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

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



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)
OK, this has been hanging around for over a year. I went back and found two more quotes that I think are clearly uses rather than mentions. I am calling this cited Kiwima (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

December 2015Edit

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)
RFV failed, not clearly separate from first sense.__Gamren (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

I had a final look, and all quotes I found with this capitalization refer to the Liberal Republican party (or movement) of the 1870s. As no one else has produced citations with this capitalization in over a year, I am calling this RFV-failed. Kiwima (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2017 (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)
This has been sitting here for over a year, because it is an argument that belongs in RFD not RFV. I have cited both entries. I would vote for delete if this were moved to RFD, but as an RFV issue, I must say it has passed. Kiwima (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2017 (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-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)


"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)

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)
I am calling this RFV-passed, unless someone has strong objections. —This unsigned comment was added by Kiwima (talkcontribs) at 19:34, 21 April 2017.


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)
Apparently we can't. RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2017 (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 [1] [2], 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: [[3]]. In addition, there are a few that are the same basic idea, but not really an adjective: [This] is a noun, [[4]] simply calls it a musical term, and [[5]] describes a stop on an organ. Kiwima (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

March 2016Edit

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 [6][7][8][9][10][11] 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)
RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 19:56, 21 April 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)

[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

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)

[18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] --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)

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)
I have added two more cites that are not of the form "X and the allied arts", and am calling this one cited. Kiwima (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2017 (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 - failed Kiwima (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2017 (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)

A similar Singaporean English discussion about jiak ba buay seems to have ended in delete.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:02, 23 April 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)

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







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)


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[24]:
Rudiergo & simpliciori secule camminorum usus fuit incognitus.
1804, Jacopo Durandi, Notizia dell'antico Piemonte Traspadano[25], 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[26], 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 [27]. 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" ? [28] Siuenti (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
"Balotelli's goal was just peach, an absolute stunner." [29] 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, number 2title=A supramassive magnetar central engine for GRB 130603B:
    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)

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)
@Eirikr, do we just have to take it on faith? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

RFV passed. I have added six citations. Honesty speaking, one should doubt if one can reasonably doubt. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you will find my capacity for doubt to be very great indeed, but I can't say for sure. Jokes aside, thank you. Translations, perhaps? Also, strictly speaking, a week has to elapse before this can be closed (not that anyone seems to care overly much, though).__Gamren (talk) 16:53, 17 April 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)


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)





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

Discussion moved from the Tea Room [30]. 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)

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)


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


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)


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)



  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)


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)


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)
I'm not sure about the Collin quote; it might just be online. BGC and GGC turn up nothing. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:33, 14 April 2017 (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[31][32][33] 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[34] 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)

RFV failed. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2017 (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)


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 ([35], [36], and [37] (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)


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)


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 ([38], [39]) 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: [40], [41], [42], [43]. 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)
  • Actually citing inscriptions is rather annoying, but An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy by Bradley McLean refers to at least three specific inscriptions that use the tricolon. As a result, I would consider this RFV passed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:11, 15 April 2017 (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)

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)
Looks good. RFV - passed —This unsigned comment was added by Kiwima (talkcontribs) at 23:32, 19 April 2017.


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)


"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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


"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)


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 [44] 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[45]:
      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: [46] 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 ([47], [48], [49], [50]) of different spellings. I'm sure it is attestable from Groups, though. – Einstein2 (talk) 18:53, 3 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)

Can we call this one failed and move it to dictionary-only words? Kiwima (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Failed: no citations after an extended period. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2017 (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)

I have cited the existing meaning, and supplied entries for the missing meanings. "split key ring" is not "split key - ring" it is "split - key ring", so I did not include that meaning. Kiwima (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2017 (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)





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 calls 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)

    • 1966, Forskning, udvikling, uddannelse
      Ved hjælp af dislokationsteorierne blev man i 30'erne og 40'erne i stand til at beregne metallers maksimale styrke udfra atomkræfter og krystalstrukturer.
      Using the theories of dislocation, one gained, in the 30s and 40s, the ability to calculate the maximal strengths of metals from atomic forces and crystal structures.

__Gamren (talk) 19:39, 8 April 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 [51]. 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 [52] 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: [53]. 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)


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)

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)

Passed. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2017 (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)


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)

Found a relevant blog post from Oxford University Press: [54]. Equinox 09:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


Baby-talk for a fart? Equinox 01:56, 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)


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)

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)


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)


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 [55] and Scanian from [56]. 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)
The entries are taken from the 19th century Ordbok över Umemålet, which uses a sort of Westrobothnian Teuthonista. So basically they're all phonetic transcriptions. @Angr, Knyȝt Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
@Korn You have the attestations you wanted. What's the problem? @-sche If you cannot take the time to examine the sources presented, maybe you should just not bother other people with ignorant comments. @Korn Some spellings are taken from that book, others are taken from other books, as you can see for yourself if you actually examine more than a couple entries. As it happens, börfast and einstöding are not taken from that book.
Since you're asking for it, I will also add that the writing system Stenberg uses is a mix of etymological spelling and "phonetic" spelling, basically like any other European writing system. In almost every single source I use, there is a differentiation between the spelling and the exact pronunciation, and so the spelling cannot be said to be phonetic transcription like IPA. If you are looking for something like Teuthonista I would instead recommend Landsmålsalfabetet. Do you need any more help with anything? — Knyȝt (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
It is not the editors' job to check en detail every single of somebody else's entries. The very purpose of this page (Request for verification) is for the author (and/or those equally able) to provide sources when other editors ask for them, as that is the most efficient process. It eludes me why you and that other user expect that all the voluntary contributors on Wiktionary check every single entry on it as if we were paid curators of this site. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
But why would you straight up lie when you know you have very little information? You seem to prefer to make stuff up rather than ask someone who knows or admit you don't know enough. Now, I'll ask again since I would prefer an answer, is anything else needed? Do you need me to do anything other than provide sources like I already have? — Knyȝt (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Pardon? This very thread is me asking someone who knows, so I don't know what you're ranting raving about. And no, I do not need anything else, it is now up to the community to discuss whether these transcriptions meet CFI. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Stop being so manipulative. Asking a question is not "ranting". It's funny how you are basically ranting while saying that as well; you could have just answered the question normally since you did that in your second sentence anyway. Take your medication. — Knyȝt (talk) 11:42, 31 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: [[57]] 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 [[58]] 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)

