:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I work in travel. I had a look online, and almost everything there is a pdf with clue card only in the title. The following links should show some examples.






--Dmol (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be used in writing... @Kiwima can you find any cites for this? DTLHS (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
As mentioned in my original response, it does only seem to be in the title of the documents shown. Finding text about it is difficult due to a similar named game, and the other definitions discussed below. But it's clearly wide-spread and has been around for decades. I could easily find another dozen examples from different airlines, hotels, car hire companies, etc. --Dmol (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I can find quite a few hits for something to do with "stiffened shells of revolution" used by NASA, often capitalised, and containing load distribution information:
The other close hits I got were in books by Thomas Sawyer on facilities planning, which are control distribution cards containing location, description, etc for a control location:
Kiwima (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


Some US politics thing. Most Google search results are in scare quotes, introducing a new term. Equinox 01:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

So? Just because they're in scare quotes doesn't mean it isn't a word. You will concede that there is a great deal of coverage in internet news articles, will you not? Purplebackpack89 13:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


  • Rfv-sense: (computing) Of a computer system that has been in service for many years and that a business still relies upon, even though it is becoming expensive or difficult to maintain.
  • Rfv-sense: Left behind; old or no longer in active use.

Removed by an anon. Can we demonstrate these senses act as adjectives? While I opposed RFV for the purpose in the past, I don't see what better thing to do; RFD? --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

How about the following?
  • 2000, International Engineering Consortium, The Emerging Optical Network, ISBN 0933217978, page 75:
    They have no idea what occurs in the network or its topology, and all of the services remain dependent on it — a very legacy approach to creating services in the optical network.
  • 2003, Carlo Zaniolo, ‎Peter C. Lockemann, ‎& Marc H. Scholl, Advances in Database Technology - EDBT 2000, ISBN 3540464395:
    However, pre-relational DBMS are legacy.
  • 2008, CIO - 15 Feb 2008 Vol. 21, No. 9, page 49:
    There was talk in the past that ERP systems were legacy, lacked the agility and flexibility, and did not support interoperability.
  • 2009, Kerrie Meyler, ‎Byron Holt, & ‎Greg Ramsey, System Center Configuration Manager (SCCM) 2007 Unleashed, ISBN 076868952X:
    Because most of these HALs are legacy and only used on aging or outdated hardware, chances are that you do not have any in your lab and must be creative in procuring one from an active user.
  • 2013, Management Association, Software Design and Development, ISBN 1466643021:
    In practice, there are legacy or mature, domain specific, off the shelf (i.e. software that other software projects can reuse and integrate into their own products) tools that are used regularly by modeleres (e.g., for testing purposes, for communication and collaboration).
Kiwima (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Using another approach, here, here and here are examples of the phrase "becoming legacy". Although the usage points to probable adjectivity, I think the current definitions aren't very good. It's not just computer systems that can be referred to as legacy: I can find usage for legacy beliefs, culture, institutions, practices, standards and regulations , too. I think it started out in computing and other technology, then spread to a variety of other discipline. I would suggest that we merge both definitions into something simple like "left over from the past". Chuck Entz (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

compulsive streakEdit

Tagged but not listed. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a tricky one, because most uses of the phrase refer to a personality quirk - a tendency to highly focussed or compulsive behaviour. However, I think I found three quotes that support the supplied definition:
  • 1985, Sharon McCaffree, Misplaced Destiny, ISBN 0373160879, page 220:
    They greeted him amiably, chatting with their usual excitement, but not in the compulsive streaks as before.
  • 2011, Andrew Hudgins, Diary of a Poem, ISBN 0472071548, page 95:
    If I miss the long compulsive streaks of writing, I do not miss the ensuing weeks of exhaustion and enervation, weeks and months when I could barely pull myself together to do my job, and at home stare at books halfheartedly and moan about my inability to focus on anything but my inability to focus.
  • 2014, Mary Anne Wilson, A Question Of Honour, ISBN 1488703558:
    He turned to head back to the truck, admitting that he was on some crazy compulsive streak.
Kiwima (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Though we have no such definition, this intuitive feels like compulsive + streak. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


Take a close look at joyant. There can be found numerous citations for it, but the most part of them seem to mean "giant". At least, one person, in the early 20th century, appears to have used it to mean joyous, but did she? —This unsigned comment was added by Mountebank1 (talkcontribs).

Your existing citations seem to me to clearly mean "joyous". I've added a noun sense using {{eye dialect of|giant}} with the citation you linked. DTLHS (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it seemed to me that way, as well. That's why I added it. I just wanted to see if other people would see it that way, too, I know, I just wanted to be one hundred percent sure. There are also other citations for joyant in the sense joyous out there . The only thing I am still a bit bothered by is the following quotation from James Joyceː "Yet is it, this ale of man, for him, our hubuljoynted, just a tug and a fistful as for Culsen, the Patagoreyan, chieftain of chokanchuckers and his moyety joyant, under the foamer dispensation when he pullupped the turfeycork by the greats of gobble out of Lougk Neagk. When, pressures be to our hoary frother, the pop gave his sullen bulletaction and, bilge, sled a movement of catharic emulsipotion down the sloppery slide of a slaunty to tilted lift-ye-landsmen. Allamin. Which in the ambit of its orbit heaved a sink her sailer alongside of a drink her drainer from the basses brothers, those two theygottheres". What does he really mean by "moyety joyant"? Does he mean a "moiety joyant" or a "mighty giant"? Mountebank1 (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
It's Joyce, so I assume he meant both. DTLHS (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
It's a bit of a mess with both etymology merged into one. I would assume the joyous sense comes from Old French joiant. I'll see if the SOED has it and what it says. Renard Migrant (talk)
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary has joyant under joyance as an adjective with this meaning, glossed as rare. Gives etymology as joy +‎ -ance but it probably isn't. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Ugh, the etymology needs cleaning up. There is no point in mentioning the use of the word in Finnegans Wake there if it is unclear what sense Joyce intended. Either relocate the quotation under one of the senses, or on to the citation page. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
All clean. Leasnam (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Yay, thanks! — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Pleasingly I've just looked at joyance and it lists Joycean as an anagram. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
*Thumbs up* — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
As far as Old French joiant goes, I honestly do not think that it had much to do with Myra Kelly (the first mention I could find is hers) coining the word joyant. No really, methinks she just took the noun joy and added a still-productive affix -ant to it to form an adjective. I mean, there is just too much of a gap in continuity of use for me to suppose that it was directly derived from joiant. Mountebank1 (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • We shouldn't really be citing Finnegans Wake, at least not without great care. All the words in there are deliberate blendings which have multiple meanings, often in more than one language. The book is a high-level vocabulary game and by some standards cannot really be considered to be written in English. Ƿidsiþ 14:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Just finished reading Finnegans Wake... and you know, ne'er ne was I the one to spunder to shed this and that into English and non-English, but hereon I mote agree... Finnegans Wake be something that wones in the realm of its own, a sort of limbo where it ne is fully Egnlish, and ne is it fully something else... —This unsigned comment was added by Mountebank1 (talkcontribs) at 15:04, 27 July 2016.


Favourite. Seems plausible (fave, -o) but I've never seen it. Australian possibly? They like the -o. Equinox 10:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

"My favo" has a few hits on Usenet (once you filter out the false positives of "my favo(u)rite"). Keith the Koala (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, a handful. (There's also the question of whether it's a noun, adjective, or both.) Equinox 00:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


Attsted per WT:ATTEST and other parts of WT:CFI? The thing is, this seems to come from Joyce and the quotes need to be independent per WT:CFI#Independent. The 1990, D. Brown quotation currently in the entry is quoting Joyce. The 2008, Kristi Lea quotation is a blog one and not in "permanently recorded media". Pinging @User:LexiphanicLogophile. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks ok to me now. Albeit not by much. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


--- LexiphanicLogophile <3:26 pm Saturday, 17 September 2016 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)>

August 2016Edit


DTLHS (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

--- Quotations & Mentions

--- LexiphanicLogophile <3:11 pm Saturday, 17 September 2016 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)>

Looks like youfound two uses, to me. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I think I agree. @LexiphanicLogophile, in the future, please try to only post citations that you think are valid in these discussions—it doesn't help anyone to have to wade through a long list of mentions to find a few uses. I've gone through the citations you added to the entry and removed the unambiguous mentions, leaving three citations. The 2006 quote is a solid use and the 1981 quote uses the term in italics, but I'm not sure about the 2013 quote, which uses it in a way that gives no apparent indication of what it's supposed to mean. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


To add lemon. (Not the sense in which I RFVed the same term several years ago; that sense failed.) Equinox 02:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Cited. Added two cites to the citation page that don't seem to fit with the existing sense. DTLHS (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The 1992 cite is an adjective, not the verb being rfv'd Leasnam (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
@Equinox, out of curiosity, what was the other sense ? To turn or make (something) into a "lemon" ("a bad deal") ? Leasnam (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
It's archived at Talk:lemon: "To damage something and then deny or be aloof from the damage." I'm aware of "lemon" as slang for a defective motor-car, so I suppose that might be related. Equinox 03:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Yep, I saw it. Thanks ! Leasnam (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


Supposedly an English noun. But the definition says it is Sanskrit (obvious nonsense - wrong script). Needs an actual definition, not an essay, if OK, and then needs to be moved to uncapitalised form. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Seems OK. A tantric path to bliss through sex, drugs, eating meat and other immoral things. Perhaps what Sting had in mind... — Pingkudimmi 13:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Cited in capitalised and uncapitalised forms, subject to challenge as normal. The wordy gloss was apparently pasted from Wikipedia. POV seems inherent in the term, through connotations associated with "left-hand". I've accepted the recommendation that the uncapitalised version be the main lemma. Capitalisation seems common but that may simply be "respect" for its status as a religious philosophy (or something like that). The capitalised version (only) seems to be used for the "follower" sense. The pronunciation in WP was set up for "Sanskrit" IPA, with "c" pronounced as "ch". This presumably is the reason for the alternative spelling "vamacara". — Pingkudimmi 09:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


(and inflections) To behave in a subservient manner. Really? DonnanZ (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Stranger things really exist, though I haven't checked it yet. I should mention that I just blocked the IP that added this as yet another Pass a Method sock. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Now the present tense docksides has been added to dickride, what's going on? DonnanZ (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I've added four quotations that seem to support this or a related sense. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Some of those quotes seem to be related to bands, but they're far too vague to form a conclusion from. DonnanZ (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
The usages are all consistent with the definition, though it might have been hard to infer the meaning from the bare citations given. More context helps, which is why a link to the source is often useful. (Thanks, Mr. Granger.) An "AAVE" label looks appropriate. DCDuring TALK 10:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
If Granger's aren't enough, I could definitely look up some more. This is a pretty common expression in internet communities (especially hiphop forums) to refer to obnoxious fanboying/fangirling and should definitely be kept. Current definition is close enough but a bit off. — Kleio (t · c) 01:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


Sense: "Simple, easy, or quick, convenient" (particularly the "easy" and "quick" part). Speaking of which, does anyone know what the difference is supposed to be between that def and "Quick; rapid; expeditious," which is marked as obsolete? There are two quotations given for the RFV'd sense, but neither seem to relate very well to the definition, unless I'm missing something. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

"Quick, expeditious" is a definition marked as obsolete in Webster 1913.
I usually look at Webster and Century for questioned or questionable definitions that are labelled obsolete or archaic or have curious, dated wording. Also, a definition in the form of several synonyms, especially separated by semicolons, leads me to Webster. DCDuring TALK 10:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Can it be safely assumed that the RVD'd sense is not distinct from Webster's? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
AHD: "3. (Obsolete) Speedy; expeditious."
Webster 1828: "3. Quick; expeditious. [Not used.]"
I suppose it's a blend of various dictionaries' definitions of the same obsolete sense, apparently already archaic or obsolete in 1828. DCDuring TALK 21:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Expedient seems to be often synonymous with short-sighted and opposed to of true/long-term benefit. It is sometimes synonymous with selfish and opposed to for the greater good. I can't find anything that makes it synonymous with "simple, easy, or quick", except in ways better covered by other definitions. I'm not sure that the citations match the definitions very well. DCDuring TALK 02:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
It seems that someone had tried to tease apart the first Webster definition into separate definitions, without the benefit of citations. I don't think anything is lost from the challenged sense failing, though the remaining definitions could be improved. DCDuring TALK 02:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@DCDuring I'm not overly concerned about it failing; I just wanted to be reasonably sure the sense didn't exist. I think it's fairly safe to assume it doesn't, so can the RFV be closed by someone, or must it be left until it ends up near the top of the page? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether it is a formal requirement, but we keep items on this page open for 30 days or more, ie, until September 3. I'd like to give it a week more (ie, October 1, two months) since I just added some cites, expanded others to provide more context, moved them around among sense and added a new sense. I'm sure that the challenged sense is not a common, current one, but it could be obsolete or uncommon. An OED check would be prudent. DCDuring TALK 01:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Good to know, and thanks for the additions. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "Fucked up but all right". Ƿidsiþ 08:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete. I looked, and all I found was this book, and a few Usenet group discussions. Okay, so let's analyze both of these.
So the first search result that comes up from a Google search of "fucked up but all right" is this Urban Dictionary entry (and unfortunately the second one is the Wiktionary entry we're talking about right now), and UD prioritized the unattested (and even if attested, much more rare) sense of "fucked up but all right". I don't expect much more of UD to be honest, and I'm glad that we never use them as a reliable source. I'm guessing that the user here added that definition because they found it at Urban Dictionary defined as that, in fact I'm almost certain that that's the case. But the motive doesn't matter, just throwing out there that Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source for Wiktionary entries, and I want to really emphasize that.
I looked in Google Books first, which is what I always tend to do. The only thing I found there, as I mentioned above, was this book, and if you're having trouble seeing the mention in this book, look at the search engine instead. As you'll notice, the most common definition (i.e. our first definition) is mentioned first in the book. Then, the characters/figures in the book seem to jokingly come up with a few more possible abbreviations of "FUBAR" (the two that I can see are "fucked up beyond all reality" and then, on the next page, "fucked up, but all right"). So, in the book, the people are basically just, in context of course, listing off a few other possible abbreviations for FUBAR. So that citation is extremely weak, though I suppose it could be used, but only as a last resort.
I did a search on Google News, which is usually my second stop, and found literally no references to FUBAR in comparison to "fucked up but all right" or "fucked up but alright".
The last place I stopped by was Google Groups, which is usually my last place, and I should say, especially for 1980-2005-used words, Groups does the trick very often. But not this time... I found two threads at Usenet mentioning "fucked up but all right" as "FUBAR". Both of them seem to be, once again, listing off possible or alleged definitions to this abbreviation. For one of them, they list eleven alleged definitions, with this one at the bottom, ten of which begin with "fucked up beyond [...]". They are as follows (quoted exactly as they're written):
  • Fucked Up Beyond All Repair
  • Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition
  • Fucked Up Beyond All Reality
  • Fucked Up Beyond All Reason
  • Fucked Up Beyond All Recall
  • Fucked Up Beyond All Recovery
  • Fucked Up Beyond All Relief
  • Fucked Up Beyond All Restitution
  • Fucked Up Beyond All Renaissance
  • Fucked Up Beyond Any Resolvability
  • Fucked Up But All Right
Also, as I also mentioned above, the fact that the posts are written in a language other than English (in this case, Dutch), I don't think these would count anyway, even though they're talking about the English language and mentioning English words in parts of it. But, even if they actually were written in English, I still wouldn't count these as reliable, because the posts don't mention the definition of that abbreviation alone; they mention it with other possible or alleged definitions.
In conclusion, and based on my verification analysis, I'm gonna say we'd better delete this one. Unless someone can find durably archived sources that are better than this in places I haven't looked, or if there's a user who is capable (I mean that figuratively) of looking for hours on end through all the Books, News, and Groups references to the word "FUBAR" alone, in hopes of finding two (or preferably three) more references to the term that, by context, seem to mean "fucked up but all right", then it is not attested and should be deleted. Philmonte101 (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Any time there's a censorable word, it's hard to find on Usenet using a straight text search, but searching for "FUBAR" in combination with "all right", I found some indication that at least a few people believe the "all right" part: "Fouled Up But All Right" and "F__ked Up But All Right", but not enough for CFI for this form. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment: This completely disregards the RFV of this particular definition. But I wonder if we could possibly add a definition similar to "Used to indicate many other alleged definitions beginning in "fucked up beyond all [...]".? Would that be allowed here? Since it does seem quite a few people try to play the guessing game with this abbreviation in sources. Philmonte101 (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
If it's only "alleged" to stand for something then it doesn't actually stand for that, so it would still fail WT:CFI. Equinox 01:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Equinox. Forgive me for not clarifying. I meant that if we can actually find 3 citations for more than one of these other abbreviations that people are using FUBAR for, then could we possibly use a single definition to collect together all of the rarer definitions (those which probably only barely meet CFI)? Or would that still violate CFI or ELE somehow? Philmonte101 (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to me. How would you define it on the sense-line? "Any of various things that FUBAR may stand for"? That's circular. If it does stand for a thing, attestably, then that gets a sense-line of its own. If it doesn't, then we don't include it, by existing policy. Equinox 02:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Some examples hereallixpeeke (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Creator has added some citations at Talk:Burtonesquely but I don't think they meet WT:CFI requirements of being durably archived. Equinox 00:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The 2004 (Marquis-Homeyer), 2005 (Pobjie) and 2012 (Collin) cites seem to be durably archived. Einstein2 (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


Requesting modern English usage. DTLHS (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


Currently has 2 senses (the second one with 1 quotation). Please check if they are able to be attested or if there are any other senses for this symbol.

  1. sexual intercourse (between man and woman)
  2. Collectively, gays and lesbians, or LGBT people.

Also, the Unicode PDF for range 2600-26FF says this character means "bisexuality". I tried to find this sense too in Google Books, but I wasn't able to.

I'm just guessing, but it could also mean heterosexuality. An anon originally created the entry with poor formatting and defining it as "heterosexuality". Maybe I was too quick to delete that sense, it actually looks plausible. (but I didn't find uses for it either)

I tried searching for: heterosexuality symbol, bisexuality symbol, interlocked male female, interlocked venus mars, bisexuaity unicode, female male gender symbols, female male sexuality symbols, etc. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

About 1st meaning, it is well-known in my country. Instead, I am not sure with the 2nd. --Octahedron80 (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I've seen it used on forums to tell users that you identify with both genders for any reasons, sometimes being that you're gender fluid or bigender or whatever else. Philmonte101 (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how you would really search for usage of this, but my sense is that while the "bisexuality" or "LGBT" meanings may possibly be known within certain groups, the general public (in the United States at least) is much more likely to associate it with heterosexuality. (For one random example which I happened to note down, it was used in an NBC Saturday Night Live Weekend Update segment in 2007 to illustrate coverage of a study which claimed that women prefer men with prominent chins for short-term relationships, but men with rounder chins for long-term relationships.) You can also see commons:Category:Heterosexuality... -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
It was used on the Weekend Update segment of the Saturday Night Live episode that's being broadcast right now (rebroadcast of December? episode) to illustrate a story that brain scans didn't turn up significant differences between male and female brains. When Saturday Night Live uses the symbol, it seems to refer to comparisons or interactions between males and females... AnonMoos (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I've been trying to search this symbol by reading some magazines and books about sex on Google Books, but it seems too hard to find. It seems that this RFV is probably going to fail. The entry has only one citation, which can be moved to Citations:⚤.
There is an SMBC comic in which the symbol appears, but I forgot to save the link. Either way, it would only count if that comic was published. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The citation already included also suggests the meaning "a heterosexual awareness of the differences and diversity between men and women", which seems to be similar to the way SNL Weekend Update uses the symbol, but which isn't listed as a definition on the entry. By the way, the meaning "heterosexual sex" might be better suggested by the symbol on the left below than by the symbol on the right (in the eyes of some, at least): AnonMoos (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I found the SMBC comic that uses the to mean "heterosexual sex" but does not count for attestation purposes because the internet is not "durably archived media". Here it is: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2010-04-27 --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to know what armadillo means in that context...   You would think that being broadcast on national network television would count for something, but I have no idea how to cite SNL, or whether that's possible. (I'm not really a Youtube person, so it would be better for someone else to do it, if it can be done.) AnonMoos (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: I don't think that appearing on TV counts as "durably archived media". If you find something on a book, hopefully it'll still be available if someone decides to check it in 200 years. How do you find the TV report of that specific SNL Weekend Update? Even if it's on Youtube somewhere despite all odds, Youtube videos get deleted all the time. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


I'm not any kind of expert on sourcing or sourcing policies, but it seems to me that if you're going to include wordless symbols (without any particular associated pronunciation), then you need to allow yourself to look for cites in places where wordless symbols are found, or else you're pretty much pointlessly defeating yourself in advance. Not including the most commonly-understood meaning of the symbol (in the U.S. at least) makes the entry as a whole fairly useless... AnonMoos (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Citations in durably archived media (basically, books or Usenet) are important. IMO, if we can't prove that the symbol is used, then it's not actually used that much to merit an entry. In Category:Translingual citations, you can see some citation pages for emoticons. Those pages for emoticons with fewer than 3 citations usually don't have actual entries, (eg.: Citations:⊂(◉‿◉)つ), but if we find 3 citations for them, they can have entries.
Same with the word cissplain. According to the talk page, it may have to be deleted soon, because it does not have 3 citations from books or Usenet. (but it may be recreated later if properly cited) It has some citations at Citations:cissplain that are from the random internet websites and thus are not durably archived, and don't count. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
They probably wouldn't meet your high standards, but I just recently noticed that someone had added footnotes to the heterosexuality meaning on w:Gender symbol... AnonMoos (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
About the high standards you mentioned, WT:CFI says: "A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense.", but it does not define clearly what other things besides words are accepted. It is, however, clear enough about which citations we accept: if you want to prove that a normal word like ocean exists, you must provide citations from durably archived media. (ocean won't get deleted any time soon, because it's obvious that we could get 3 citations if we wanted) For symbols, we don't have any other standards -- 3 citations are needed for those, too. I think it's reasonable, because web pages are really ephemeral and random. If we allowed citations from the internet, we would probably get flooded with redlinks and protologisms everywhere. If you disagree with me, feel free to use WT:BP to try to make a policy proposal about citing stuff from TV or from the internet, but you are going to need to address problems like the ones I mentioned if you want to convince other people.
It's true that these footnotes don't meet my (or, CFI's) high standards. I checked the 4 links that were added in the Wikipedia article, serving as footnotes to the specific symbol. They are all from non-durably archived sites and so don't meet CFI. Three of those[53][54][55] are mentions (explanations of the meanings) instead of actual uses; it's like saying "Wiktionaryphobia means fear of Wiktionary" instead of saying "I get panicked around here because of my Wiktionaryphobia" and it's the reason why we don't have a ton of words for phobias that are listed everywhere. The 4th link[56] is just an image board. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the intended meaning of "A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense." was that a term can actually be a phrase consisting of multiple words. --WikiTiki89 17:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
By that logic, does * meet CFI? I know it's not the same; the asterisk is a normal symbol that exists on keyboards. But maybe all symbols actually don't meet CFI, including the asterisk and the planet/gender symbols. In any event, logically "A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense." is not restricted only to single words and multiple-word terms: in the list below that sentence, one of the items is: "Characters used in ideographic or phonetic writing such as or ʃ.", so the examples indicate that at least kanji and IPA are accepted. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I know we include things like that, and we should, but that sentence is not the justification for it. --WikiTiki89 18:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there is any other place on the CFI that justifies including the asterisk and/or the gender symbols, is there? The way I see it, that sentence ("A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense."), and the whole of WT:CFI#Terms, are the correct place to explain what types of entries we should have in the main namespace. If the section is unclear about the possibility to include certain symbols, it should be edited to reflect the actual rules, provided we reach any consensus from discussions and votes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
There's never been a consensus on how to define exactly what should be included, that's why it's not in CFI. We can't make a policy of something we don't agree on. --WikiTiki89 18:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Relatively pointless yet relevant digression: XKCD:1726. - Amgine/ t·e 16:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


AFAIK, it should only be 彷彿 or 仿佛, not 彷佛. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, zhwiktionary has it, but it was added by a bot in 2010. If this is incorrect, I'm tempted to let them know as well. Philmonte101 (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Philmonte101 The Chinese Wiktionary cannot be trusted since there aren't enough people there looking after the pages. There are way too many pages generated by bots. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
(Category:Chinese misspellings is always another option. —suzukaze (tc) 20:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC))
Pleco dictionary lists it as a variant. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c I guess we could resort to that. @Atitarev Which dictionary in Pleco is it from? Is it computer-generated? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. It's not Pleco's dictionary but CC, which is included in Pleco.
The entry looks like this:
PY fǎngfú
ZY ㄈㄤˇㄈㄨˊ
JP fing2 fat1JP fong2 fat1 --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

JP fong2 fat1

I'm not sure how we should interpret "彷⧸仿彿⧸佛". I'm not sure this is strong enough evidence for 彷佛. Also, MDBG clearly has 彷彿 and 仿佛, but not 彷佛. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 11:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
"彷⧸仿彿⧸佛" means each character can be replaced in the traditional form. Wenlin only gives 仿佛//彷彿 fǎngfú. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
@Atitarev I'm not sure if that's what CC meant to say, since MDBG, which, if I'm not mistaken, is based on CC, only has 彷彿 and 仿佛.
(Continuing the discussion from RFD) @Tooironic I think there are all errors in digitizing the original text. Looking at the book scans of the four texts given here (封神演義, 太平御覽1, 太平御覽2, 太平廣記, 儒林外史), I think this would only legitimize keeping it as a misspelling. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 12:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Wyang (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


Are there any actual prefixations of this? —CodeCat 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

How would you analyze the entries in Category:English words prefixed with dacry-? DTLHS (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
There is no prefixation going on in these words. Prefixation is where a prefix is added onto an existing word, but these words seem to consist entirely of affixes which makes no sense. And additionally: were all of these words formed in English? —CodeCat 22:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Khitan lemmasEdit

The Khitan wrote using a Siniform script. Are these Chinese transcriptions of Khitan? —suzukaze (tc) 02:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about what's going on here. Are you RFV-ing every entry in this category? Or are you just looking for evidence that Khitan was written using this script? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 12:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The Khitans had their own script. These entries use the Chinese script. —suzukaze (tc) 17:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I understand that, but I don't understand what your goal is with this discussion. If you want to RFV every entry in the category, then I'd like to add {{rfv}} tags to alert anyone watching the entries. If you want to discuss what writing systems Khitan used, maybe with the goal of moving all of these entries to different titles, then I'm not sure RFV is the right place for the discussion. (Likewise with the Buyeo section below.) —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Buyeo lemmasEdit

suzukaze (tc) 02:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

See Category talk:Old Korean appendices. I think both Appendix:Old Korean deleted entries and Appendix:Baekje deleted entries should also be deleted, moving unattested terms to an appendix is not a solution to things. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


Etymology 2 noun and verb. Definition is awful, but without citations it is hard to tell what the core meaning might really be and whether it is worth saving. DCDuring TALK 15:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we could replace the definition with something with less editorialisation, such as "Someone who supports or implements privatization". I can find plenty of citations to support that definition:
  • 1984, United States Congress Joint Economic Committee. Subcommittee on Monetary and Fiscal Policy, Privatization of the federal government:
    We do have a noted privateer here in Idaho in the audience. He is one member of the news media who is in favor of privatization, Mr. Ralph Smeed.
  • 1986, Comprehensive tax reform: hearings before the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Ninety-ninth Congress, first session, on the President's tax proposals to the Congress for fairness, growth, and simplicity:
    Selecting a Privateer: Having set the stage for privatization. Auburn realized the importance of choosing the right firm to be the privatizer, and put a great deal of effort into evaluation of the proposals it had received.
  • 1993, Union Plus, page v:
    The union won one fight when Fairfax County, Va., pulled the plug on privatization because of poor performance by the privateer.
  • 2000, Malcolm Bradbury, Cuts, ISBN 1743290357:
    Certainly he was himself an enthusiastic privatizer, or privateer, and that summer of 1986 'privatization' was, along with 'buzz-word', the great buzz-word.
  • 2001, George Beam, Quality Public Management, ISBN 0830415696:
    Privateers, such as Osborne and Gaebler, promise that good competition will not become bad--will not become cutthroat competition-- if good competition is "carefully structured and managed;" that is, if competition is abandoned in favor of planning. Neither Osborne and Gaebler, nor any other privateer, has explained how it is possible to have activity that is both private and public-sector managed.
  • 2009, Patrick Wright, A Journey Through Ruins: The Last Days of London, ISBN 0191580082, page 189:
    One uncompromising privateer dismissed them with undisguised contempt: 'It is, in general, a frugal rather than an enterprise culture. Apart from general managers, the boards are full of local businessmen, worthies and professionals, who often see their role as public duty, and gain more from incidental business connections and occasional perks of office than their often minimal fees.'
Kiwima (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I have now looked into the use as a verb as well. While the noun does not seem to be clearly distinct in meaning from privatizer (and clearly predates the George Lakoff book from which the definition was lifted verbatim), use as a verb clearly has implications of profiteering that make it distinct from the term privatize:
  • 1995, Columbia law review - Volume 95, Issues 1-4, page 299:
    If privatization is not going to degenerate into privateering in the developing world, reform of the predatory state will eventually be necessary.
  • 1996, Nicholas V. Gianaris, Modern Capitalism, ISBN 027595241X:
    To mitigate the effects of privateering and excessive profiteering, consumer-owned co-ops exist in a number of U.S. areas.
  • 2004, Jack L. Nelson, ‎Stuart B. Palonsky, & ‎Kenneth Carlson, Critical Issues in Education: Dialogues and Dialectics, ISBN 0072555114, page 210:
    Privatization encourages privateering over the public good.
  • 2009, Sam Vaknin, Macedonia: A Nation at a Crossroads:
    As I had the chance to write in your newspaper, there is privatization - and there is privateering, or what is called in polite terms, transformation. ... This sounds true to me: privatization all over the world has degenerated into crony-capitalism.
Kiwima (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Excellent citations, but they seem more like allusive or metaphorical use of Etymology 1.
The verb seems to be alluding to the idea of "state-sponsored piratical practices" being the consequence of kleptocracy or crony capitalism. I would let the allusion remain allusive rather than be rendered into a definition.
The noun, too, seems to be playing on the idea of privatization as leading to piratical behavior.
Both sets of citations make me wonder whether there really is any separate etymology, rather than perhaps figurative senses of Etymology 1. But the existing interpretation and separate etymology cannot simply be dismissed. I think I would incorporate the idea of Ety 2 into Ety 1. DCDuring TALK 23:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I think Etymology 2 comes from the George Lakoff book, where he is creating a neologism with the given definition. But many of the cites, including the use as a verb, predate that book. I think a new noun and verb meaning should be added to Etymology 1 and Etymology 2 removed as a neologism that was not picked up. Kiwima (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Rfv-sense: noun: "An unethical individual or group acting covertly with enabling, usually bribed, accomplices inside government to destroy a government’s ability to carry out some aspect of its moral mission of protection and empowerment, by transferring critical moral functions along with public funds."

I can't imagine what a citation would look like that supported this thesis definition. Perhaps a book? DCDuring TALK 12:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


Equinox 16:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Only 2 attesting quotations; 1 in news and 1 in books, 0 in groups. Damn, just need one more but it's not there. Anybody find anything else? Philmonte101 (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


Etymology 2: "worthy to be praised". Is it obsolete perhaps? Equinox 16:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

How does one distinguish in a quote between this meaning and "inspiring love"? In any case, the best I could come up with were quotes such as the following:
  • 1773, Thomas Boston (the Elder.), ‎Alexander Colden, The Whole Works of the late reverend and learned Mr. Thomas Boston, Minister of the Gospel at Etterick:
    And so he is in the eyes of all who live to his praise. To them every attribute of God is lovely. The holiness and purity of his nature is most lovely to them.
  • 1807, Erasmus Middleton, Evangelical biography:
    He is altogether lovely. O, all our praises of him are poor and low things!
  • 1823, Church of England, Llyfr gweddi gyffredin:
    О praise the Lord, for the Lord is gracious : О sing praises unto his Name, for it is lovely.
  • 1834, David Dickson, A Brief Explication of the Psalms - Volume 1, page 39:
    It is the duty of all believers to join themselves cheerfully in the setting forth the Lord's care over them, and whatsoever may make his lovely Majesty known to the world: for so he requireth the present precept and example, -- sing praises to the Lord.
  • 1876, ‎John Vaughan, Trinity hymns for the worship of the three-one Jehovah in faith & love:
    My precious Saviour's matchless name ; He's wise and holy, just and true, And altogether lovely too.
Kiwima (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
As to your question, your citations do a pretty good job of suggesting "praiseworthiness" rather than some other sense of lovely.
It does seem obsolete, although perhaps clerics are trained in the distinction, making it perhaps archaic to them, though obsolete to the rest of us, who need to consult our dictionary to believe in a distinct sense. DCDuring TALK 23:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I would mark it as archaic, since I'm fairly sure I've heard it used in this sense in at least one contemporary hymn. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I found that hymn:
Here I am to worship, here I am to bow down
Here I am to say that You're my God
You're altogether lovely, altogether worthy
Altogether wonderful to me, my Lord
I'm not sure if it's unambiguous, but it does seem to fit this sense better than the more common ones. I suspect that in any modern usage, the lines between the two etymologies are a little bit blurred in the minds of anyone using the word, given that it's not really used nowadays, and the usage in the song I quoted is no doubt modelled off of older hymns rather than exemplifying the currency of the word. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
In perhaps idiomatic speech, it seems to be implied in the negative use:
  • "[Well,] wasn't that lovely?"
  • "that's a lovely attitude."
  • "not a lovely [noun]"
- Amgine/ t·e 19:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


This is the first time i'm using RFV. Sorry if this is not done correctly.

The article has 3 quotes, but they seem to be examples of very different meanings, which shouldn't be listed as supporting a single meaning consisting of a list of different meanings, as is the case now.

There seem to be more than 1000 hits at Google Books, but i haven't had time to look at any of them. Most importantly, the word isn't in any dictionary i own or in any free online dictionary, so the article should at least mention that this is a very rare term and not considered to be a "real" or "correct" word by most native speakers.

It's not in the single-volume printed OED or the free online Oxford Dictionaries. Is it in the full version? --Espoo (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

What do you think the meanings of the quotes are? They all seem to fit under "forgetfulness" to me. And yes it is in the full OED. DTLHS (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I added a few more citations and added to the definition. I don't think it's as non-standard or rare as it once was, where it used to be a byform to forgetfulness, but it's becoming increasingly more popular now for it's directness and no-nonsense appeal as a term for "the act of forgetting; forgetting" Leasnam (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but according to Ngram Viewer it seems to be extremely rare. I'd found this result but forgot to mention it above and only mentioned that the word is not in any dictionaries i could access. Is it labeled extremely rare in OED? I'm confused by the Ngram Viewer result since Google Books finds more than 1000 hits. I always thought GB hit amounts were more accurate than hit amounts of normal Google searches, which include pages that only have the word in hidden misspellings and synonyms. --Espoo (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Google Books is where most of that inaccuracy comes from, due to scannos, misinterpreted hyphenations, and other problems with OCR. It's also true that any Google search that goes to multiple pages almost invariable overestimates the actual number of hits. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


Requesting unambiguous verbal use. The quotations given are only for "goal-sucking" as a noun. DTLHS (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I added two quotes that are clearly verbal uses, although one of them lacks the hyphen. Kiwima (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


Tagged but apparently not listed. Compare lectic, lectically. A user has added citations, but several are obviously not of this term, e.g. "proposes an ana- lectical method", "is itself dia–– lectical"! - -sche (discuss) 23:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It was created with the rfv already in it- appropriately, considering the massive volume of made-up nonsense that IP has added. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I have a real sense of deja vu on this one, having done searches for lectic, also added by the same IP. There is clear support for the mathematical definition, I have added cites. The support for the "speech or words" definition is less clear - I have added cites so there are three of those now, but I am not entirely sure that they support the definition. Kiwima (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The Ancient Greek verb λέγω (légō) from which this is derived can mean both "pick up, select" and "speak, say". I suspect your examples have more to do with the former than the latter. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I am seeing the sense "of or pertaining to learning" – although many of the quotations use the term as a proper noun ([57], [58], and [59] (the current 2010 quotation)). Is that etymologically plausible? As for the 2013 Gaskin quotation, I'm not knowledgeable about philosophy and so am finding it hard to understand the sense in which the word is used. What do the Greek words lekton and tunkhanon also mentioned in the text mean? — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

noaptea de Anul NouEdit

Tagged but not listed. Note the contributor and the discussion on the talk page. - -sche (discuss) 23:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


RFV of the plural forms: tagged by someone but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 23:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Masc. acc. sg. pelagum would imply the mentioned forms, but masc. acc. sg. is uncommon (even missing in L&S, though other dictionaries have it). As attestations is missing since five month (and not just one which would be required by the WT:RFV intro before removing it) and as these forms still aren't attested, I stared them with *.
So it should be fixed now. - 04:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "The ratio of one quantity to another quantity." with the usex "The number of particles per unit volume of a specified volume can be considered to be the particle density for the specified volume.‎" Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 23:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like sense 1, but is the distinction the fact that sense 1 talks about "matter", whereas some particles are massless?! Equinox 23:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I think the difference is that sense 1 is mass divided by volume, whereas sense 2 can be some other ratio (in the usex, it's number of particles divided by volume). I've added three quotations to support sense 2. I think it could probably be rephrased to be more specific—maybe something like "A measure of some quantity per unit space"? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 01:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


Many hits for Sexodus and scannos of Israel's Exodus. Having trouble locating anything similar to the reported def Leasnam (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

There is one set of clear uses, all by author Milo on [Breitbart]. One clear cite for that is:
  • 2014 December 9, Milo, “The Sexodus, Part 2: Dishonest Feminist Panics Leave Male Sexuality in Crisis”, in Breitbart News:
    But although the sexodus, a new retreat into solitude by Western males, has a different flavour to it and dramatically different aetiology from previously observed social crises, many characteristics are identical.
Following on from the Breitbart uses are a number of mentions, such as:
  • 2014 December 16, Nancy Kaffer, “Men Need A Better Mens Rights Movement”, in Daily Beast:
    Or read a recent opinion piece describing something called “The Sexodus,” a phenomenon in which young, embittered men are departing wholesale from the dating scene. Despite a handful of interviews contained inthe piece, this is not something that anecdotal evidence and data would suggest is, at this point, statistically significant.
  • 2016 May 3, Andrea Tantaros, “Five Ways Feminism Has Made Women Miserable”, in Observer:
    Breitbart has dubbed this “equal but separate misery” between the sexes a “sexodus” where men are giving up on women altogether and stepping back from society.
I found another use, albeit in quotes, which is not explicitly linked to Breitbart on SDE Entertainment News:
  • 2015 September 8, Nancy Roxanne, “The agony of being a single woman in Kenya”, in SDE Entertainment News:
    However, it is certainly 'on topic', as per the 'sexodus', (please put this term into youtube-dunno if I am allowed to post links).
Then there are a couple of headlines that use the term for a slightly different meaning, for movements within the sex industry:
  • 2014 February 13, Jill Reilly, “Mass sexodus: Heat map shows how thousands of people fled China's sex capital after police crackdown on its brothels”, in Daily Mail (Australia):
  • 2013 September 13, Josh Sanburn, “Sexodus: Porn Industry Mulls a Future Outside LA”, in Time:
and a reference to the 2013 headline:
  • 2013 October 9, Tim Lahey, “Here Come the Condom Police”, in The Atlantic:
    In response, adult filmmakers threatened to move their operations to Nevada. A “sexodus,” some called it. Industry representatives complained that compliance with condom laws would mean less viewer interest in their films.
Taken all together, it looks like a term that is being pushed heavily by one person but not yet truly adopted, plus a couple of protoneologisms. Kiwima (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


Discussion moved from WT:RFD#swind.

I once heard one person use this word a couple of times, N.B., that person was over 80 at the time. Despite this, I am unable to find any Modern English citations for this word and as such I consider it to be quite inappropriate that this present word should be contained in Wiktionary for it degrades Wiktionary if thilk word, which cannot be independently verified, be contained therein. At the very least it should be moved to Middle English with a note indicating that it was still found in its oral form in Northern England up until the late 1970s. Mountebank1 (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

(moved by Renard Migrant (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC))


I think it's not French (not modern French). It has been used by Balzac, but not in a work written in modern French. Lmaltier (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Did Balzac deliberately write in Old French? Yeah, I'd imagine that's where I found it. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, in one book, he tried to write in Old French (or more probably in Middle French, but I'm not a specialist). Lmaltier (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
No objections. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


Does this form exist, or is this from an incorrect conversion from the simplified form? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

A Cantonese CC Canto dictionary gives 巴扎 as a form for both trad and simpl.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I found one mention and one use for 巴紮 and two uses for 巴扎 in traditional Chinese ([60], [61]) in Google Books so far. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 12:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
As an author, I'm OK to delete it. 巴扎 (bāzhā) is the correct Mandarin/Cantonese form. 巴剎巴刹 (bāshā) is an alternative. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
(once more, Category:Chinese misspellings is always another option. —suzukaze (tc) 12:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC))
Not frequent enough. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I found more uses: [62], [63], [64], [65]. I'd say it could be a t2. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

dodge bowEdit

Trademark issues aside, is this spelling actually in use? I can't find anything for it in Books or Groups. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

    • This term is used by a Company called DodgeBow in Montreal, Canada. The person who created the Wiki page did so shortly after the company launched in 2015. The IP address of the wiki page creator confirms that it is un-coincidentally from Montreal, Canada as well. The wider web references are un-related to the definition/description provided in the Wiki page. Bumping Request for Deletion. User:Adam 02:05, 21 Feb 2017 (UTC)


As was noted in Feedback, there doesn't seem to be any evidence for this outside of dictionaries. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I found some mentions of the AACFO in local newspapers:
1979: https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/149456503
2002: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=z3giAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Aa0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=6134%2C521617
According to the 2002 source they were founded in 1978. Unfortunately local papers tend not to research their stories very well, and in any case it's impossible to determine whether they actually still existed in 2002. I suspect this organisation, if it existed in a meaningful way, was a bit of a one day fly.
I doubt this is enough attestation though, and I haven't found even a single mention of the abbreviation AACFO used for this association. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 9:59, 28 August 2016‎.


The usage notes right below the "noun" definition say that this character is never used alone. —suzukaze (tc) 09:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

We could switch it to use {{only used in}}. Actually, if the usage notes are correct, shouldn't we RFV the Mandarin section? - -sche (discuss) 22:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Good suggestion. I've removed Chinese and Korean sections. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

churnalize, churnaliseEdit

I found exactly one citation for each spelling. DTLHS (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)



Per diff. —suzukaze (tc) 11:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)



  1. tricolon

Where is this character actually used? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Greek oral texts as early as the 5th century BC. Essentially a stop. - Amgine/ t·e 03:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, tricolon is unnecessarily narrow; tricolon crescens, for example, has each segment increasing (in length, or complexity, or intensity...) - Amgine/ t·e 03:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

something as adjectiveEdit

It is not obvious that something is an adjective. Merriam-Webster doesn't say it is an adjective. Please either add examples/citations or delete this adjective section. Yurivict (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this what the definition is referring to? —suzukaze (tc) 06:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


There may be another plural in use, but I don't believe this one is attested. DTLHS (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I can find one use as the plural of the specified meaning:
In addition, there is clearly another (architectural) meaning to castellanus, which has a much more easily found plural:
  • 1979, Adolf M. & Kaegi Hakkert (Walter E.), Byzantinische Forschungen - Volume 6, page 17:
    In addition to the rettori, there were castellani of the fort in the town of Chios and of fourteen other forts in the society's island. The castellanus of the urban fort was chosen by a complicated process of indirect election resembling that which determined the Podestà, and again like him was to be drawn from the popolari of Genoa.
  • 1998, Guillaume IX ((duc d'Aquitaine ;), ‎Ralph Henry Carless Davis, & ‎Marjorie Chibnall, The Gesta Guillelmi of William of Poitiers, page xli:
    Castle garrisons are castellani; WP does not use the term oppidani.
  • 2001, Adam J. Kosto, Making Agreements in Medieval Catalonia, ISBN 1139432168:
    In these documents conderning the castle of Talarn, however, the term castellanus is applied to both of the bottom two levels of the hierarchy: the texts imply that both Oliver Bernat and Guillem Folc are castellani.
There may be more, but it is difficult to determine with so many false positives on the name. Kiwima (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Are these citations referring to a social/legal rôle or position? They suggest to me a sense of 'plural of person living in/employed in/attached to a castle or fortification.' - Amgine/ t·e 18:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Interesting - I should, perhaps, investigate... Kiwima (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
This plural seems to have been cited (in the entry, and above) some time ago. RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 04:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

September 2016Edit


The adjective - looks more like an attributive sense to me. DonnanZ (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Though the citation does seem to be adjectival, not that I can work out the meaning from it. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
There's definitely attributive uses of the noun, such as county boundary, county court, county council and county town. DonnanZ (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Brief GBC searches for "county style", "county girl", and "county man" suggest both attributive and adjectival senses: typical of a county (or a specific county, e.g. "This York County man who executed the fewest stones is…"[1]) and indicating a relationship or rôle (e.g. "…he uses form 4 in reporting the deficit to his county man.[2]) I did not find cites suggesting, exclusively, noble association. - Amgine/ t·e 14:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
The "York county man" cite looks like York County man rather than York County man. Otherwise, the capitalization makes no sense. The rest of the cites are mostly of the same sort: [Xyz County/county] man, with a few where the context suggests a typo for country, and some with "county man" referring to someone associated with "the county". I see no adjectival usage in your links at all- just attributive. As for the quote in the entry, it's hard to tell exactly what it means- you have to wonder if it's a typo or a scanno for something else ("tall and county"?). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I said. The "York County man" is indicating the man is "typical of a county (or a specific county..."
The "county man" of the 1917 government manual refers to the local official at the county governmental level to whom farmers may address federal agricultural reports and filings. It is used adjectivally to make the distinction between municipal, county, state, regional, and federal levels of governance within agriculture, and was exactly the sense I thought of when I saw this RFV, having grown up in a rural setting myself. - Amgine/ t·e 23:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

delete (noun)Edit

Noun: "a remainder of a music or video release" (i.e. excess stock sold off cheaply). I have heard of items being deleted from a catalogue, but not this noun. Equinox 10:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I haven't yet found the usage in durably archived media, but consider:
  • I hear a high pitched horn and a small front end loader barrels around the corner and into the aisle I am waiting in. The shovel is full to the top with CD’s, a mish-mash of deletes and artistic creations that just couldn’t sell a million. The little vehicle rushes up to what is obviously some sort of compactor and tosses all those dreams into the mouth of the machine.
  • We started to bring in good quantities of deletes from The USA, and also started to bring in new releases,
There is no previous definition of delete given, ie, it is part of some group's lexicon. DCDuring TALK 12:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I found three cites from w:Billboard (magazine). DCDuring TALK 12:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


To start, I'm not exactly sure what a "mayberry" is (though I can guess "strawberry" based on the descendants). Secondly, while Franco‐Provençal mayossa could plausibly be a descendant, I fail to see how Occitan majofa (-s- > -f-?) and Welsh meddus, mefus could derive from it. KarikaSlayer (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Trees of the genus Crataegus are often called may trees, and they bear berries, so I suspect a "mayberry" is the berry of the may tree. The ones native to the southeastern United States (thus presumably not the one the Vulgar Latin word refers to) are called mayhaws. I'm equally at a loss as to how to derive the Occitan and Welsh words from *majusa (which ought to be moved to *maiusa, surely). The Welsh words ought to go back to something like *medūsa/*medōsa and *mebūsa/*mebōsa/*memūsa/*memōsa respectively. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
What's the source for this? We've never written a specific CFI for the Reconstructions namespace have we? Obviously WT:CFI only applies to the main namespace (nb this is not explicit and it is something I'd like to add explicitly). FEW doesn't list it and before you say anything it does include Occitan and Franco-Provençal. I'd be happy with one reputable source listing it as a reconstruction. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Romanophile, do you remember where you got this? The big Welsh dictionary ({{R:cy:GPC}}) doesn't venture any etymology of meddus/mefus. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@Angr, that would be a question for @Torvalu4. --Romanophile (contributions) 03:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Why? AFAICT you started the page and he's never edited it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Angr: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Reconstruction:Latin/majusa, https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=mefus&action=history. --Romanophile (contributions) 12:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Fair 'nuff. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "A transient grace note, struck immediately before the one it is intended to ornament." Quite apart from this redundant definition (all grace notes are transient and struck immediately before the one they are intended to oranment), I've never heard "beat" used this way. The only kinds of grace notes I know of are the appoggiatura and the acciaccatura. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

A Google search suggests that this definition was lifted from Eli Roberts' The Hartford Collection of Classical Church Music (1812). Equinox 19:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
So it's not a copyvio at least. That's still not verification, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Not strictly relevant, but I've read transient, grace note and ornament and I still don't think I understand what this means. And unfortunately we've uncovered plenty of 19th century sources that have simply made stuff up that was apparently never used (or not that we can find). Renard Migrant (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Protologism ? No book results Leasnam (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

A lot of this user's entries need attention. Many have almost no Google hits; others are cited only from non-durable blogs. Equinox 22:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Some of these will probably need speedying. Ambicide makes no sense as an alternative form of amicide because ambo and amicus are entirely unrelated. Ambicide just looks like a typo that's been propagated. Google actually shows it as Ambicide, a sterilizing product. Some of these don't like speediable but might turn out not to exist nonetheless. Have we tried explaining CFI to this person? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I've not come across anything speediable yet; monstricide looks good and chromonym seems to definitely mean something. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I've tagged two for speedy, if you disagree, please list them here. Gynonym gets enough hits that it really has to mean something. And I'm done for the day right now. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


PlanetStar (talkcontribs). Looks like Google Books gets two hits for it. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I googled these words before I create entries. If I see it enough mention of it on Google, I create those entries (romaction, dramantasy, etc.), if not quite enough I leave it as protologisms, such as romantasy (romantic fantasy) and horromance (romantic horror). PlanetStar (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Cited. DTLHS (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 04:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


PlanetStar (talkcontribs). Another two hit one. Although there's seems to be a noun amicida in Latin and amicide might pass in French also. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Cited. DTLHS (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the French turned out to be scannos of omicide which is an archaic spelling of homicide. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 04:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


PlanetStar (talkcontribs). One Google Books hit looks like it might be ok. The rest seem to refer to a product Ambicide. "Flagyl is a safe and very effective oral ambicide that reaches all body tissues." obviously refers to something else, but I'm not sure what. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Added one cite for the alt spelling. Found another set of uses related to medicine. DTLHS (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm aware that this is pure speculation, but I wonder if that usage of ambicide is a typo for amicide, as ambicide with an additional b makes no sense. As far as I know there's no variant at all of amicus with a b, and if there is one, it must be extraordinarily rare. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Renard Migrant, given that all other citations I find are for the antimicrobial meaning. Kiwima (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
It's an error for amebicide: amoeba-killer. Equinox 16:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Original, RFVed sense failed; other sense passed. - -sche (discuss) 04:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


PlanetStar (talkcontribs). I think the 'blend of spring and summer' sense may be attestable, but given the difficulty of finding three citations, I can't see us getting nine, three each for all three senses. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I see according to the article I read, Australia practically has only two seasons — sprinter and sprummer. PlanetStar (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Added two (independent) cites. The rest I could find are all from the same author. DTLHS (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I added a few more Kiwima (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • 1956, Lelia Canon Cox, “What They're Saying”, in Roanoke Radius, volume 1:
    ROANOKERS ARE TALKING ABOUT . . . "sprummer". spring and summer. or the cold-one-day-ninety-the-next kind of weather we've had . . . the lack of rain.
RFV-passed the first sense. The others fail. - -sche (discuss) 04:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


PlanetStar (talkcontribs). Secrets of the Paradox: Solving the Liar and other logical problems (2013) seems to have a perfectly good citation, but I see nothing else. The name of a band and the title of a poem, and after that, not English or not for 'tralse' but a scanno. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Three questionable cites added. DTLHS (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
The first one is the band name I referred to, and the second one I found also but wasn't sure what meaning it supported if any. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I have added another cite. Kiwima (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't see the sense of "neither t/f" in any of the citactions listed, and at first glance, I wouldn't expect tralse to mean anything but "true AND false". Can we change the definition to simply that ? Leasnam (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
RFV-passed once redefined to "both true and false". - -sche (discuss) 04:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


"To be felt sorrow for; worthy of compassion." The given citation could easily belong to the more common sense 1. Equinox 19:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Not direct evidence, but apparently the original French meaning is actual this, so if borrowed from French it may have had the same meaning at least to start with. Perhaps try some 18th and 19th century uses of 'deplorable' to see. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
deplorable in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 sense 2: "pitiable, contemptible", but no usage citations. DCDuring TALK 21:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Might be archaic, then? Chambers gives three senses: (i) lamentable, causing great regret; (ii) sad; (iii) hopelessly bad. (ii) is unhelpfully vague! Equinox 18:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Archaic might be right, though obsolete might be better, but we still need citations. DCDuring TALK 23:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I have found citations for a sense "pitiable" (which seems a simpler definition with approximately the same meaning as the one under challenge). One is from Robinson Crusoe. In that work, I also found a citation for the first definition. It occurred to me that the very same situation could be deplorable in both senses, one focusing on a deficiency in a responsible party, the other on the regrettable result. DCDuring TALK 00:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


Insufficiently attested in Vietnamese text. Chữ Nôm fell out of use decades before "Socialist Republic of Vietnam" became the reunified country's official name. The only Vietnamese-language, chữ Nôm uses I can find come from a Nôm revivalist website that hardly satisfies the attestation criteria. Meanwhile, this entry wouldn't be appropriate for any other CJKV language, because it uses Vietnamese word order (adjective after noun). – Minh Nguyễn 💬 03:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe WT:RFV is better for this? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 12:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Moved to RFV and retagged. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I wonder how a user will know otherwise that each part of the term 共和社會主義越南 is Sino-Vietnamese, even if it wasn't used in full when Hán tự (漢字) were used in Việt Nam (越南)? Should the attestation criteria for Hán tự be the same as for other scripts and other languages? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
By the way, 社會主義 (socialism) in the full country name even uses the Chinese word order, not the Vietnamese. chủ nghĩa xã hội (socialism) would be 主義社會 with the 主義 (-ism) part before 社會 (society). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


--WikiTiki89 22:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I've seen this before, but it's difficult to search for. Does anyone know a way to search for strings like this on Usenet? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
This has to be attested. I see this all the time on forums and chats. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
If this helps, I found that single citation by searching for: ASCII boobs. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I see this ASCII boobs in a writing too. I just can't remember what book. --Octahedron80 (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Saying "yeah this is definitely a thing" is really unhelpful at RFV. If it's really a thing then cite it. Otherwise don't make this huge page even bigger. yes yes I'm making it bigger by saying this but I will only say it once, across all conversations. Equinox 00:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Fails CFI. All words in all languages not all pictures in all languages. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I feel all symbols in all languages should also be included here. I'd be in complete support of even programming language terms being treated as Translingual terms, such as elif in Python. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I was doubtful about this at first, but then I noticed that we have "Category:Translingual emoticons". Provided that "(.)(.)" is attestable, I'm honestly hard pressed to distinguish between it and "ಠ益ಠ" or "o.O". (Of course, we could have a debate about whether any emoticons should be included at all ... :-) ) — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Symbols are part of language but pictures are not. It's a grey area and I don't deny that, but I'd put this one into the pictures category, not the symbols one. Still I don't plan on RFDing it as it's too far into that grey area. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


Attested in English? Serbo-Croatian still needed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

One italicized cite added, which is all I could find. DTLHS (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
1984, Bon Appétit, volume 29, page viii:
On other days I tried ružice, similar to baklava, and hurmašice, a delicious honeyed cookie.
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Attested in English with this spelling and capitalisation? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. Lower case would definitely be supportable. DTLHS (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


The form นิดน้อย (nít-nɔ́ɔi) does not exist; there is only น้อยนิด (nɔ́ɔi-nít). It is probably a misspelling of นิดหน่อย (nít-nɔ̀i). --YURi (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


Supposedly another name of the god Mars. Most hits seem to be scannos of "Mars". - -sche (discuss) 21:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


I only see two mentions on Google Books: [66], [67]. DTLHS (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


No use, and I don't know what the second sense means. DTLHS (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Haven't you ever plucked the petals off a daisy as a kid? It's the one instance of "divination by flowers" which is somewhat alive in Western cultures... AnonMoos (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


No use. DTLHS (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Google batrachomancy (BooksGroupsScholarNews Archive) shows no hits except, in Books, for mentions. Apparent uses in books don't survive further inspection. DCDuring TALK 20:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

? - SpanishEdit


  1. (nonstandard) Marks a preceding passage as a question, without the starting ¿, as in English and other languages.
    Cómo estás? — How are you?

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Why does this need to be verified? I see this nonstandard grammatical error all the time when reading Spanish. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
[ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/%22como$20estas$3F%22 just scroll down. You'll find a lot of examples here.] PseudoSkull (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, this is widely used. Here are four citations: Y desde cuando ? COMO QUIERES QUE TE QUIERA? Empezando desde cuando, Boberto? Si, ella las lee.... pero desde cuando leer es entender?....
I also found one citation where the symbol ? is used instead of ¿ at the beginning of a question: ?Desde cuando una huelga obrera es sabotaje?Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 11:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Pseudoskull. Having the information under the usage note is enough, in my opinion. --Derrib9 (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


Most citations were mentions in word lists, so I have removed them. Equinox 12:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


--- LexiphanicLogophile <2:59 pm Saturday, 17 September 2016 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)>

Of the five citations now in the entry, three (1996, 2008, and 2013) do not appear to be durably archived, one of those (2008) is a clear mention, and the remaining two (1993 and 2003) are not independent. So we still need two more citations to keep the entry. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


"Of a statement: empirically unsupported." I have just added and cited another sense ("Of a statement or account: unembellished") and I wonder if this was a confused attempt at that. Or does it exist independently? Equinox 16:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The definition could be revised a bit (to be more like "without evidence or support being provided"), but I think it exists: google books:"bald assertion", google books:"bald claim".
  • 2006, Alastair Fowler, How to Write, page 49:
    Many continue with bald assertion after bald assertion; which is unlikely to convince people, unless they agree with you already.
- -sche (discuss) 17:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I have made the proposed revision, and added some citations. With the revision, however, that second definition looks a lot like a subset of the first. Kiwima (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks; but why is the "bald assertion" in the 1994 citation sense 3 and not sense 4? Equinox 21:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
It seems like that citation blends both senses, or could be either (and is not definitively not one or the other). Perhaps it is best moved to the citations page. - -sche (discuss) 21:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm more familiar with the "without support" sense than the "without embellishment" sense. The senses seem to be separate, though; e.g. a xenophobic rant that immigrants are more likely to commit theft and rape and assault, going into lurid/scary detail, seems like it could be "bald" in sense 2 (without evidence being provided), not sense 1 (lacking embellishment). But if you think it's better as a subsense, OK. - -sche (discuss) 21:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


Can't find any cites, but sending to RFV just in case, because it is actually used. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I've added a few. Kiwima (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
But none are from what we accept as durably archived sources. Usenet? DCDuring TALK 11:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Feast of LightEdit

I see a lot of lowercase descriptions of various holidays as "a feast of light" (a feast characterized thematically or otherwise by light), but I'm having a hard time finding uses of the capitalized "Feast of Light" as a name for any of the Christian or Chinese festivals. I did find two citations which I think refer to the Jewish holiday. - -sche (discuss) 19:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I added a third cite for the Hanukkah sense. None of the others look citable. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
The 1940 citation is not clear because it could just be "Hanukkah: the feast of light" rendered into title case. It would be better to find another citation. I've removed all the other senses as RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


"Proper noun: An ancient Germanic language written using runes." I suppose you might apply "Runic" to any language written in runes, but I have certainly never heard of any language called "Runic". We also have Category:User Runr; is it reasonable to merge the various runic alphabets?__Gamren (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

There's no one runic language. The earliest runic inscriptions were written in a kind of common northwestern Germanic (at a time when Western Germanic and Northern Germanic languages would have likely been mostly mutually comprehensible). Later inscriptions are in later specific languages... AnonMoos (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I have heard "Runic" used as a synonym for Germanic or Proto-Germanic (deflecting reference to modern day German). I wonder if that is what was meant... ? Leasnam (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Looking through the histories SemperBlotto seems to have created it to avoid it being redirected or erroneously created to mean runic (adj.). The page histories are confusing because Runic was moved to runic and then recreated to mean runic in error. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Google Books has a line, variously attributed to William Chauncey Fowler's 1850 The English Language in Its Elements and Forms or Robert Gordon Latham's 1841 The English Language, that "Sometimes, by an extension of meaning, the old Norse language, wherein [runes] most frequently ocour, is called the Runic language. This is as incorrect as to call a language an Alphabetic language." But then it also has a line attributed to Frank Sayers, ‎William Taylor, 1830 Poetical works: "The Runic language and characters were introduced into England by our Saxon ancestors". And William Pinnock's 1830 A comprehensive grammar of the English language says: "The Runic language is that of the ancient Goths, which is more frequently called the Teutonic, from the Teutones, a tribe of Goths, an ancient people who inhabited the northern part of Germany."
  • Richard Lee Morris 1988 Runic and Mediterranean Epigraphy: "with intra- and extralinguistic factors contributing to change and variation within Icelandic, Faroese, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Frisian, Dutch, German, English, Gothic and the early Runic language.
  • Benjamin W. Fortson's 2009 Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction: "The Runic language of the earliest runic inscriptions, as discussed above, may be ancestral to Old Norse (see §15.37)."
  • John Allen Giles 1863 Memorials of King Alfred: "And, as for those books in the Runic language, they were composed in those times when Christianity began to be prevalent in the north, as may be easily determined by many proofs, and especially, because Romish characters are found".
I think this cites a sense like Indian#Proper_noun's two senses, and we could change "an" to "any" (as I have done). We could label it "nonstandard" or find another way of indicating that the usage is uncommon and lax. People can be quite lax in what they lump together as a language — I can also find hits that treat e.g. "South American" as a language ("They speak South American though")! - -sche (discuss) 23:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The 19th-century citations are obsolete according to modern scholarship (more archaic than rare). The later citations make use of somewhat loose and sloppy wording (in my view), but basically refer to what I mentioned in my previous comment above... AnonMoos (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
RFV-passed (citations above). If the definition needs to be modified, e.g. to say "...especially proto-Germanic", please modify it. - -sche (discuss) 05:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


There's a link in the entry that suggests this exists, but absolutely no evidence in Books or Groups for a French term. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Two of the three definitions of this purported noun define it as an adjective, never a good sign. DCDuring TALK 18:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
google books:miskines gets some hits. The problem with google books:miskine is there are a couple of politicians with the surname Miskine and they make up most of the hits. google books:"un|le|la|une miskine" gets a couple more. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


Dutch Rfv-sense for "a dog's tail end". Predictably by Fastifex. I don't dispute it's a possible meaning, but I doubt it is citable. Google Books is dominated by mentions and the sense "scoundrel". Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Ironically, it was possible to find two cites for the sense "canine vagina" on Google Books, but nothing about butts. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
RFV failed.__Gamren (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: short-lived name for its capital Songping or Tong Binh within present-day Hanoi. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


An Old English entry created by User:Leasnam in 2009. I can't find any usage in Books, Scholar, News, or Groups. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

stæfleahter is certainly attested. —JohnC5 20:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull, You might need to search on stæfleahtres (e.g. Swylce betwyx stánhricgum gruttes and stæfleahtres swelgend), as that is the form that is glossed/attested. The nominative could be either stæfleahtor or stæfleahter, as the second element was leahtor/leahter (moral defect; crime; sin; fault) which had multiple forms. Leasnam (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


I see one use on BGC. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


Can't find very many attestations for this verb, supposedly meaning "to blog". Is it conjugated "je carnette" or "je carnète"? No clear attestations of either. Benwing2 (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The recommended spelling is je carnète: http://www.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/ressources/bibliotheque/dictionnaires/Internet/fiches/8363167.html
Here are two attestations from websites:
  • A partir d'aujourd'hui, je carnète ! (frenchmba.blogspot.com)
  • Personnellement, je "carnète" plus souvent sur le diabète de type 2. (recit.org)
Lmaltier (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


Can't find attestations of this verb. Benwing2 (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

As above abâtelle or abâtèle? Google Books finds neither, and all 5 hits for abâteler are from dictionaries, of which 3 are 19th century dictionaries, one 20th century (French-German dictionary), and one 21st century (French-German dictionary). Even a Google search only finds word lists and these same 5 hits. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
In fact unless some as it in some sources that aren't on Google, this one is over, ladies and gentlemen. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "unwanted", as a result of WT:RFD#volente o nolente (to be archived here). @SemperBlottoΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

First, "volente o nolente" is a translation of Latin nolens volens. Second, unless nolente drastically diverges in meaning from the source, it would mean "not wanting" or "not willing" instead of "unwanted"... AnonMoos (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


Another uncitable scientific misspelling by SB. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

See Google Scholar for 7 uses. But there are more than 990 ("internal server error" prevented verification of more) uses of the correct spelling in that corpus. DCDuring TALK 12:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you could persuade Visviva (talkcontribs) to omit misspellings form his lists. That would save me time. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: Visviva's script already tries, but it's hard to automate. I still think you should stop creating them, because we normally don't keep rare misspellings. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
OK - I'll forget about them if they seem relatively rare. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (statistics) Of an experiment, etc.: such that the method of data collection and the nature of missing data do not depend on the missing data.

No hits for "ignorable experiment" in Google Books. It must be collocated with other nouns, but which? May end up being SoP. DCDuring TALK 22:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Ahh. Apparently "ignorable missing data", which does seem SoP to me. DCDuring TALK 22:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@DCDuring: Want to move it to RFD, then? I vote delete in anticipation of such a move. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
"Another pertinent distinction in Rubin's missing data classification system is whether the missing data mechanism is ignorable." Does that mean that the mechanism can be ignored, or something more? I'm not sure. Equinox 10:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Looking at web usage, I find that a very large share of total usage of the word ignorable is in the context of statistics. But the meaning seems to be "that can be ignored (for statistical purposes)."
I think that one or statistics-context usage examples, citations, a usage note, and reference to   Ignorability on Wikipedia.Wikipedia would make for a good entry. DCDuring TALK 13:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


As an American English speaker, I've never encountered this to mean kindergarten teacher, only ever kindergarten student.

Is this a pondian difference? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I have never seen this word used in the UK with either meaning. Not listed in the OED. I would have guessed it was the child rather than the teacher. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    • As an en-US speaker I agree that this term (which I'd be more likely to spell kindergartener—an entry which also has both definitions, BTW) refers to a child. Nevertheless, the German word Kindergärtner does refer to the teacher, so maybe some English speakers use it that way too. SemperBlotto, you're the one who added the sense to both entries (over ten years ago); do you remember where you got it from? Incidentally, in Swiss German the child is apparently called Kindergärtler (de). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I can't remember what I did yesterday, let alone 10 years ago! SemperBlotto (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Kindergarten isn't even used in the UK. Not that I'm aware of. Never heard it here ever. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I remember hearing it (or more probably kindergarden) when I was very young - I think it was a sort of Sunday school for very young children. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Here in New Zealand, it refers to what an American would call preschool. Kiwima (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Kindergarten is most definitely used in the UK. I have never heard of kindergartner though. Mihia (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
It's citable: The Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of the National Educational Association, Volume 24 (1886) (US), New York Education, Volumes 3-4 (1900), and The Development of Early Childhood Education in Europe and North America (2015) (if "German kindergartener" refers to a kindergarten teacher, instead of a scholar of kindergartens or something). Sorry that I don't have time to properly write them up, but it seem real, if infrequent and/or archaic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Fascinating. I was also quite surprised to see that Merriam-Webster lists the teacher sense as the primary one in their entry for the term. Surely this is dated at best?
Are there any other American English speakers reading this who are commonly acquainted with the teacher sense in modern parlance? Every other [SCHOOL TYPE] + -er variant that I can think of means the student: compare high schooler, middle schooler, elementary schooler, etc. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps use of this word to mean "teacher" derives from the fact that the second element is transparently "garden", and a "gardener" is the person who tends plants (not the plants that are tended). I note that schooler includes an agent noun sense "one who provides schooling, teacher". - -sche (discuss) 00:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: What you seem to be citing is for the spelling kindergartener rather than the nominated kindergartner, with no e before "ner". Do you have similar luck with the nominated spelling? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Good catch, that those are two different spellings. I've managed to cite the "teacher" sense of kindergartner, and kindergartner is the more common spelling (for all senses) per ngrams, so I've centralized the content and translations in that entry. - -sche (discuss) 05:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


The entry shows a change of consonant from /d/ to /t/, which is unheard of outside a half a dozen southern villages, where it is restricted an initial cluster /dw- → tw-/. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Unchallenged for a week. Added speedy deletion tag. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Unstriking. Please leave this for a full month, as explained at the top of this page. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
3 cites added. Hamburg lies in the North West, Westphalen (Westfalen, Westphalia) in the West of Germany and in the South of the Low German regions, and Sven Moritzen lives in the North (nds.wp).
- 17:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The citations only show the spelling Baart, which could be a rendering of /baːrd/. I'm contesting the existence of a word /baːrt/, which would require an inflected form (Baarte, Baartes, Baarten) for citation. (Source of our entry seems to be a lemming from http://www.platt-wb.de/hoch-platt/?term=Bart) Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, the spelling of the singular exists and is cited.
As for the plural:
  • 2011, Johann Beerens, Einundzwanzig Geschichten up hoch un platt, page 196:
    Wat was dat'n moije Bild. Nu wassen dat wall acht of tein lüttje Wiehnachtsmannen waarn: Skebellskuppen ut de olle Kist', Baarten van Watte of witte Hüüsel, Poolen un Kaapen ut roode Tüch.
That should more or less mean: "What was that a nice[?] picture. Now [?] that ca. 8 or 10 little Santa Clauses [?] : [?] ut of the old box, beards made out of cotton wool or white [?], caps and caps out of red cloth[?]". Google results like Amazon say it's East Frisian, but that's Low German too. So in East Frisian the plural "Baarten" should exist just as the dictionary stated.
- 20:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
"What a nice picture was that. Now they had become about eight or ten little father christmasses: Hand-made masks from the old box, beards made of cotton wool or white threads, soft hats and caps made from red material." - While I'm unwilling to accept anything with the High German Consonant Shift as Low German, I admit that this is a Low German text and that word is used for beards. I'll leave it to others to judge whether this does it. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
@Korn: As nobody else commented on this, I'd like to make some suggestions.
The plural Baarten was found, so it is attested and should be RFV passed.
The plural Baarten was found in 21st century literature from East Frisia. So one could add a time and/or a dialect, as it's ATM only attested for East Frisia.
If alternative forms with d similar to English beards can be attested, one can add them as alternative forms, or state that the t form is an regional alternative form of the d form or forms.
In the etymology one could add that the Middle Low German form had a d in it (which because of Auslautverhärtung is spelled t in the singular). Instead of just "From Middle Low German bârt" it could for example be "From Middle Low German bârt (plural ..d..)" (with replacement of the dots). Then people can see that there was a change from d to t.
Maybe one can add how or why the d changed to t. If there's no proof, one could add some word like "maybe" or "possibly".
  • Because of influence from Frisian languages?
  • Because of sound changes or because of misinterpreting MLG bârt as a word with t in it?
For comparision: Middle High German hinden became New High German hinden, hinten, modern New High German hinten, and MHG wërt, genitive werdes, became NHG Wert, gen. Wert[e]s, while e.g. NHG Feld from MHG vëlt, gen. vëldes, preserves d. Maybe in case of wërt/Wert it was because of misinterpreting MHG wërt as a word with t in it. It could be similar with MLG bârt and East Frisian Baart, plural Baarten.
  • Because of High German influence from Bart, pl. Bärte?
- 12:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


Sense 8: "A level or degree." The quotation given is:

  • 2014, James Booth, Philip Larkin: Life, Art and Love (page 190)
    In this poem his 'vernacular' bluster and garish misrhymes build to a pitch of rowdy anarchy []

It looks to me like that exemplifies sense 14 ("A point or peak; the extreme point or degree of elevation or depression; hence, a limit or bound") far better. Is the definition a faulty interpretation of Booth's usage of the word, or is the quotation simply misplaced? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

today is a good day to dieEdit

The senses are, as noted at RFD, imaginative; are they attested in all their connotations or is the attested meaning of this phrase a bit more straightforward? - -sche (discuss) 21:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It's being discussed at RFD; no need to discuss it here separately, I think. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
This question is more basic than RFD. If the senses aren't attested, the RFD is moot. - -sche (discuss) 23:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
This is a good RFV; thank you. Are the senses attested per WT:ATTEST? What are the attesting quotations? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I've left a message at "Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#today is a good day to die". — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't see sufficient evidence that the Star Trek usage is anything but SoP. The quotation above just means "we are prepared to die". If I'm not mistaken, even science fiction usage needs to be idiomatic. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Being prepared to die hardly makes it a literal "good day to die". bd2412 T 17:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Today is a good day to cite this entry preliminary to RfDing it. So the cites should only be uses that show that this expression is somehow different from others of the form "today is a good day to [verb]". At Google Books [verb] includes start, begin, give, say, consider, stop, bind, get, dissect, try, call, fight, stop, reflect, skip, climb, stay, dry, do, be, purchase, make. DCDuring TALK 18:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The fact that there are good days to undertake these mundane tasks doesn't reflect on a day being described as a good day to literally die. For example, a good day to climb might be any day when climbing conditions are good, i.e. climbing can be done with greater ease. Is a good day to die a day when dying can be done more easily? bd2412 T 20:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
All we need are three cites for each of the current definitions or for new ones that fit the citations. Then we can have an intelligent RfD, instead of gum-flapping. It would be a courtesy to have each citation in the entry under the definition it may best support. DCDuring TALK 20:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I indicated some citations in my post over at RFD that I think may support the current sense 2. However, I have to say that they tend to explain what the phrase means rather than to use the phrase in context. If these aren't thought to be adequate, then let's go ahead and delete the entry. I believe senses 1 and 3 to be entirely SoP, so finding citations for them serves no purpose. — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I believe that senses 1 and 3 are redundant to each other; the "Klingon locution" is just an example of the general idea that it is noble to be willing to sacrifice oneself in battle. With respect to the SOP question, note that it is not necessary to actually die (or intend to actually die) to use this phrase. In the example given above, the speaker does not go on to die. bd2412 T 05:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • 2009, Paul T. Bryant, Old Men: Sketches of a Time in Life, p. 146: He whooped again and then shouted, "I am Walking Bear! Piegan! Today is a good day to kill Crow. Today is a good day to die!"
  • 2001, Engineering News-record, Vol. 246, Issues 13-25, p. 72: "Otherwise, small business owners like those in the construction industry will have to be prescient, as well as politically and financially astute, in deciding if today is a good day to die".
  • 1980, Naturalist, Vol. 31-33, p. 60: "Outside the auditorium hung an effigy of Sig and inside was a brooding hostility that often focused on Sig and his reputation. Sig said to me, ‘Today is a good day to die’.
bd2412 T 05:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I like the figurative use in the 2001 and 1980 cites, which seem to me to support a definition that is not SoP and not clearly in the entry as currently written. Is the use in the 2009 cite figurative? Are there other instances of figurative uses? The more literal use might belong in etymology. DCDuring TALK 16:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The 2009 cite is in the context of a fictional encounter in which an aging Native American warrior is actually challenging members of an enemy tribe to fight, so he might literally be contemplating death (although I would still argue that this is a statement of willingness to die, not a desire to die, so he and other speakers using this phrase are not actually conveying a literal belief that it is "a good day" to die). bd2412 T 17:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll look for additional figurative use, possibly just for the core good day to die, or for plural days. DCDuring TALK 17:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: see RFD discussion. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I have undeleted the entry pursuant to a request at RFD (the discussion there has been closed for lack of consensus, and should continue here). As regards the 1980 and 2001 quotations, what does the term indicate? It's hard to tell as there's not much context. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Note: I have only looked in Google Books. I leave it to others to search for uses in other sources. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


"That which is golden". Might be fine but seems very broad. Is a golden coin like a sovereign a goldie? How is this used? Equinox 22:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Equinox: There's a fair amount to be had for the phrase "oldies goldies", for example. Purplebackpack89 01:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I have tweaked the definition slightly to reflect the two citations (both to oldies goldies) refer to something being as "good as gold" or golden (old) in vintage, rather than to (literally) being made of gold. Purplebackpack89 01:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
How do you know your citations aren't the plural of goldy? DTLHS (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@DTLHS Because goldy is an adjective, not a noun. Also because oldies is the plural of oldie, not oldy. Purplebackpack89 02:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
If it only occurs in the phrase "oldies goldies", and we can't attest "goldie" on its own, then we should probably delete this, but give "oldies goldies" its own entry (like golden oldie). Equinox 03:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
If it only occurs in the phrase "oldies goldies", you'd have to delete the other three definitions at goldie. Or else consolidate them into the definition under discussion, which is general enough to describe each of them anyway. I firmly believe that the general sense should be kept. Purplebackpack89 04:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The phrase "oldies are goldies" also exists. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
It seems to be used quite often when describing various fish (not always goldfish) (google books: "goldies" "fish"). DTLHS (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I was wondering how to present greenie. It is a word that I have used with my fellow park users to refer to the small green seeds of a plant called jumpseed. But attestation of such a narrow sense doesn't seem likely. I hope that a generic sense will be attestable. Wiktionary would not suffer much from delay in adding such an entry. DCDuring TALK 11:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Are they green? Then if nothing else, "a small green object" covers them. but perhaps more specific (sub)senses are attested. I can find one use of "greenies" to refer to green songbirds, and one use to refer to "potherbs", and "The green bug you have been reading about is no relation whatever to the greenies who flutter about the bucketshops." - -sche (discuss) 18:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I think rather than having perhaps a dozen specific cases of "greenie" (or of "goldie"), a general "animal or object that is green" (or gold) would be the route to go. Purplebackpack89 18:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be better to define this as a nickname for something that's golden or that has "gold" in its name. Attested specific cases could be made into subsenses. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Bird sensesEdit

I've gone through dozens of quotes for Goldie and few, if any of them, seem to explictly refer to the plover or the eagle. Most of them refer to a scientist named Goldie or to dogs or birds named Goldie. Purplebackpack89 04:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Cited both senses. DTLHS (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

October 2016Edit

plasma gemEdit


  • the black inorganic mineral slag with a hardness near that of quartz left over from plasma garbage incineration separate from the metal waste and organics combusted
  • a black jewel created from the mineral

plasma gemstone

Same definitions

Neither of these spellings with the challenged definitions are to be found on Books or Groups- plasma gemstone gets no hits at all. There are some hits for plasma gem that contain the physics acronym GEM, which refers to a type of plasma, not a type of physical object. This item may indeed exist, but there's nothing durably-archived that I can find to meet CFI for the terms.

These are each accompanied by an SOP sense from the mineralogical sense of plasma (a green variety of quartz), but that can be dealt with at rfd. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: One who seasons with spice. DTLHS (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Added one (and apparent separate sense). Hard to search because of the commoner spice-dealer sense and the fact that many people have the surname Spicer. Equinox 13:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I added two more with the same sense as the one found by Equinox, albeit they were used an upper case 'S' - but that seems mostly because the authors were very generous with capital letters. Kiwima (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree. RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 05:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Nothing obvious on the first couple of Google book search result pages. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Used in a well-known work, see The Jungle, in Chapter 24. Also see this. And see this. I've heard before that the fact that a word is used in a notable work like The Jungle alone makes it attested in some cases. PseudoSkull (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The third one is for a different sense (openum closum refrigeratus is pseudo-Latin, not 'open them'). The 'usage in a well-known work' rule was abolished in favor of the the other criteria on the list. I think things only used in well-known works are allowed in appendices. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
It can't be that well known, as I've never heard of it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I was gonna say that; never heard of it. But we do seem to have two citations so far. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull. Formerly we allowed a word to be included based on its use in a single well-known work. In English this would lead to the inclusion of typography errors from Shakespeare and much of Finnegan's Wake. We repealed that exception to the general rules in WT:ATTEST with respect to works in "well-attested languages" in a vote. The Jungle would probably have not made the cut as a well-known work, as it has never been well-known outside the US and seems dated now. DCDuring TALK 19:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


A citation from Facebook? Oh dear. Equinox 13:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The 'MG' citation is apparently from [68] which does not appear to be durably archived. Perhaps it was actually published in print. But I see no evidence that it was. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Since it may or may not be durably archived, I have moved to Citations:pantypreneur. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


Didn't find anything for "fleeted or skimmed milk" outside of dictionaries. There may be an adjectival sense (meaning "skimmed"?):

    • 1725, Noel Chomel, Dictionaire oeconomique: or, The family dictionary[69]:
      Now some call the Way of Rearing to be upon the Finger with fleeten Milk, and not suffer the Calves to run with their Dams; more particularly if the Husbandman go with an Ox Plough, it is meet at least he should breed one or two Calves, and Cow-Calves Yearly, to keep up his Stock, if he can do so; and it will be the more profit to him.

I think this may be an adjective derived from a variant past participle (?) (< Middle English fletyn; normally flet (ppt)) of the verb represented by archaic/obsolete verb fleet (to skim cream from milk). Not sure if it's a participle though, that is just a guess Leasnam (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty convinced now that the POS is participle/adj. There is an alternative form fletten Leasnam (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Fletten seems a little more common: [70] DTLHS (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
There's also fleeten-face Leasnam (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I think "fleeten-face" is only attested in one work (see Citations:fleeten). DTLHS (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


Is this a valid form, or is it a result of incorrect simplified to traditional conversion? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)



There are no citations for the n-word standing for "The word Nazi."

FWIW, The discussion page also mentions citations needed for this sense since 2004. This sense is also found on the N-word disambiguation page on WP (which states: "Nazi – euphemism for reference to Nazism as broad, political slur by analogy with F-word"), though not on the Nazi article itself.

Sorry all I can do is point this out, but my real-life limitations are acting up so I probably have to leave this to you. Thanks, --Geekdiva (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Found a few potential Google Books hits ([71], [72], [73], [74]) of different spellings. I'm sure it is attestable from Groups, though. – Einstein2 (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


The Google books results seem to all actually be for "non-Canadian". DTLHS (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

In American English I have only seen the rule that non- attaches as a prefix without a hyphen (nondenominational), unless the main word is a proper noun (that is, capitalized), in which case it must be hyphenated: non-Canadian. —Stephen (Talk) 09:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Volapük words for scientists and academicsEdit

jilifavan (female biologist), hilifavan (male biologist), bödavan (ornithologist), jibödavan (female ornithologist), hibödavan (male ornithologist), fösilavan (paleontologist), Sperantapükavan (Esperantologist), lifavan (biologist). —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 12:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, näsäkavan (entomologist), hinäsäkavan (male entomologist), and jinäsäkavan (female entomologist). —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 12:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

No hits for any of these on Wikisource. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

dimber damber upright manEdit

(and its plural) Looks like a dictionary-only word to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The best I could find was this, which, puts the two terms, dimber-damber and upright man side by side. It may be that one dictionary made the mistake of conjoining them and the rest all followed suit. Kiwima (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


Unattested. LexiphanicLogophile (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


State of being an octochamp. Equinox 22:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

It is the word people actually use but I doubt it's made it into print anywhere. Zero hits on Google Groups. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


Here's one, but I'm not sure it would be considered English. Another, also not (?) English. DTLHS (talk) 03:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Both are unquestionably Scots, which we treat as a separate language. If this fails as English, it should be converted to a Scots entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


The all-lowercase spelling is highly improbable. The all-uppercase spelling would need citations showing its use (not mention) in independent sources. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

  • 2007, Juha Suoranta & Tere Vadén, "From Social to Socialist Media: The Critical Potential of the Wikiworld", in Peter McLaren & Joe L. Kincheloe (eds.), Critical Pedagogy: Where Are We Now?, Peter Lang, 147.
    The NPOV is self-consciously a view, not the absence of all views.
  • 2008, Axel Bruns, Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, Peter Lang, 120.
    Similarly, it is also important to understand the fundamental operation of NPOV in full detail: contrary to the synthesis commonly required for the coverage of topics in conventional encyclopedias, NPOV does not require the establishment of a universally accepted consensus description of the topic at hand—a kind of graveyard peace between opposing factions, achieved through arrival at a compromise which satisfies no one and omits any controversial points not acceptable to one of the participants.
  • 2015, June Jamrich Parsons, New Perspectives on Computer Concepts 2016, Comprehensive, Cengage Learning, 18th ed., 332.
    Content creators and editors are encouraged to filter material through a sieve of strict standards known to insiders as NPOV, NOR, RS, and V.
All upper-case. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Move to NPOV. This might have been better at WT:RFM. DCDuring TALK 12:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

split keyEdit

Split key ring.

Definition: "a key split at one end like a split pin, for the same purpose". I have never seen such a key, which isn't a proof of anything, of course. There's a "split ring" or "split key ring" which may be used as a fastener in a similar way as a split pin. In encryption technology split key refers to an arrangement in which the decrypting key is split into several parts, all of which are required for successful decryption. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "angel". Doubt expressed at User talk:Kolmiel#Jahresendflügelfigur. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Adelung states: "Opitz [a famous German poet] nennet an einem Orte die Engel [the angels] auf eine sehr seltsame Art, das himmlische Geflügel." But that should be himmlisches Geflügel and not just Geflügel, and it should mean the angels (collectively) and not just angel. - 20:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


Some use in taxonomic names and mentions in dictionaries. acnaemia also appears to be unused. DTLHS (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

There is one hit in "A Syndrome Resembling Addison's Disease" (1945): "That this patient is not suffering from pernicious acnaemia is indicated by the presence of free acid in the test meal" but this is obviously a scanno for pernicious anemia. DTLHS (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

spill the beansEdit


  1. (intransitive) To fart.
After eating baked beans? DonnanZ (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


RFV of the Latin sense:

which isn't listed by any of the usual authorities. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


Discrimination based on letters. Nothing in G.Books. Equinox 20:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


"1. A small or inferior angel. 2. Anything dear, yet petty." No hits for angellings plural in Google Books. The entry has one cite for each supposed sense, but the first one seems like a nonce-word verb ("angelling" = doing the work of angels) and the second also looks verb-like, and seems to bear no relation to the claimed definition. Equinox 22:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The second is a verbing of 'angel investor'. (Minor annoyance: journalist named Angel Ling)
- Amgine/ t·e 03:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The "Snooki" cite is from snow angel pressed into service as a verb. It's not evidence of angelling at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
<confused look> That seems to me to be an arbitrary level of precision, since any specific angel type might be verbed, such as the angel investor(ing), just as angel itself might be. I had another cite for "snow angelling" - in effect, the same as Good Angelling below it. However, none of my cites were intended to support the adjectival use in the article. They were intended to show that it is used as a verb and noun, but not as claimed in the existing definitions. - Amgine/ t·e 17:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I mainly RFVed this because I don't think the supposed definitions have got any link whatsoever to the intended meaning of the cited writers. Equinox 21:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah it was a mistake by myself. Once I read it as a verb, it was clear that that is what it was. Leasnam (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

white clothEdit

"A form of attire that represents a particular profession." Too vague. Does this cover any professional attire, such as a black suit or a red uniform? If not, who wears it, and is it merely cloth that is white? Equinox 23:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


Not seeing the noun anywhere. Equinox 01:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Not verified the book is real, but:
1915 The Art of Dispensing Ninth Edition (Revised And Enlarged.), Peter MacEwan, The Chemist And Druggist
A yellowish liquid, a compound of diphenylamine and thymol benzoic ethyl ester, used as an antigonorrhoeic."
- Amgine/ t·e 20:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


"The point in an orbit around Mars that is most distant from that planet." Only in word lists? Equinox 01:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

There are a few discussions on Usenet about the equivalent terms to apogee and perigee for various planets and other heavenly bodies, but they're all mentions. There's also a mention in a dictionary of space terminology in Books. Google Scholar has one good cite, which is probably durably-archived (most journals are). There are more cites there for apoareion, though- that looks like it may be the only attestable spelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Mostly I find mentions, but here is one use. Kiwima (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


Some use in Italian, some dictionaries, no use in Google books or scholar. DTLHS (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


RFV for the Latin carpasinus (green). Judging by google books:"carpasinus", a word like this does seem to exist, and it does seem to have something to do with colour, but "green"? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, this term is not listed by L&S, du Cange, Gaffiot, the OLD, Niermeyer, or the NLW. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a genus name Carposinus (certain bark beetles, now   Cyrtogenius on Wikispecies.Wikispecies ) (and another   Carposina on Wikispecies.Wikispecies of fruit moths/borers), the names presumably derived from καρπός (karpós, fruit). I have not yet found any use of either carpasinus or carposinus as a specific epithet (any gender). DCDuring TALK 13:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
This is from a hapax legomenon in the Hebrew of Esther 1:6, which is nowadays translated as cotton or fine linen. No one knew what to do with it, so they just transliterated it, until the King James Version translators just made something up rather than use a transliteration:
  • Hebrew:  
    ח֣וּר כַּרְפַּ֣ס וּתְכֵ֗לֶת אָחוּז֙ בְּחַבְלֵי־ב֣וּץ וְאַרְגָּמָ֔ן עַל־גְּלִ֥ילֵי כֶ֖סֶף וְעַמּ֣וּדֵי שֵׁ֑שׁ מִטּ֣וֹת זָהָ֣ב וָכֶ֗סֶף עַ֛ל רִֽצְפַ֥ת בַּהַט־וָשֵׁ֖שׁ וְדַ֥ר וְסֹחָֽרֶת
    (please add an English translation of this usage example)
  • Septuagint:  
    κεκοσμημένῃ βυσσίνοις καὶ καρπασίνοις τεταμένοις ἐπὶ σχοινίοις βυσσίνοις καὶ πορφυροῖς ἐπὶ κύβοις χρυσοῖς καὶ ἀργυροῖς ἐπὶ στύλοις παρίνοις καὶ λιθίνοις· κλῖναι χρυσαῖ καὶ ἀργυραῖ ἐπὶ λιθοστρώτου σμαραγδίτου λίθου καὶ πιννίνου καὶ παρίνου λίθου καὶ στρωμναὶ διαφανεῖς ποικίλως διηνθισμέναι, κύκλῳ ῥόδα πεπασμένα
    kekosmēménēi bussínois kaì karpasínois tetaménois epì skhoiníois bussínois kaì porphuroîs epì kúbois khrusoîs kaì arguroîs epì stúlois parínois kaì lithínois· klînai khrusaî kaì arguraî epì lithostrṓtou smaragdítou líthou kaì pinnínou kaì parínou líthou kaì strōmnaì diaphaneîs poikílōs diēnthisménai, kúklōi rhóda pepasména
    (please add an English translation of this usage example)
  • Vulgate:  
    et pendebant ex omni parte tentoria aerii coloris et carpasini et hyacinthini sustentata funibus byssinis atque purpureis qui eburneis circulis inserti erant et columnis marmoreis fulciebantur lectuli quoque aurei et argentei super pavimentum zmaragdino et pario stratum lapide dispositi erant quod mira varietate pictura decorabat
    (please add an English translation of this usage example)
  • King James Version:  
    There were white, green, and blue, hangings, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rings and pillars of marble: the beds were of gold and silver, upon a pavement of red, and blue, and white, and black, marble.
  • New Revised Standard Version:  
    There were white cotton curtains and blue hangings tied with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rings and marble pillars. There were couches of gold and silver on a mosaic pavement of porphyry, marble, mother-of-pearl, and colored stones.
Actually, I vaguely remember there being a similar, but unrelated word that meant something like "green and growing" in some language along the way, so it wasn't completely arbitrary- but I'm just going on my memory of stuff I read 4 decades ago when I was interested in biblical plants. At any rate, this is one of those mistranslations in the KJV that can't be completely ignored because it's in the KJV- even if it is completely wrong, Chuck Entz (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Just because the KJV uses 'green' doesn't mean we have to. After all, the KJV comes after the Vulgate. Just put basically what we've said, the meaning is unknown but subsequent English translations have used 'green' and 'linen' as possible translations. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
BTW it's one of the things you eat in the Seder, there's w:Karpas. But there isn't really a consensus on what is it. —Enosh (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: See the relevant discussion at Talk:כרפס. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The word seems to meet CFI via the Vulgate citation, but I have changed the definition to note the uncertainty about its meaning. Please revise the definition and etymology further if needed, but the RFV seems to be resolved. - -sche (discuss) 07:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)





All are plural forms of atomkraft, which is regarded as uncountable by Den Danske Ordbog. DonnanZ (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

There are lots of uses by laymen, in reference to nuclear power; especially people expresing their fear. There are also some older uses, but I'm not sure what it means in this context:
    • 1872, Harald Høffding, Philosophien i Tydskland efter Hegel, page 275
      Herved kunne vi ikke blive staaende. Den moderne Naturvidenskab lærer os (kfr. Fechner) at opfatte Materien som et System af Atomkræfter. Hvert enkelt Atom kan ingen Masse have, ligesaalidt som man kan tale om Talstørrelsen af en Ener.
      In this manner, we could not remain standing. Modern natural science teaches us (cf. Fechner) to conceive of matter as a system of atomic forces. Every individual atom can have no mass, just as little as one may speak of the magnitude of a one.
    • 2013, J. Thorsen, The Penetration of Charged Particles Through Matter (1912 - 1954), Elsevier (ISBN 9780080871066), page 184
      Problemets Forskel fra Spredningsspørgsmaalet, Indirekte Indflydelse af de indre Atomkræfter, Hastighedstallenes Sandsynlighedsfordeling.
      The difference of the problem from the question of propagation, indirect influence of the inner atomic forces, the probability distribution of the velocity-numbers.
    • 1899, Kringsjaa
      Hvert atom i verdensaltet er besjælet af den guddommelige kraft, ligesaa verdensæteren, og man kan saaledes betegne "Gud" som summen af alle naturkræfter, summen af alle atomkræfter og alle ætersvingninger.
      Every atom in the world-everything is soul-endowed by the divine force, likewise the world-aether, and one may as such use "God" to refer to the sum of all natural forces, the sum of all atomic forces and all aetheric vibrations.
    • 1886, Rasmus Malling Hansen, Perioder i børns vaext og i solens varme
      Disse livsvækkende Stød, som ramme alt Stofligt, maa i fjærne Tider, i Solens Ungdomstid, have været langt vældigere end nu og maa, hvor de have truffet paa heldigt ordnede Atomer og Atomkræfter, samt gunstige Livsbetingelser for disse,  ...
      These life-awaking thrusts/jolts, which hit all that is material, must, in distant times, in the time of the youth of the Sun, have been far grander than now and must, where they have hit fortuitously arranged atoms and atomic forces, as well as life-conditions conducive to these things,...
    • 1878, Karl Hendrik Posselt Schmidt, Laerebog i experimentalfysiken: tillige med grundtraekkene af meteorologien, astronomien og den fysiske geografi ...
      Flere eller færre af disse Atomer, alt efter Stoffernes Art, forene sig nu, lærer Kemien os, ifølge de i dem nedlagte Kræfter, Atomkræfter eller kemiske Kræfter, Affinitet, og danne derved, hvad Kemien kalder Molekyler, ...
      More or fewer of these atoms, depending on the species of the substances, now unite, chemistry teach us, in accordance with the forces vested in them, atomic forces or chemical forces, affinity, and thus form what chemistry call molecules.
    • 2008, Wolfgang Pauli, Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel mit Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg u.a. Band II: 1930–1939 / Scientific Correspondence with Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg a.o. Volume II: 1930–1939, Springer-Verlag (ISBN 9783540788010), page 98
      Dersom vi betragter Dispersionen fra et Atom i Normaltilstanden bestaaende af en Elektron og en Kerne med Ladning Ze og forlanger, at Y skal være lille i Forhold til de indre Atomkræfter, ...
      If we consider the dispersion from an atom in the normal condition consisting of an electron and a nucleus with charge Ze and demand that Y must be small relative to the inner atomic forces, ...

__Gamren (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


English ? Leasnam (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The English would more often be pluderhose Leasnam (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, I doubt if there would be a plural form anyway, like pantyhose. DonnanZ (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Technical note, please don't use {{l}} in section titles the anchor won't work. I have added an anchor to fix this. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • One result here, there may be more [75]. DonnanZ (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)



  1. a violent, ruthless, rude, unpolished person (one who behaves like those Russians that once raided the Swedish coasts)

I can see why an IP removed it, but the wording can be fixed- if the sense actually exists. I would think one would need to find someone called this who wasn't actually Russian, in order to confirm that it wasn't using the first sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a lot of info in the attached SAOB link if anyone wants to wade through it, but I suspect you need to be Swedish to answer this point. DonnanZ (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
For those who understand Swedish, this excerpt from Svenska Akademins Ordbok [76] shows that such sense exists:
c) med nedsättande l. klandrande innebörd med tanke på vissa osympatiska egenskaper (ss. rått o. ohyfsat uppträdande, vildhet, bråkighet, bullersamhet, krigiskhet) som ansetts l. anses känneteckna ryssarna; i sht i jämförelser. (Kristus) regerar thär (dvs. i himlen) som een Alzmechtigher Konung til ewigh tijdh, thär vthur kan ingen Tyran, Rysse eller Turck honom vthdrijffua. LÆLIUS Bünting Res. 1: 130 1588. (Han hade) slagit honom som ingen braf Karl utan som en Ryss och ingen Christen. HdlCollMed. 8/4 (1723). Gumman hon svor som en Ryss och Kossack. LENNGREN (SVS) 2: 323 (1796). Ryssarne hade landstigit på Åland, och som ryssar foro de der fram. CRUSENSTOLPE Mor. 6: 112 (1844). NORDSTRÖM Luleåkult. 234 (1925). jfr: (Gustav Trolle) lath the swenska fattiga dödha kropper liggia för hund och Ram och begraffues j owijgda jordh somt let han och brenna, som the icke hade warit christit folk, vtan rysser eller kettare. G1R 7: 428 1531.
The "etymology" in brackets was hardly accurate, and I took the liberty of deleting it. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems that I forgot to save the removal of the "etymology" that is provided in brackets. Thus, let it remain for the moment. Anyway, I think it should be removed eventually, unless someone can prove that the meaning really goes back to this particular behavior. Swedes and Russians were enemies for more than 1.000 years, and there have been plenty of opportunities to call the other side names. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

rain manEdit


  1. (humorous) An expert at something. Vaneeta is the Rain Man of weed.
I found an added two cites (although one of them capitalizes the term). Kiwima (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I see where it's going. People with high-functioning autism are often considered to have very good memories and are knowing for studying areas in great detail. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for "rich" definition. None of the online dictionaries I tried seemed to have that as a sense for this character. Bumm13 (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "Cantonese: stool". Possibly a quirk of the Unihan database: google:䍇 粵語 does not immediately support the existence of this sense. —suzukaze (tc) 06:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

This website suggests that 䍇 does exist in Cantonese but is only used by people who believe in 本字, and the meaning is not "stool". —suzukaze (tc) 06:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


Noun: Rfv-sense of "luck". --Jerome Potts (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Verb: Rfv-sense: "To discharge a long, thin stream of liquid, (including saliva) through the teeth or from under the tongue, sometimes by pressing the tongue against the salivary glands."

  • The man said he “gleeked” on the woman, but did not intentionally spit on her.

Not in Century 1911. OED? UD? DCDuring TALK 12:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

All I could find was [this], and I am not even sure it is acceptable as durably archived. Kiwima (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
At least it suggests that the definition is not a hoax. DCDuring TALK 20:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
See   Spitting#Gleeking on Wikipedia.Wikipedia and this 2004 blog post. DCDuring TALK 20:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Black BuddhistEdit

Not sure about this one. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Judging by everything already in the entry, the first two senses are clearly miscapitalized SOPs. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


Discussion moved to WT:Etymology scriptorium#Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/skukkōną.


Only in dictionaries? There may be another sense in anatomy: [77]. DTLHS (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


No use. DTLHS (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The main challenge is that, as an English term, this is only used in the context of sumo -- which doesn't have a lot of English writing about it anyway. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Then there's no reason to have an English entry as opposed to a Japanese romanization. DTLHS (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

years youngEdit

Tagged, not listed. Equinox 08:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be an idiom, and easy enough to verify. DonnanZ (talk) 08:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Clear widespread use? I don't think it's a noun but that's not an RFV issue. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Move to RFD? I thought we previously removed this sense from young, but maybe it was just a TR discussion. Equinox 11:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)'
years young gets plenty of google books results https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22years+young%22 it's used as a euphemism for saying "years old" in order to avoid saying the word "old". 17:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be at young ? The euphemism is not on the entire phrase, but on young as meaning "old". In fact, trying to determine a correct POS for this evinces the fact that it's not a valid phrase in and of itself. When one says "He is 85 years young", it's correct to segment this as "He is 85 years" + "young", and not "He is 85" + "years young"...I mean, we don't have an entry for years old do we ?Leasnam (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


Obsolete bachelor (like me!). Can't find. Equinox 08:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The only Google Book hit is this, where 'Bacheelor' seems to be used in a fictional spam e-mail as a deliberate misspelling to imitate the spelling used in spam. Note it also uses 'Masteer' and 'PhDD' (which should be Masters and PhD). Renard Migrant (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


Nothing much even on the Web. Created by the notoriously unreliable Luciferwildcat. (Excuse the large influx of RFVs from me; a lot of dodgy entries are coming up while I go through all the missing plurals. I've bookmarked some others to investigate another time.) Equinox 09:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


Nothing in Google Books. Equinox 15:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


One cite added (here's another use in German). Any others in English? DTLHS (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

This originally came from Webster 1913, which includes a few words drawn only from one source: it might be one of those. (Not the 2004 source of course! So there must be at least one other somewhere.) Equinox 08:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


The attested spellings are shofar and chofar. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

In Portuguese and Catalan? AnonMoos (talk) 03:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I think he means in Portuguese. In Catalan xofar is ok. --Vriullop (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


From RFD. Needs cites meeting WT:COMPANY rules. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


Are there three uses for this? Circumfetishist, circumfetish, circumsexual, and circumfetishism have enough uses on Google Groups. Nibiko (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


Unattested. Nibiko (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Nadia is a Greek, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Slovene, and Croatian feminine given name. I want somebody to remove the lie that it is German and Danish because it's not! (Bennyben1998 (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Bennyben1998)

I think it's as much a US name. Do names really have nationalities apart from their etymology? DCDuring TALK 10:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No, Nadia is NOT a US name! (Bennyben1998 (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Bennyben1998)

@Bennyben1998, why do you think it's not a German and Danish name? Is it because the “proper” form is Nadja? Is it because it’s derived from a foreign name? — Ungoliant (falai) 19:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Nadia Zülow would probably say it's a German name, and Nadia Bjorlin and Nadia Turner would probably both say it's also an American name. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain all we're going to get from Bennyben1998 is blind assertions. Do we just require usage in the language for given names? I believe in fact we have no separate rules for names, so it's just attestation. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Just a little something I wanna say, I don't think that Nadia isn't a German or Danish name. I know it's not a German or Danish name. If you go to Wikipedia, it doesn't say absolutely nothing about it being German or Danish. Nadia is in no way, shape, or form a Germanic name. It is Slavic, Greek, Latin, and Arabic. (Bennyben1998 (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Bennyben1998)
But how do you know that? — Ungoliant (falai) 20:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, it should be common knowledge. It doesn't even sound remotely Germanic of any form. I'm of German, Norwegian, English, Irish, and Scottish descent so I know it's no way Germanic or even Celtic, believe me. As I had also said, go to Wikipedia. There's nothing about it being a Germanic name of any form. It also irritates the living daylights out of me whenever people say Germanic and Slavic languages are related (I know you aren't doing it, I'm just saying), because the Germanic languages are more related to Celtic languages. I know they're all Indo-European languages, but Germanic and Slavic are only very distantly related. (Bennyben1998 (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Bennyben1998)
I didn't realize genetics gave people telepathic knowledge about etymology. DTLHS (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Maybe the name Nadia has been borrowed into German and Danish from one of those other languages. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
You mean there has been some sort of continuing contact between the Germanic and Slavic languages? Oy gevalt, that's meshuggener. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 21:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@Catsidhe: I know that usage does change with borrowing, but Jews tend to preserve the distinction between Yiddish meshuge, the adjective, and meshugener, the noun, even in English. See our entries for more: משוגע (meshuge), משוגענער (meshugener). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I know it's a tangent, but 1) I was using the English borrowings (oy gevalt and meshugener) from Yiddish to evoke Yiddish as an example of Slavic/Germanic interchange, even if none of the words I used are actually of Slavic origin, and 2) my mother-in-law's first language was Yiddish. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 01:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
This whole thread is a tangent. I got 1, and 2 makes me very, very jealous. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
As I was saying, Germanic and Slavic languages aren't related. Germanic and Celtic languages are related instead. (Bennyben1998 (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Bennyben1998)
"Germanic and Slavic languages aren't related. Germanic and Celtic languages are related instead." Wow. Just wow. If we ever have a competition for "Most Ignorant Claim Ever Made on a Wiktionary Discussion Page", this is my nominee. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
“X is loaned from another language therefore it’s not a real word” is an argument that we hear often, and ignore as often. Is Johannes also not a German name because it’s from Hebrew? What about Jan, or do loans from other Germanic languages count?
There’s a major flaw in your argument: you say that Nadia is a Slavic, Greek, Latin and Arabic name, but Greek and Romance language have also borrowed it from Slavic, just like Germanic languages have. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Germanic languages didn't borrow it, though. Greek and Romance languages did. And yes, Johannes and Jan are Germanic names borrowed from Hebrew but Nadia just isn't. Read Wikipedia and tell me if you saw it saying it's a Germanic name. (Bennyben1998 (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Bennyben1998)
And Wikipedia is perfect in every way, I suppose, and has no omissions. Why are we discussing this, it's going nowhere? Let's just cite it and be done with it. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm only wondering, when will the German and Danish part finally be taken out of the Nadia page? And for the record, behindthename says nothing about it being Germanic as well. (Bennyben1998 (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Bennyben1998)
English is a Germanic language is Nadia English? Not all names in Germanic languages have to come from Germanic. What about Helen, is that an English name? Is not Germanic it's from Ancient Greek. Ditto Philip. I could go on but I won't. The answer to your question is they will be removed if and when they fail rfv. The same as any other entry listed on rfv. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I've added three quotations each for German and Danish. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Bennyben has been insisting on removing Germanic sections from other names. I’ve blocked him for a day. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
This is his second block specifically for messing with Nadia. Equinox 18:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh and another problem with that page that I forgot to mention was the whole twentieth century thing. That's actually even more inaccurate if you ask me. I mean, it's been used since about the Middle Ages. Why has nobody responded to this yet? Someone PLEASE respond to this! Also, explain to me how "Germanic and Slavic languages aren't related, Germanic and Celtic languages are related instead" is an ignorant statement. What on Earth is it gonna take for someone to respond to this?! (Bennyben1998 (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Bennyben1998)
You seem to be confusing a lot of different things. The fact that you're trying to link the two language families indigenous to the British Isles and exclude the Slavic languages suggests that you're going by physical or cultural resemblance rather than linguistic relatedness. Languages aren't the same as ethnicities: Jessie Jackson and David Duke both are native speakers of English, which is a Germanic language, while the Finnish people speak a language that's completely unrelated to English, in spite of being white Europeans. The Slavic languages are as much a part of the Indo-European language family as the Celtic languages, and actually have more in common with the Germanic languages than the Celtic languages do.
You keep trying to change the etymology of the English term to say it dates back to the Middle Ages. Yes, На́дя (Nádja)), has been used in Russian for a long time. It was much later borrowed by French, from which it was borrowed by English. The borrowing into English apparently happened in the twentieth century, so that's the beginning of its history as English. The medieval dates you're fixating on may be appropriate for Russian На́дя (Nádja) (I wouldn't know), but not for English Nadia.
As far as whether Nadia is English or Danish or German: if someone asks you where the name came from, of course you would answer that it's a Russian name. But keep in mind that if native speakers of English or Danish or German are giving that name to their children, it's part of those languages, too- and it can truthfully be said to be English or Danish or German. I've met people named Nadia whose parents were native English speakers, so I have no doubt whatsoever that it's now an English name.
All that you've been telling us so far is utterly irrelevant: you keep saying things like "it just isn't" and insisting that we look at sources that are concerned only with the origin of the name, when the issue is where the name has ended up, and whether it has become part of the languages in question. Simply showing that you're wrong hasn't accomplished anything, because you've been filtering everything through unspoken wrong assumptions and it hasn't really reached you. We haven't explained it in terms you understand simply because figuring out where exactly your unspoken assumptions have gone wrong takes more time and effort than it's really worth. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Volapük words for eaglesEdit

kvilül (young eagle), kvilanud (aquiline nose), kvilanäst (eagle's nest), kvilalog (eagle's eye), kvilahoned (eagle's beak), jikvilül (young female eagle), jikvil (female eagle), hikvilül (young male eagle), hikvil (male eagle). —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Also absent on Wikisource. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

baste pour celaEdit

Never heard of this; if it exists (and it seems that's the case, since there is a mention in the TLFi entry for baste), it's definitely not common. --Fsojic (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

FEW justs lists baste as "[that's] enough", from the verb baster, which is archaic or dialectal. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Your link doesn't work and my link for baste doesn't have it. Google Book hits suggests it was in some 19th century translation dictionaries but gets all of zero hits for usage in French. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
different spelling; but it's not of much use. --Fsojic (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

mayonnaise faceEdit

I have the feeling that one quotation is not enough. DonnanZ (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I've added two more quotes. If those are acceptable, this entry should meet the attestation criteria now. -Apocheir (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


Swahili, added by a user who does not know it. I don't see anything on BGC nor in my dictionaries. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


@Angr Seems only attested in Middle Irish? Old Irish roithinech implies its existence in some form. —CodeCat 19:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Switched to Middle Irish. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


@Angr Is this Old Irish? I don't know of any declension ending in -a, and given what you said about recognising Middle Irish forms (-a vs -ae or -ai), that suggests this is later. —CodeCat 19:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


This was formerly at brága, but I moved it per a hint at DIL. However, I don't know if the second meaning is that old. —CodeCat 19:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


Another form with -a. Middle Irish? —CodeCat 19:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


Middle Irish? —CodeCat 19:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


Middle Irish? The form cano is also given, which I presume is earlier. But the actual inflection is rather obscure. —CodeCat 19:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Changed to Middle Irish. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


DIL has only one quote on this, without any apparent dating. It does say this is the same as ciúnas, but whether that means it's the same noun or merely a synonym, I have no idea. —CodeCat 19:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

comalta, derbchomaltaEdit

Seems Middle Irish. The etymology is odd, as it uses a (presumably) earlier form that still has the -e. —CodeCat 19:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


I'm a bit unclear on this one. DIL cites from Togail Bruidne Dá Derga which Wikipedia says is Old and Middle Irish, but that doesn't tell me much about this particular cite. —CodeCat 19:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


Again, -a suggests Middle Irish, especially as a iā-stem abstract derivative of an adjective. —CodeCat 20:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


Probably Middle Irish again? —CodeCat 20:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


I think this may already be Old Irish, especially given the cite gilldæ (= gildae?). —CodeCat 20:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's OIr. The quote from DIL "Dauid in gille dána" is in the source (Liber Hymnorum Vol.1 p.26 l.12) "Dauid in gilla dána". The manuscript it's sourced from is Trinity MS 1441 (formerly E.4.2.), which is dated to the late 11C (and doesn't, alas, appear to be up on Irish Text On Screen to check), but the actual text looks like (late) OIr to me:
Snaidsi·um Moisi deg-tuisech ro·n·snaid tria rubrum maire,
Iesu, Aaron macc Amra, Dauid in gilla dána.
--Catsidhe (verba, facta) 04:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


I think this is probably Old Irish, but then the lemma form would be gúalae wouldn't it? —CodeCat 20:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


CodeCat 20:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

peta, pettaEdit

CodeCat 20:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


I see attestations of Saxae and Saxu in DIL, which may be the original nominative singular form. —CodeCat 20:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


Scannos for spaced or hyphenated form. Equinox 12:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't even look right. I think it can go into oblivion. DonnanZ (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


RFV for the Latin coccothraustēs, which is currently defined as a New Latin adjective meaning "kernel-crushing". It wouldn't surprise me if this existed as a noun, but I don't think it's an adjective. Its Ancient Greek etymon, κοκκοθραύστης (kokkothraústēs, grosbeak), is a noun, and its derived binominal species name, Coccothraustes coccothraustes, could easily have its epithet explained as a reduplication of the generic name used in apposition (cf. Vulpes vulpes, Perdix perdix, etc.). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, coccothraustes began its taxonomic life as a specific epithet in Loxia coccothraustes at AnimalBase. Following are other taxa that use it: Fringilla coccothraustes (L.), Pyrgita coccothraustes (L.), Sycoryctes coccothraustes, Syringophiloidus coccothraustes Skoracki 2011, Torotrogla coccothraustes Bochkov, Flannery & Spicer 2009. All are from the online database Index to Organism Names (ION)], which includes unaccepted names.
My excuse for not providing explicit citations is that the existence of a name is evidence that the taxon was used at least once. If necessary I could probably find actual citations. DCDuring TALK 17:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@DCDuring: It goes all the way back to Linnæus? Goodness! Citations for the species' names will not be necessary. I'll try to look for uses of coccothraustēs (preferably as an adjective) outside binominal nomenclature. BTW, I love Coccothraustes coccothraustes coccothraustes; I've never seen that kind of re…&nsbp;triplication in taxonomy before. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@DCDuring: I found two uses of Coccothraustus — does that mean anything to you? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a genus in Cardinalidae called Caryothraustes (κάρυον (káruon, nut)), 2 species of New World grosbeaks. I don't see anything in w:Cardinalidae that has capensis as epithet. DCDuring TALK 23:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Any animal name prior to 1758 isn't part of the current system of taxonomic nomenclature, but it looks like it's the cardinal. I notice that the first work treats Coccothraustes as distinct from Coccothraustus, cross-referencing the first to Kirschbeisser- whatever that is. Linnaeus does give synonyms from older works, but in the case of Loxia coccothraustes, they they all seem to be for just plain coccothraustes. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the German name ("cherry-biter") indicates a diet, fruit, for Coccothraustus, that differs from that of the hawfinch (Coccothraustes), nuts and seeds, though the New Latin name indicates nuts and seeds are the diet. I suppose the German vernacular name is based on ignorance of the North American bird's actual diet and may be influenced by the bird's color.
I see no principled lexicographic reason to exclude pre-Linnean "Scientific Latin" names, but, as a practical matter, I see no great return on the extra effort required to document them. DCDuring TALK 10:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Other projects extensively document modern taxonomic names. I don't know any that do the same for pre-Linnean names. For that reason it seems worthwhile to me. DTLHS (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Pre-Linnaean names are legitimate, but there's less of a system to them, and their continuity with Linnaean names can't be assumed. In a way, they tend to be SOP: quite often they're just a short, descriptive Latin phrase. In this case, it seems to be a calque of an apparently obsolete German term (Kirschbeisser) for the hawfinch, which is now known as the Kernbeisser. All of these names refer to its habit of biting through cherries to get to the pits, which it cracks with its massive beak so it can eat the kernel inside. Another generic name, Carpodacus, has a similar meaning: from καρπός (karpós, fruit) + δάκος (dákos, biter). Chuck Entz (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


"A two-faced sneaky person." Can't tell whether this is a hoax or propagated from one of those online obscure-word lists. Equinox 22:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


Baby-talk for a fart? Equinox 01:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


Any attesting quotations showing this meets WT:ATTEST? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


Given as the source of apogalacticon and perigalacticon; but I can't seem to find this standing as a word on its own. Equinox 17:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I only know of this word from Lessov - Galacticon (Blend Remix). I'm amazed to come across it here. According to this webpage, it's used as a suffix for the apsides of an orbit around a galaxy. I never knew that it had a meaning and I'm so happy to come across it here! Serendipity! Anyway, so none of this relates to this as a standalone word, and a suffix doesn't pass CFI either since there are only 2 derivations (we don't have any of the other apsis-related suffixes). Nibiko (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


Plausible, but I can only find scannos for synonym. Equinox 22:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

There are several versions of a biographical profile out there with the clause "Assuming the gynonym Anna Snegina..." (i.e. feminine pen name). AnonMoos (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I can see it on the Web but I don't think that meets our WT:CFI criteria. Equinox 03:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


A Cantonese term. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I know that the phrase "friend返" ("restore friendship with") appears in at least one TVB dub of an anime. It was a terrible show though and I am reluctant to dig it up. —suzukaze (tc) 07:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, if you want to protect the entry, you'll have to find something. Would the dubbing qualify as a citation, though? Could it be just a case of code-switching for some special effect? In environments where English is well understood or spoken, it's quite common to throw in a word or two in English. Not sure if "friend" mixed in a Chinese text/conversation can ever be qualified as Chinese (also). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, I've just put in some quotations on the page. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


A Cantonese term. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget there needs to be three citations or change of rules for Cantonese, if it's considered a "poorly documented language". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
There are three citations for the noun sense. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


A Cantonese term. One citation is provided. Is it valid? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

google books:"夹band"suzukaze (tc) 08:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Does it really make it a Cantonese term!? My previous examples, like "打tennis" "to play tennis"?--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
What makes it any less Cantonese than Hokkien people using Japanese words? —suzukaze (tc) 05:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Considered to be an English loanword by this. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Cited. As for Hokkien, I don't know about languages/dialects with semi-standard written forms and Min Nan, including Hokkien is already accepted as a language with a mixed script. Cantonese has at least some standards, such as Hong Kong. As far as I know, using foreign words in foreign scripts in standard Chinese texts (Mandarin) is normally not considered borrowings but mixing languages, such as "iPhone" in a Chinese text will not become Chinese. Is everyone happy to close the case? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


A Cantonese term. One citation is provided. Is it valid? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The current citation is from Google Books. —suzukaze (tc) 07:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The citations are good but there needs to be three to pass RFV. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
google books:"唔" "係" "size". —suzukaze (tc) 08:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


A Chinese term. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: both Mandarin and Cantonese usage need to be cited. If only one is cited, the other should be removed, ie (Mandarin) IPA(key): /mɛːn⁵⁵/. Admittedly, Cantonese rules are looser than Mandarin.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
This is very common slang, and noteworthy since its meaning is different than it is in English. ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


A Cantonese term. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't really consider this to be Cantonese. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


2 uses on Google Books, both quoting the same person. Nothing on Groups. Some usage on the web, but doesn't look to be anything that meets CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Archived news cites meet CFI. PseudoSkull (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Which is why I rfved this rather than deleting it. There are lots of sites on Google News that are just web sites, others have web content separate from their printed content. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "Of or relating to Bashar al-Assad" DTLHS (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I found a few cites but they all seem to refer to Hafez al-Assad, so I added them to the entry under a new sense. – Einstein2 (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


I can't think of any way nix could be an adverb in English or Italian. I'd guess the meaning is the same as English nisba and that this is just a copypaste error. KarikaSlayer (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

  • It is in my Italian dictionary - I have adjusted the definition and added an etymology accordingly. SemperBlotto (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @SemperBlotto Thanks for clarifying that. Do you know where the b comes from? Is the scn.wikt entry the same word? KarikaSlayer (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
      • It certainly looks like the word in Sicilian Wiktionary is the same word. I've no idea where the "b" came from. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
        • It looks oddly similar to n'est-ce pas, but nothing else about it matches up very well. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


Nonexistent. Google search returns nothing. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Having พระราชสมภาร but nonexistent of บิตร. (maybe typo of บิดร or บพิตร or else) --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The contents of Category:Old Prussian reconstructed adjectivesEdit

All of these are uncited reconstructed words without any descendants or derived terms. KarikaSlayer (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It might've been @JohnC5 whom I remember to have an interest in Old Prussian. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Thanks for the shout out, but I've never created a reconstructed Old Prussian entry. They seem to have been made by User:Vytautniks/User:Beobach972. —JohnC5 21:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


Alt spelling of kerfuffle. Equinox 20:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I checked Google Books, the Free Library and Brigham Young Corpora of English. I found only one instance, in a children's fiction book, of kerfluff. Kerfluff is not an alternative spelling of kerfuffle, kerfluffle, nor any other word. Since a month has passed since this RFV was opened, and no examples have been cited on the entry page, I suggest that we consider the RFV failed because kerfluff does not satisfy criteria for inclusion, unless there is input from other editors.--FeralOink (talk) 09:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Not so fast. See Usenet cites at Google Groups. Since it has a different number of syllables it cannot be an alternative spelling of kerfuffle. The Usenet usage includes a single verb use. DCDuring TALK 14:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand your point, DCDuring. You said "not so fast" about considering the RFV failed, but then you stated that kerfluff is not an alternative spelling of kerfuffle. That is what I said too, that kerfluff is not an alternative spelling of kerfuffle. What am I misunderstanding?--FeralOink (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
You seemed to be encouraging someone to close the RfV as failed. You seemed to think it was both not an alternative spelling of kerfuffle and not attestable.
It looks to me like a synonym, not an alternative spelling; and it looks attestable as such. DCDuring TALK 04:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


Indian sex comics. Appears to be the name of a Web site and/or publisher, but perhaps not a generic term. Equinox 22:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "achievement, accomplishment" — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


@Embryomystic http://www.cornishdictionary.org.uk/ (which I believe is trustworthy?) gives the plural as ydhyn instead. Cornish Wiktionary apparently lists both. —CodeCat 13:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it might be in a variety other than the SWF. Not sure at this distance. embryomystic (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I believe "edhyn" is SWF/RLC and "ydhyn" is KK. That said, I'm still interested how well this form is attested. Google Books gives one source here. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


Is this a made-up Anglo-Saxonism? The linked WP article does not exist, and the derived "newlittlebrain" (for neocerebellum!) looks particularly silly. Equinox 15:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's a Saxonism. It's a translation of the Latin. Here is a use I have found [[78]] Leasnam (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
That's a use of "little brain", not littlebrain, though. Littlebrain is used as a name or an insult name, and the only other use of "little brain" in Google Books to refer to any type of brain structure uses it to refer to the neurons lining our gut. "littlebrain" only comes up with four pages on Google Books, and there's no use of the spaceless form to refer to any anatomic structure.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (baseball, humorous) A knuckleball.

google books:"threw|throw|thrown|throws|throwing a knuckleballer" gets no hits; the one non-book hit it picks up is "I still have serious doubts that the Red Sox would feel comfortable throwing a knuckleballer on the mound in the playoffs, but they may have no better choice." is the other sense of knuckleballer (does throw cover this by the way?) Renard Migrant (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

None of the instances in the Google news archives of knuckleballer referred to the pitch; they all referred to the pitcher. DCDuring TALK 20:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll add the sense of throw, which is hard to cite because it's chiefly used with the person's name, and I can't Google the name of every pitcher ever with 'throw' in front of it. I've added one cite to Citations:throw. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
How about 'throw * "up against"'? Other prepositions or adverbs might also make sense with the putative sense of throw. DCDuring TALK 18:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
If you can have placeholder terms in Google searches, "throw [placeholder] out of the bullpen" would probably do it. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The "*" is a kind of placeholder, but can include some number of tokens, perhaps 3-10. DCDuring TALK 17:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "A beer for the ride, for consumption while one is driving; a road soda." -- Confusing. Is it a beer or a soda, or just any drink? If it's a beer, is it alcoholic, non-alcoholic or any? Acc. to Urban Dictionary, it's any alcoholic drink consumed (illegally) while driving. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, definitely heard of a beer as a "roadie". However, if a kid wants to be like his dad, he might call his soda ~his~ version of a roadie, but I wouldn't say that that would necessarily be the definition of it. Leasnam (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for "river or sea coast" definition. My quick perusal of online dictionaries/sources showed nothing. Bumm13 (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "governance, authority, possession, control". One citation removed that was actually "over it". I suspect the remaining one is actually "oversight", but I cannot find the quote on Google books or archive.org. The OED has no noun sense for this word. DTLHS (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The date on the remaining cite is probably wrong by 3-400 years. Feveryere was apparently an old form of February as well as a surname. Anglo-Norman? DCDuring TALK 02:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I can't actually view the citation as it's a no preview book, but it's probably just a very old fashioned name but the rest of the spelling looks modern. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I mean, all three versions of it on Google Books, they're all no preview. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


All of them. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Out of interest, why? Renard Migrant (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Västerbotten is in Sweden and the spelling here consists largely of letters not found on the Swedish keyboard, which caught my interest. But Google only throws out us if you look them up and my Westrobothnian friend recognises the words but not the spelling. I pinged the Author and got no reply. So pretty much all bells are rung. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@Korn: Well, maybe we're just using a weird normalised spelling. If your friend recognises the words, then it's in bad faith to think that they're wrong, and they will likely get deleted just because nobody can be arsed to find anything on Westrobothnian. It would be much better to send this kind of thing to WT:RFC where you could try to get people to help fix the entries rather than leave them to be deleted. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I cannot overstate how bewildered I am by your post. 1. If a single user invents a weird normalised spelling without any discussion or documentation, that doesn't belong here. 2. I could render Westrobothnian in Cree syllabics or Bopomofo and my friend would recognise the word when I explain her what it's supposed to mean. That doesn't mean squat. 3. What you say applies to literally every RFV. If you're against Wiktionary's process of verification, that's a discussion belonging in the Beer Parlour. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Please see WT:Requests for moves, mergers and splits#Category:Westrobothnian lemmas. I created it because this doesn't seem to be really an issue about attestation of individual spellings, but about orthography of the language as a whole. Yes, we want to avoid having entries for nonexistent spellings, but this method will likely result in the deletion of entries that would pass rfv if people had the time and the references to look them up (unless you're saying that there's no overlap whatsoever with attested orthographies). It also deletes valid content that would be fine if it were in an entry with the correct spelling. The main challenge will be coming up with the correct spellings to move the entries to. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Knyȝt You probably want to be aware of this. The invention of spellings is not normally within the scope of this project aside from normalisations based on existing traditions or reconstructions based on trends in science. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The last part sounds similar to what I'm doing, depending on what it actually means. Have you considered Category:Gutnish_lemmas, Category:Scanian_lemmas, Category:Norn_lemmas or Category:Jamtish_lemmas, or are you only concerned with Westrobothnian? Do you have any particular hatred for Westrobothnian? What gives all the other languages free pass? How many dead languages do you think have a widely used written standard? — Knyȝt (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Gutnish spelling is from [79] and Scanian from [80]. Also, we should generalize the issue into how to deal with languages with no written tradition. For instance, compare Category:ǃKung lemmas with entries like žuː, ˤk'i or compare Category:ǃXóõ_lemmas with exotic entries like ǀùa ǁʻúm ǀnān and tVʻVV-sà kV. -- 20:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I have no relation with Westrobothnian whatsoever, nor with any other East Nordic variety. I simply came across a group of outlandish spellings randomly and decided to bring them to the community's attention when I couldn't source them. That said, 'others do it to' is never an argument for anything. As for unwritten languages: I believe we normally have a discussion amongst the community, document the spelling we invent and put them in an appendix. There was something like this going for some Native American language some time ago, if my memory doesn't trick me. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm just pointing out incoherent practices, watching this fuss made regarding Westrobothnian. E.g. ǃKung entries like ǯau amd ǃgoːa have existed since 2007, which led me to think that entries for unwritten languages were accepted and not to be placed into an appendix. If it is the norm or ? idk, then we should appendicise languages like Category:ǃXóõ lemmas, Category:ǃKung lemmas, Category:Juǀ'hoan lemmas, Category:Gciriku lemmas, Category:ǀXam lemmas, Category:Nǀuu lemmas etc. Btw, I'm not User:Knyȝt, but former IP -- 08:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no incoherent practice, users deal with things when they come across them. If you think the languages you listed are not verifiable, you can call for the removal or change of their entries just the same. I've never seen any entry of theirs nor would I be able to tell whether something was noteworthy or unusual about their entries. I think we have some Sami variety which uses IPA-characters as well and should be checked, but I don't recall what it was. If you want to work out a general consensus or even policy for unwritten languages, Wiktionary:Beer_parlour is the place to go to. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Indeed should the matter be brought to WT:BP, as it concerns a number of languages. How we deal with lemmas in unwritten languages like Westrobothnian, Jamtish, !Kung etc. should be organized therefrom. -- 23:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I must mention that while nobody is taking care of your noble endeavours to move these to other spellings or bring this up in Beer Parlour, these entries confirmed to not be verifiable by the author are just sitting on our page with a status which qualifies for a deletion. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Closed. All entries have been deleted. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Bump. Category filled again. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

And by the same author, it seems. If these new words are also unattested/invented spellings, still being entered after the user was warned against inventing unattested spellings, then a short block might be in order. But are these unattested in this language? A few strings like börfast and einstöding seem to be attested, but I don't have time at the moment to check in which language. - -sche (discuss) 17:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


"A professional computer and accountant." Nothing to be found online except our entry. Equinox 00:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Although it doesn't help with rfv, it's no less found here: [[81]] of all places Leasnam (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Quoting this work: "For the common Logist, Reckenmaster, or Arithmeticien, in hys v∣sing of Numbers: of an Vnit, imagineth lesse partes• and calleth them Fractions." "Reckonmaster" might barely meet CFI. DTLHS (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I find even more at reckonmaster here [[82]] Sorry, thought that was Cap'd Leasnam (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Maybe this can/should be moved to reckonmaster ? Leasnam (talk) 02:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
If keeping and moving, always be sure to add the appropriate glosses for such entries, probably obsolete, rare, nonstandard. It is not fair on users to suggest that such obscurities are everyday English that will be understood by typical speakers. Equinox 19:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes I leave it empty because I simply am not sure, leaving it up to the community to fill in my gaps. I try and add them when and where I can. This takes a village :) Leasnam (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I've created reckonmaster and labelled it with an archaic and historical tag. I've also changed reckmaster to an alternative form, and likewise labelled it as well Leasnam (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


Destructive flames. Apparently only in the fantasy books of Elizabeth Moon, hence would fail WT:FICTION. Equinox 22:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, a few have been added. Let me know Leasnam (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense 4: "Existing, produced, or published by or within the establishment." -- · (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the opposite of underground. Added three cites. Equinox 23:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Right you are, Eq. Thanks. Perfectly clear now, with reworked definition and quotations. That's that. -- · (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016Edit


Icelandic. Giving it the benefit of the doubt; someone who's studied Icelandic could try searching for inflected forms, I suppose. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Finnish superoptihupilystivekkuloistokainen got deleted lately after lengthy debate. This is a much weaker case. There's nothing in Google nor in BGC. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for "to make a comeback" definition. I haven't seen this definition outside the Unihan database.—This unsigned comment was added by Bumm13 (talkcontribs).

Agreed. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The usage originates from the following poem, 題烏江亭 by the Tang dynasty poet 杜牧 (Du Mu) describing the defeat of 項羽 (Xiang Yu) in the battle of 垓下.


If 項羽 had been brave to return to his homeland, he might still have the chance to defeat 劉邦 (Liu Bang), who later established the Han dynasty after 項羽 committed suicide.

The term "捲土重來" / 卷土重来 (juǎn tǔ chóng lái) is a popular 成語 proverb meaning to make a come back. The word 捲 has been simplified to 卷 in mainland China, which may explain why the definition has been incorporated into the Unihan database.


Mentioned as long ago as 2009 as possibly not attestable as an adjective with this meaning, but never followed up on here at RFV. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Most hits seems to be scannos for purgatorie.
  • 1589, William Fulke, The Text of the New Testament of Iesus Christ, 268.
    But that there was no purgatoric paine knowen in his time, he teſtifieth in theſe wordes:
This might be another scanno as the scan is a little unclear, but it doesn't look like it to me. Also one hit in a song text (that has a different meaning), but there doesn't seem to be anything else. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
We don't have purgatorie on Wiktionary. Are you sure those are scannos, or should an entry be added? Also, I agree that the above citation is probably not supposed to be "purgatorie," as that wouldn't make much sense in context. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I've added an English section to purgatorie. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

selling-edge analysisEdit

Something in advertising. I can't find any reference to this except the usual spammy sites copying our entry. Equinox 17:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


Apparent nonce word, only used by Atwood. The citation is a mention. Equinox 20:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


An anon removed this saying "hilik o higik ang tagalog. walang research?", which roughly translates to "hilik or higik in Tagalog. Was no research done?". I have restored it so it can be RFV'ed. We currently lack entries for both hilik and higik. @Mar vin kaiser, Andrew SheedyΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The word "hilik" is more common in Tagalog for "snoring", but the word "hagok" is a less known synonym, which is attested in all major dictionaries, such as Leo English Dictionary, Vicassan's Dictionary, Panganiban's Diksyunasyo-Tesauro, and UP Diksiyonaryong Filipino. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Mar vin kaiser. Thank you. For RFV, we need to demonstrate that the word passes WT:ATTEST. I think the only relevant cite I see at google books:"hagok" is in Cebuano, right? Can you find uses in print newspapers or magazines? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge Given the current state of the language where the large majority (greater than 50%) of the words in unabridged dictionaries are no longer in common use, due to the current education system and prioritization of English, I won't be able to find an attestation. And also due to the fact that most old Tagalog publications and literature are not digitalized, it's not easy to find. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 05:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I tried myself after my comment above and I failed to find anything durably archived besides dictionaries. I think this means we should probably take Tagalog off WT:WDL. What other editors should we check with before doing that? @Mar vin kaiser, Atitarev, Stephen G. BrownΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Despite being the national language (given the unification of Filipino and Tagalog), usage of the language in written form is very limited, since most written documents in the Philippines are in English, such as in the government, in business, and in the academe, and in literature. That is why most people are unfamiliar with more literary vocabulary found in the language, which are only privy to those who study Tagalog literature written more than a century ago, which not a lot of Filipinos get to read. Unlike in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand or Vietnam, where their national language is the default language in all cases. My point is that removing Tagalog from WT:WDL has a basis to it. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I think hagok, a noun, is good and should be kept. Finding written attestations of Tagalog words ranges from difficult to virtually impossible. —Stephen (Talk) 20:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


Noun sense:

  1. (informal) A yes; an affirmative answer.

All citations given are mentions, not uses. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

AFAIC, if it can be pluralised by adding the morpheme -s, it's a noun. Interjections can't be. Compare "notwithstandings". But I know many others disagree and I remember another such case being deleted — but can't recall what the word was. Equinox 19:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
What about the fact that you can say: "there are 5 thes in that sentence"? You can pluralize mentions, but I don't think we want them as separate entries/senses. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah that's why others disagree. Yups and nopes feel more keep-worthy to me, for some reason, probably because they represent an act, like a nod or a growl. ("He gave me a firm nope.") Not sure if this argument is sound, since perhaps you could compare that to "she wrote an italic the". Equinox 14:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Some comparable entries: nopes, notwithstandings, hallelujahs (and spelling variants), ahoys. Equinox 19:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
...And the redoubtable "etaoin shrdlus". Equinox 10:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Can anyone find the RFD discussion(s) we had about one or more of these noun-sections-based-on-the-pluralizability-of-a-word-meaning-"an instance of word"? - -sche (discuss) 08:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


This is not Proto-Brythonic. It's written in British Latin. UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't change this without discussion. Also, British Latin is not an acceptable L2 language name.—JohnC5 17:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I found it used on several other pages, like British Latin *biscopo. UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
So there is a distinction between the language heading and dialects mentioned before a link. You should use somehting like {{lb|British Latin}} before the definition instead. —JohnC5 18:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
At present the headword doesn't agree with the page name. - -sche (discuss) 21:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
apparently resolved by being moved, and the headword line being updated. - -sche (discuss) 08:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Inhabitant of Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. Equinox 21:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


I cannot find uses, only mentions of this spelling. The usual one is bien-pensant or bien pensant. --Fsojic (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It's basically accurate but some of the 1990 reform spellings are notional, i.e. no-one's actually ever used them, if someone did use the 1990 spelling of bien-pensant it would be bienpensant. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


Appears in one Wikipedia article (not a particularly compelling source) and nowhere else online. Equinox 19:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Breton ny, niEdit

The actual word meaning "not" in Breton seems to be ne, attested in French and Breton Wiktionaries and various other dictionaries also. I can't find any attestations of ny or ni in this meaning, however, but User:UtherPendrogn is insisting that they remain listed as descendants on Proto-Brythonic *ni simply because Matasović mentions them, and has reverted my removal several times. So I ask for their existence to be verified per WT:CFI so that it's formally clear. —CodeCat 22:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I need to sleep, I'll be happy to attest it in a few hours. I have my sources ready to do so. UtherPendrogn (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Got to apologise on this one. I'd added a similar entry for another word where the Breton words that you pointed out were used differently (ni and ny) were used, which I assumed was this one. I was wrong. I apologise. UtherPendrogn (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

spirit cookingEdit

This is what you get when you take a work of performance art by w:Marina Abramović called "Spirit Cooking", and make a generic term out of it. As far as I can find on Google Books and Google Scholar, there are's nothing but a few mentions of Marina Abramović and her work and an odd assortment of coincidental occurences of the two words together.

On Google Groups there are some bizarre recent discussions about an email invitation that w:John Podesta received related to the performance piece- something that was misinterpreted as evidence that Hillary Clinton's campaign staff were practicing satanic rituals!

Unless this can be shown to be a lower-case term for something other than Marina Abramović's performance-art piece and meeting the definition in the entry, this should be deleted as encyclopedic and misleading. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I wish I could unsee some of what I just saw. But...
  • 1996, Samuel, Spirit Cooking: With Essential Aphrodisiac Recipes, Samuel
    No previews of this text were available, so no clue if this may be relevant.
  • 2013, Ross Fardon, This Could Be Your Future, Xlibris, pg 127
    They set up their brass spirit cooking stoves in the aisle.
  • 2013, Marie Azzopardi-Alexander and Albert Borg, Maltese, Routledge, pg 351
    spiritiera: 'spirit cooking stove'
  • 1966, Almqvist Ake Erik Alexander and Boij Karl Oskar Arne, Apparatus for burning spirit and similar liquid fuels US 3290907 A, United States Patents
    FIG. 1 shows in sectional elevation a combination spirit cooking and heating stove incorporating the invention;
…but no evidence of the odd performance art. (Many references also to spirit cooker, spirit stove, but these refer to a spirit cooking stove and not some divisible adjective or activity. But this should be an RFD, not RFV, no? - Amgine/ t·e 07:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


I don't think this spelling is legit. Equinox 18:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


Trading name of an Irish business, but I can't see generic usage. Equinox 19:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


Can't find anything on this at all. Could it be a typo for woodhewer, a bird listed in some other dictionaries? Equinox 23:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense verb. Hot word status might be advisable, as well as some rewording of the def. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to find durably archived sources from 2015 and 2016 - here are three. The 2015 one is just a chapter heading, but I included it because it is the oldest use as a verb I could find in book form:
Kiwima (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I have adjusted my original definition in an attempt to make it better fit all the actual usages observed. Please anyone make any improvements you see fit. Mihia (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
It is still being used very frequently in UK media.John Cross (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


As far as I know, this is a relatively new character. Often pushed as a hanja form of "글" as in 한글 (han-geul). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

for what it's worth this webpage seems to have a sourced claim linking it to the nobi caste (historically used in the names of these people?). —suzukaze (tc) 12:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


the whole entry. everything. Leasnam (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I did a substantial amount of pruning. The contributor basically copied just about everything verbatim from crown, then changed all the instances of "crown" to "coorne"- even in the quotes. If this exists in English (as opposed to Middle English), it's just an obsolete form of crown, so I got rid of almost everything else. I'm not sure what to do with the pronunciation section, since that wasn't copied from crown, but the pronunciations seem odd for an English term. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree, especially in regard to the first pronunciation given. I don't think it was ever pronounced that way. Leasnam (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The OED has one quotation that uses it, but under the entry for corn (in the sense of callus). DTLHS (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
There's also a use of it in Tyndale's bible translation, but, there again, meaning corn (as in grain). Chuck Entz (talk) 05:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Initially, I wasn't able to find anything correct, true, or factual about this entry...looks to be nothing more than a well-crafted hoax Leasnam (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I saw something besides Tyndale that raises the possibility of attesting that this was an EME spelling of corn ("grain"). DCDuring TALK 15:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The "crown" sense fails RFV; the "corn" sense still needs citations because it's not obvious that there are three modern English citations. Scannos, Middle English and a homographic last name and terms in other languages make it hard to search for. - -sche (discuss) 09:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Nonexistent. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

For Mrs, this only called นาง. No heard of คุณม่าย. ม่าย means a widow. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


All google hits are Russian. Most refer to it as a Buryat dish, but a Buryat dictionary confirms that it is written (and pronounced) хуушуур with two 'у's as well. Crom daba (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I would show хушуур as a misspelling of хуушуур. —Stephen (Talk) 13:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "(intransitive) To come and go in and out of consciousness." I have no particular reason to doubt this, but it would be nice to verify. After all, a sentence like "After the accident, he passed in the back of the ambulance" just sounds odd.

I have no idea what to search for to check this... This, that and the other (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I wonder whether someone mistook frequentative use of the present participle of pass for this definition. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
BTW: What's with the label "heading" that occurs a few times in pass#Verb definitions? DCDuring TALK 14:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The entry pipe is entirely built of these weird "heading" labels! Equinox 18:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
This diff by User:ReidAA in December 2014 is one that introduced "heading" as second argument of {{lb}}. There seem to be some 60 entries with this. I wonder whether something in {{lb}} has changed. DCDuring TALK 18:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
No, I think it's just intended to mark a definition as a heading of several subdefinitions. DTLHS (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I've never liked it. It doesn't belong in {{lb}}, IMO. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "To act suddenly, unexpectedly or quickly." User:Mihia pointed out (at WT:TR#pop) that it has no usage examples, let alone citations and doesn't appear distinct from other definitions. I think definition 14 is particularly close. DCDuring TALK 02:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I haven't checked the entry history but I also suspect this was a vague attempt at #14. Equinox 02:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Possibly, but then #14 may be too narrow for "He popped over for a cuppa" or "a pop from the engine and our holiday travels were over." - Amgine/ t·e 01:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, popping over for a cuppa is #14 (moving suddenly): even if it's not a physically sudden movement, that's the sense of the word that is intended, right? I don't know what you mean by "a pop from the engine" but that can't be a verb; the verb is challenged here. Equinox 03:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
after e/c:
Definition 5, "(intransitive, Britain, often with over, round, along, etc.) To make a short trip or visit." <I'm just popping round to the newsagent.> would seem to cover your first example.
It makes me cringe but "pop to the loo" (i.e. briefly visit the toilet) is moderately common. The verb can be replaced with various other verbs suggesting rapid motion, like "whizz" or "nip". Equinox 03:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
As to the second example, I don't understand what the use of pop as a noun has to do directly with the rfv of a verb definition. DCDuring TALK 03:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
To pop, to hiccup/hiccough, to misfire. - Amgine/ t·e 06:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@Amgine: Thanks. Is it applicable to all things misfire is applicable to, eg, firearms, artillery, detonators, attempts ("The plan misfired.")? DCDuring TALK 15:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I would doubt it; there are not many things which are universal. Mostly I find #14 unnecessarily narrow and limiting; what it covers are described under #3. - Amgine/ t·e 21:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
That would make it seem like one of the senses of backfire, rather than misfire. DCDuring TALK 22:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Again an instance of over-precision: all backfires (sense #2, of an engine) are misfires. To be precise, to fire at any point other than TDC of a standard cylinder ICE. - Amgine/ t·e 22:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Since that sense has not been shown to be distinct, I have removed it, and moved former #14 up into its place. Mihia (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


RFV of the definitions under Etymology 2. Usually this is エッチ (etchi) or H (etchi). —suzukaze (tc) 09:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. エイチ is only for the letter L H. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Presumably, you meant the letter H?  :)
Also, I do find limited use of this spelling for the エッチ (etchi) sense: google:"エイチしたい". These sites wouldn't seem to meet CFI, but they do suggest that this エイチ (eichi) spelling is for more than the alphabet.
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


Turkish challenged in diff. This process is governed by WT:ATTEST. For orientation only, absent from Turkish dictionaries at Türk Dil Kurumu[83].--Dan Polansky (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

There are already valid citations. 123snake45 who wants to add his own made-up words to wikis is so mad because theş were deleted in the past. So he wants to be deleted some words because he read these words on some forum posts from the people argued with him even these words have valid citations and are listed on many dictionaries. -- 13:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The citations you mean would be those at Citations:estelik. Looks cited to me; what would be the objections to these quotations? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The IP, as usual, is lying. 123snake45 started out by creating a couple of made-up entries, but stopped when informed of our attestation rules, and has been working since then to stop others from creating similar bogus entries. That's the only truth in the IP's statement. This IP has an agenda to replace ordinary Turkish words of non-Turkish origin with words either constructed from existing Turkish pieces or borrowed from related Turkic languages. They routinely do things like add citations in languages similar to Turkish, and citations of people mentioning the terms as hypotheticals, in hopes that no one will be able to tell the difference. So far their creations have almost invariably ended up deleted, but the IP is hoping that everyone has forgotten about this and they can succeed this time. Even in the few cases where they squeak by on the strength of the bare minimum number of cites, they need to be tagged as extremely rare, and they should be removed from translation tables as completely unknown to the vast majority of Turkish-speakers.
The citations should not be taken at face value, and should only be accepted after someone who speaks Turkish confirms that they're actually in Turkish and are actual uses that meet the requirements of CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Just judging from Google Translate, the 1999 and 2001 cites are in archeological reports and refer to some massive object or feature found in excavations, not a memento. The 2003 cite mentions the title of a work, and includes a parenthetical gloss of the word in question, which may be an indication that the word isn't Turkish. The dictionary mention seems to refer to Ottoman Turkish, not modern Turkish. Google Translate is obviously not reliable enough to prove anything, but this does suggest that these may not be what they're claimed to be. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Özbekçe "esdalik" sözünü Türkçeymiş gibi göstermeye çalışıyorlar (At the Uzbek language "esdalik"'s word, They are trying to prove like Turkish). --123snake45 (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
" I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Is this a quote from somewhere (it's not from anywhere on Wiktionary, as far as I can tell), or are you including the Turkish because you're not sure you're saying it right in English? I will mention, by the way, that this entry seems to be different from their usual pattern, because there's a perfectly good Turkish word they're replacing that can be traced back to Proto-Turkic, but their rhetoric and tactics are definitely consistent enough to show it's the same person or group. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Chucky I am from Turkey and I speak Turkish. You are talking about Turkish citations by trusting in Google translate? At last you could check them by looking up some online dictionaries such as SesliSozluk, etc. -- 06:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
After his made-up words were deleted from wikis, 123snake45 added many fake translations to Tatoeba and then he was banned there. Some Turkish speakers say his Turkish is very bad. See an example: "Last" yazacaktım iken dalgınlıkla "latest" yazmışım. Ask any Turkish speaker, this sentence is not a correct Turkish sentence. He also claims that the word Buzulkuşusu is correct. His Turkish sucks, why do you trust in this person? -- 06:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
"estelik" is not Turkish in short, certainly. --123snake45 (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Are you the ÖSYM or my teacher 88..? You are liar and vandal. Your "alısün, çınka, estelik, birdem, sögen, karamazdan, bağdarlama, köpyak..." words are fake, aren't Turkish. --123snake45 (talk) 09:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Yes, I'm sure he also started World War III and wears his clothes upside down. Those aren't the droids you're looking for, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, and we've always been at war with Eastasia. I'm sorry, but you're not going to make me forget your previous lies by telling more of them. It doesn't work that way. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
123snake45 said same things for the words such as çimerlik, haydamak, etc. If you think this word is fake then you may remove it from here. If you remove it from here, this doesn't mean this word doesn't exist. There are already valid citations and many dictionaries contain this word. -- 10:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting we should delete this based on his word, or on my guesses obtained via Google Translate. What I am suggesting is that we shouldn't keep it based on your word or without examination of your cites by someone with at least some knowledge of Turkish whom I can trust not to have an agenda, say @Atitarev, Stephen G. Brown, Anylai, Sae1962, Curious. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I have had a similar discussion at çıngı, the word supposedly had an extra sense meaning electricity. It is obvious there is a group of people trying to make up words and put them in online dictionaries recently. In fact if we had taken the online dictionaries as a source, there were a lot of coined words based on this fake word definitely which is not accepted by any scientific community nor used in literature in the proposed sense, and they should have been here too. Please take a look at here, see also the awkward copy-paste relation between Korean. Are "fake, coined" words bad? Not at all considering we have had many of them during the language reforms like this failed guy, but this truly needs to have recent attestations from various fields to stay here. There are attestations but all belong to nationalist topics. One attestion is from 1934, probably first time as a propasal for an ottoman word, second actually refers to a book called "Türkistan'dan estelikler" so it is not even an attestation, the one belonging to 2001 is from a symposium about excavations appararently done for the Turkic researches.
If it passes the attestation process, we may also consider it a loanword from Uzbek since many words were also borrowed from Chaghatai dictionaries and other Kipchak languages too. Coined or borrowed word's ultimate etymology goes back to here. Unfortunately I have never heard of it, when I google it the only things i get are this wiktionary and nationalist forum entries. --Anylai (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Yaşar Çağbayır who is the author of the Ötüken Sözlük (a 5-volume Turkish dictionary) mentions the word cıngılı means electronic in Anatolian Yörük city dialect (Sprachmund). Turkish Language Association's Derleme Sözlüğü lacks of many words in Anatolian city dialects. --2001:A98:C060:80:786C:C7B:F243:D368 08:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
"çimerlik" is not Turkish too. It is Azeri. Also, I don't believe in every dictionaries because of your forgery, false pretenses, fraudulence, dishonesty. I believe in rightful/truthful dictionaries. All of you add to dictionaries and says "there are many citations and dictionaries". This is your cheating. I know your cheating. --123snake45 (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
If some authors used this word in Turkish, then it is a Turkish word. You can only say it is borrowed from Azerbaijani. --2001:A98:C060:80:786C:C7B:F243:D368 08:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
There are three groups concerning language in Turkey: one are normal people, the other are the pro-Ottoman ones, the third the Kemalists. As you perhaps know, the Turkish language was significantly modified by the Turkish Language Association (TDK); they changed 80% of the words by introducing some local words, Turkish words of Old Turkish, or mostly created new words. The reason was the turn to the West by Kemal Atatürk, so 'do not use any words from the East or the South'. Other words were replaced with words from French, but later replaced by newly created ones. The result of this explains partly this discussion here. Concerning the words cited about, estelik is unknown to TDK, the official state organisation in Turkey for language issues. The same is true for çimerlik, but I think that this word comes from Azeri Turkish. The third cited word above, haydamak, exist in TDK. I had a lot of problems with entries in the Turkish Wiktionary with words like dilbilim (instead of dil bilimi, the now-accepted orthography). Another need for confusion is the mixed-up minds at TDK. I never forget my teacher for literature that until that year (1979), 17 orthograhy dictionaries had been published with 14 (!) different orthographies. I never checked it, but it shows the precarious way TDK is/was proceeding. My solution to this problem are stricter rules, like it is the case in the German Wiktionary, where you either need a refernce to an accepted dictionary, or at least five citations. By the way: Sesli Sözlük is often imprecise, and Google Translator is worse.--Sae1962 (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice this citation:

  • 1934, Türk Dil Kurumu (Turkish Language Association), Tarama dergisi: Osmanlıcadan Türkçeden söz karşılıkları, 2. cilt

Estelik, Yadigâr.

The word 'yadigâr' is the Ottoman one, and the word 'estelik' is the Turkish one. Notice the date: 1934 If someone says this is a group's lie then this means Turkish Language Association is a liar in this situation. And 123snake45 doesn't check the citations or he tries to falsify them. He said these words were not in Turkish: haydamak çimerlik kol çekmek telefonlamak but there were citations for these words. --2001:A98:C060:80:786C:C7B:F243:D368 08:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Türkiye Türkçesi Ağızları Sözlüğü
So "cıngılı" is "very small" in TDK.
"telefonlamak" isn't valid. Turkish people don't use it.
Also "kol çekmek" isn't truth. All of they "telefonlamak, çimerlik, kol çekmek.." have to re-examine. --123snake45 (talk) 09:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Telefonlamak is generally being used in its reciprocal form telefonlaşmak (compare with: karşılamak-karşılaşmak, söylemek-söyleşmek). Some forms may be rare or may even be lost but it doesn't mean they don't exist in Turkish because of you don't know them. -- 09:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
There is "telefonlaşmak" but there is no "telefonlamak". Both isn't same. "telefon almak" is different, "telefonlaşmak" is different, "telefonlamak" is different too. So there is no "telefonlamak". --123snake45 (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
You can not compare "telefonlamak" with "telefon almak" which is totally irrelevant. If you look up any etymological dictionary you may see this explanation: telefonlaşmak < telefon-la-ş-mak. Because it is reciprocal form of the verb telefonlamak. -- 15:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't like to argue about Turkish with educated native speakers of Turkish, but there are many things that can happen to a word. Some words are old and not used much anymore, so a lot of people do not know them (such words are desirable for a dictionary); some words are slang; some words are regional; some words are borrowed from other languages; and many other possibilities. Words that fall into almost any of these categories are good to keep, with proper labels (such as obsolete, rare, regional, slang, colloquial, etc.). In the case of estelik, I see that it appears in the Seslisozluk online dictionary here and here. —Stephen (Talk) 13:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Atitarev, Stephen G. Brown, Anylai, Sae1962, Curious Sorry, I wasn't specific enough about what we need to know. This is rfv, so the task at hand is to verify if this word is 1) in use 2) conveying meaning 3) in Turkish' 4) as Turkish as documented 5) in durably-archived sources. Also, the cites only count if they are independent' of other cites

  • An obscure regional or obsolete term, as long as it's in some form of modern Turkish, is okay, but must be labeled as such, and should not be given as a translation.
  • If I have a quote that says "let's all call this estelik from now on", that's a mention, which doesn't count, because it's not in actual use.
  • Using it in an example sentence doesn't count, because it's not conveying meaning.
  • Any text that's not in modern Turkish according to Wiktionary's interpretation, i.e., Azeri, Ottoman Turkish, etc., doesn't count.
  • A quote that says estelik is the word for this in [some other language]" doesn't count.
  • Online dictionaries don't count, especially if they allow addition of words by the public.
  • Even an official publication that says "this is the correct word to use from now on" doesn't count, since it's a mention, not a use.
  • If a term is used with some other definition, it won't count for the current definition: a cite that refers to estelik as something 12 meters across that's found in an excavation will not keep the entry from being deleted, unless there's a definition in the entry that's consistent with that cite (and 2 others like it). If there is the sense that isn't supported by cites will be removed, but the other one will stay.

There's more to it then that, but that's all I have time for this morning. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me but I don't know enough Turkish to make a judgement. Like in Turkish, there is a fine line in Russian between Old Russian (Old East Slavic) or words borrowed from other languages (including Slavic), sometimes it's not a real borrowing but a quoted sentence may make readers believe that a term is actually used (this can be said of any language). We have to rely on honesty of contributors and their understanding of our rules. Disproving them may be difficult without a thorough knowledge of the language and citations.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 19:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "To hang in suspense; to be pending; to be undetermined or undecided; as, a cause depending in court." How can depend be used in this way exactly? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

It's archaic. Definitely real. See [84]. Equinox 19:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Verb: "A disrespectful obscenity." Well the definition is not for a verb, for starters. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


"A refugium when used in reef aquariums." Originally entered as a mere misspelling of refugium, and was corrected to this, which doesn't seem to be in actual use. Equinox 19:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


Only in word lists? A plural is particularly hard to locate, so if the word exists then it might be an adjective only. Equinox 20:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

As stated in the definition, Polysporea is an obsolete taxon in the Coccidia}. So a corpus of 19th-century biological texts is the only place I'd expect to find "polysporean" used. There is a word polyspore that's still in use, but likely with a different, not taxonomic meaning. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
polysporean in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 indicates a likely source of the entry. No joy in superficial Biodiversity Heritage Library search. Does @Chuck Entz: have any ideas about sources? DCDuring TALK 17:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

shipper weldEdit

Nothing even in a Google Web search. Equinox 20:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

No joy for shippers weld or shipper's weld or shippers' weld. DCDuring TALK 22:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Dunno if that helps, but I know that the practice exists, so it's not totally unlikely to have a name. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The closest I could come was in searching for temporary weld/welding:
  • 2012, Mohamed Abdallah El-Reedy, Offshore Structures: Design, Construction and Maintenance, page 365:
    Consideration must be given to the need to temporarily weld padeyes to the deck in order to secure cargo for sea.
With the welding texts and references that are in Google Books, I'd have thought it would appear in a glossary if it were in actual use. But it does seem close to SoP, so maybe a glossary entry is unnecessary for welders to interpret the term in context. I did see some engineering contract boilerplate that discourages or prohibits use of temporary welds. Why would the owner of a truck, a railroad car, or a ship want to risk having a welder weaken or at least damage their equipment? Maybe its a practice that isn't supposed to happen. DCDuring TALK 17:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
No luck with rigger weld/rigger's weld/riggers' weld either. DCDuring TALK 18:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it just isn't. We don't find it anywhere and it's an anon's only contribution. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The phenomenon exists, but we haven't find its name, if indeed it has one. Let's give it its month. DCDuring TALK 16:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I got a mention for shipping weld, but it only referred to the more general tack weld. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed; creator no longer active at Wiktionary. Not in the main Irish-English dictionary ({{R:ga:Ó Dónaill}}) but maybe somewhere else. There's an ailse, but it means "cancer" (same as the Scottish Gaelic aillse), not "fairy" or "heedlessness". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I dunno about "heedlessness", but Armstrong's 1825 (Scottish) Gaelic Dictionary has
Aillse, s.f. A fairy; a ghost; a diminutive creature; rarely a cancer; delay. Ir. aillse. In some parts of the Highlands this word is pronounced taillse.
Take that with as many grains of salt as you might need. Especially as aillsiu goes back to Wb, and no sign of a "fairy" sense --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 11:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, "heedlessness" is probably from O'Brien's 1768 Focalóir Gaoidhilge-Sax-bhéarla:
Aillis, a Canker, an Eating or spreading sore, hence braon aillse a drop observed to fall upon the tombs of certain Tyrants so Called from it's Cankerous corroding what it falls upon.
Aillse of or belonging to a Cancer vid. aillis
Aillse delay, neglect, heedlessness.
Again, I have no idea how he found the second sense. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 11:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I've refactored the entry a bit, it could probably stand someone else having a look. I've put the two mystery definitions in the same etymology block for lack of anything better to do with them. I mean, they're attested, but they come out of nowhere, seem to vanish afterwards, and have no immediately obvious etymologies. I have also added {{R:ga:O'Brien}} and {{R:gd:Armstrong}}. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 01:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


This Turkish entry passed RFV last year and has three citations; however, 123snake45 believes that those citations were fabricated. I can see the source of the 2013 citation here; however, the 1990 and 1998 citations do not show up for me, so I can't independently confirm their existence. If they are indeed there, could someone upload the screenshots, so that this issue can be put to bed?
Pinging @Chuck Entz, Renard Migrant, Atitarev, Prosfilaes, -sche, Curious, Dan Polansky, who contributed to the first RFV discussion (IPs omitted). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

It has been suggested that citations may have been fabricated. In any case, they can't be reproduced, so might as well fail the term. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I am fairly certain I could see these quotations back then. In an unrelated search, it seemed to me I could no longer access Google Books pages that were previously accessible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
One thing to try would be which domain you're using for Google. Sometimes it behaves differently if you use Google.com and, say, Google.co.uk, especially if you're not accessing the version of Google for your country. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Google Books has been relisting a large quantity of books from page view or snippet view to no preview over the past few months. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The link of the first citation was added by Dan Polansky: [85] --2001:A98:C060:80:7D09:D38C:E87:9412 11:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


Preposition sense 3:

(Southern US, African American Vernacular)  On the opposite side, relative to something that lies between, from (a point of interest).

I don't understand how this differs from the standard English usage covered by other senses, and the citations, which also seem to me like ordinary standard English, do not explain it. I am listing it here in case anyone else sees something that I do not. Mihia (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

For me, "I parked across the entrance" would mean my car was blocking the entrance. If I had been the one speaking in the 1995 quote, I would have said "I parked across from the entrance". As for the 1994 quote, I'm not sure what it means, but for me "parked across the mall" would have to mean the car was parked inside the mall and was so long that it stretched from one end of the mall to the other. If the quote means "parked across from the mall", then we could say "across" in this dialect means "across from". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, OK, I thought it did mean that the car was blocking the entrance. If it's supposed to mean "across from the entrance" then I agree it is not a standard English sense. I interpreted "parked across the mall" analogously to "parked across the street", i.e. as parked on the other side of the mall. I wonder if it might be possible to come up with usage examples that more clearly show how this sense is distinct from the others -- examples that can't be interpreted in multiple ways. If it does actually mean "across from" then that would also be useful to mention in the definition, I think. Mihia (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, I guess you're right, "parked across the mall" can also mean parked on the other side of the mall. And maybe the 1995 quote does mean "blocking the entrance". In both cases I feel like we don't have enough information about the parking situation to judge whether this is a dialectal usage of across or the standard one. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
A few minutes ago I happened to encounter a use of across in a book I'm reading that might support this sense. It's by an Indian writer but takes place in Guyana and seems to use some Guyanese slang.
  • 2011, Rahul Bhattacharya, The Sly Company of People who Care, page 17:
    Across the port health officer I took a seat without being asked and pondered things with indecent laze.
Granger (talk · contribs) 21:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, I don't know whether I somehow misread or misunderstood the definition first time round, but of course it does actually read "On the opposite side [...] from (a point of interest).", so it seems Angr must be right. Ideally I would like to see an example like:
Across [= Across from] the port health officer, ...
That way it will be clear to readers. Mihia (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Another issue is that it's difficult to know, in any one citation, whether the omission of "from" is intentional or a mistake. Recall how difficult it was to cite they as an intentional determiner, in light of how it occurs as an error for the (look at Kiwima's citations on Talk:they#RFV). If the same author or Usenet poster used "across" in this way repeatedly, that would be suggestive that the use was intentional. Or if the authors used "across" only once but didn't also use "across from", and if they could be confirmed to be speakers of Southern / AAVE, that would be suggestive. Whereas, if the same dialect-speakin' character that uses "across" goes on to use "across from", it suggests the bare "across" might be an error. It would help if a reference on these dialects mentioned this usage; that would support the idea that authors who used it were using it intentionally and with the meaning claimed, rather than making a "typo" of sorts or using a different (ordinary) meaning as discussed above. Does DARE include this; does the OED? - -sche (discuss) 03:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

go inEdit

To enter; to join in; to begin participation in.

Perhaps I am being slow, but the only meaning of "go in" that I can visualise is the literal one of "enter", e.g. "I opened the door and went in". Can anyone provide usage examples of where it means "to join in" or "to begin participation in"? Mihia (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I've added some examples to the entry. DTLHS (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Aren't these examples of go in for? Mihia (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes. I don't know if it can be used without "for". DTLHS (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Then I would prefer this use to be covered at "go in for", with a "see also" link from "go in". I'm not sure that "go in" has a usefully separable meaning in the idiomatic expression "go in for". Mihia (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
go in at OneLook Dictionary Search surprised me by showing that there are a few non-SoP definitions of go in. What we have is three definitions in one line, none of them substitutable in the citations we have. I think we need to add non-SoP definitions so that we cover the term as well as competing "unabridged" dictionaries. DCDuring TALK 03:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I added the sense related to the sun for one. Mihia (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


Difficult to search for, but there are zero hits on Google ngram viewer. (though some for C.O.W.) SemperBlotto (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

This search yields a couple of mentions, but only for "COW" or "Cow", as far as I can see. Mihia (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


Metal spike for drawing straight lines, or something. Can't find anything on this. (skirret with one t is a vegetable.) Equinox 06:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It is presumably this, but the usual spelling seems to be "skirret". Mihia (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


Equinox 10:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

In a quick search, all I could find was [this] Kiwima (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


Nothing at all in Google Books or Groups. Equinox 10:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Searching for forms with an article and for the plural on Google only gives sites about (Pokémon) fanfiction, furry stuff and Doctor Who. Nothing that meets CFI. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Berlin WallEdit

Rfv-sense: (politics) Any barrier designed to keep people from crossing a border, e.g. the one proposed to keep people from crossing from Mexico into the United States. Really? -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, really. I am short on time this morning, but in a quick search I came up with the following: [86]






I am, generally speaking, opposed to including these kinds of comparative or "referential" senses unless strongly established in the language. I think it is probably incorrect to say that "Berlin Wall" actually means "Any barrier designed to ... etc.". When people say that some other barrier is "a Berlin Wall", what they are really saying is that it is like the actual Berlin Wall, in my opinion. The possibilities for these kinds of references are open-ended and somewhat limitless. In the floods, I could say, of the stream at the bottom of my garden, that I have "the River Thames" flowing through my garden. It doesn't mean that "River Thames" means "Any stream or river carrying a large volume of water". Mihia (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I think there is a difference between saying 'like the Berlin Wall' and 'like a Berlin Wall'. By using the indefinite article the author seems to indicate that Berlin Wall does not refer to a specific wall, but to a class of wall. Kiwima (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
You may be correct, but I see this as a regular feature of the English language that allows us to liken one thing to another, not a new meaning of "Berlin Wall". For example, I could say that Hillary Clinton "isn't a Barack Obama". It doesn't mean, in my view, that "Barack Obama" has a dictionary sense of a certain type of person/president. Mihia (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree entirely that the principle, "the English language that allows us to liken one thing to another" (justifying exclusion of such definitions), applies to English nouns. But White House at OneLook Dictionary Search shows that other dictionaries find some metonymic construals of proper nouns worth inclusion. The principle does not limit including definitions of common nouns at all. See head#Noun for the numerous definitions that spring from similes, metaphors and metonomy. DCDuring TALK 15:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I entirely agree with the inclusion in the dictionary of the special metonymic meaning of "White House", but I believe that somewhere between "The White House says that President Obama will veto the bill" and the kind of examples offered above for "Berlin Wall", we pass from a genuine extended meaning to regular patterns of the English language that can apply in the same way to virtually any proper noun. Mihia (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The second refers to the original Berlin Wall, the third is a mentioning or a comparision/simile ("as a "Berlin Wall""), the fouth is a mentioning and maybe an comparison/simile too ("The .. politican .. described this division as a 'Berlin Wall'"), the fifth is a comparison/simile ("like a Berlin Wall"). The first and the sixth could use some rhetorical figure ("the rope/thing that's a Berlin Wall", "lies behind a Berlin Wall of ..."). - 23:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Given these arguments, I think this belongs more appropriately under requests for deletion rather than requests for verification. Any use that is found can be argued to be a similie. Kiwima (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


Not sure about this without a space. Equinox 21:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


1. Person who performs oral sex on self. 2. Animal that drinks own milk. Even if I add a hyphen, there's virtually nothing to be found in Google Books. Equinox 19:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

There seem to be a good number of hits for the first definition in Google Groups- it's apparently an established subgenre of online porn. I'm skeptical about the second definition. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I have cited the first definition.
I could cite the second def with a hyphen (self-sucker), but not without (I converted it to an alt-form in case cites can be found). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The first citation is most likely of figurative use. The speaker hardly means that he'd accept help only from those who can lick their dicks. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I think that's exactly what he means. Considering the name of the forum where he posted, he's asking for advice on exercises to become flexible enough to perform autofellatio. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
This reminds me of an old quip: "Why do dogs lick their dicks?" --??? --"Because they can." --Hekaheka (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


"(derogatory) A person from the Trevethin area of South Wales." I can't find anything even in a Web search. Note that trev exists as a synonym for chav, but with a totally different etymology. Perhaps that was a source of confusion here. Equinox 19:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)



I can only find mentions, not uses — and not even three mentions! Equinox 23:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Try looking in Google Scholar Kiwima (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Google cyanope (BooksGroupsScholarNews Archive</