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)


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)


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[59].--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 [60]. 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)


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: [61] --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)
Failed. Equinox 04:34, 14 April 2017 (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: [62]






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)



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) and Google glaucope (BooksGroupsScholarNews Archive) show a lot of English scholarly use, mostly in Google Scholar. DCDuring TALK 20:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a lot: one or two uses all referring to the same original paper. DTLHS (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


Adjective: "Of or pertaining to a baiao" (a dance like the samba). It might be a noun, though I can't find a plural, but I don't think adjective is right. Equinox 00:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


Noun: something intended to appease. Nothing on the Web for "appeasatories" plural, and I can't find a noun via "an appeasatory" either. Equinox 01:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I can find one supporting cite (two more to go) :
1810, Stephen Cullen Carpenter, The Mirror of Taste and Dramatic Censor - Volume 1, page 460:
Every child has heard the ingenious distich, or rather tristich, time out of mind, the nurse's appeasatory for squalling children:
Kiwima (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that is unambiguously a noun. Nothing else on Google Books for "appeasatory for", however... Equinox 09:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense ばかFumikotalk 09:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

http://imgur.com/a/zorsP in Nguyen Dinh-Hoa's Vietnamese-English Dictionary. Wyang (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Wyang It's "Vietnamese bra" which is clearly a rough translation because there's that word "Vietnamese". You can call yếm the Vietnamese equivalent of a Western bra in a way. ばかFumikotalk 05:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
(RFV failed?suzukaze (tc) 06:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC))
@Fumiko Take Not quite sure what you mean - the rfv was added to Etymology 2, not 1. Wyang (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang My concern was the rfv on the sense of "bra" which I've already removed. But the rfv under the Etymology 2 section should be dealt with too. ばかFumikotalk 13:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
What is wrong with Etymology 2? Wyang (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

4ºs, 12ºsEdit

They look English and not translingual too me. Maybe see also Wiktionary:Requests_for_cleanup/archive/2012/Unresolved_requests#Translingual_plurals.
Furthermore, the definition could be wrong. 12º is a certain size, how should that have a plural? IMHO it's more likely that the plural refers to pages or books of a certain size. -薫七 (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Changed to English temprarily, but still needs verification. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


"A shaped block of wood used in conjunction with sandpaper for sanding moulded shapes." Apparently only in the one book mentioned; see discussion at [68]. Equinox 20:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

stem the roseEdit

Marked for speedy delete as only being in the film Brokeback Mountain. I don't see anything that's unambiguous on GGC, but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Added one. Nothing else found for "stem the rose", "stem his rose", "stem her rose" and inflections. DTLHS (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I just checked and it looks like there are now sufficient quotes, even though the last two look dubious to me. RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


Nonexistent --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Some dialect? --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


Nonexistent --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Some dialect? --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

nonJapanese, nonjapaneseEdit

Many Google Book results (all I looked at) when searching for "nonJapanese" or "nonjapanese" actually contain "non-Japanese" with a hyphen and a capital J. -薫七 (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

My entries from 2011. I think they are mistaken; I may not have been checking for scannos back then. Equinox 09:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


Noun: the pearl oyster. The given citation is not English. Equinox 08:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


One who ettles. I find only scannos for settler. Equinox 08:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The OED cites John Galt's Ringan Gilhaize: "His father, through all the time of the first King Charles, an eydent ettler for preferment." They mark it Scottish, rare and note: "Sc. National Dict. records this word as still in use in Roxburghshire in 1944." Ƿidsiþ 08:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


Is this attestable in lower case? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


"A person who convinces another to do something by means of sweet talk and flattery." Possibly Irish dialect; see the BBC page linked from the entry, which appears to be a list of local words submitted by readers. Equinox 14:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Definite keep, but it's not easy to find in writing. It's used to describe someone who uses plámás (flattery, guile, etc) and plámás is sometimes spelt plamas in English without the diacritical marks.
Plámás is a regular word in Irish and is not being disputed. Plamasser evolved from plámás and is reasonably widespread. It's long-term too, I first heard it about 40 years ago.--Dmol (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Rare, but maybe I can just cite this. Two good cites:
2000 October 5, Catherine, “Why did the Rabbit keep the bribe... for a bit?”, in soc.culture.irish, Usenet[69]:
Pat just frowned, thinking there was no better plamasser than Franky when he was up to no good.
2000 February 15, Philip J. Gormley, “High Court Inspector's Fees”, in Irish Times[70]:
To that I would add that he has a robust Ulsterman's detestation both of plamas and of plamassers.
and one dodgy one (it's by Suzanne Rhatigan, but I don't think it's durably archived - although I think it might be from the liner notes of her greatest hits collection)
2013 October 17, Suzanne Rhatigan, “10. Loser – 11. Wish You Well”, in FIFTY (Greatest Misses)[71]:
It’s the bull-shitters and plamassers, the ones who habitually make promises that are not theirs to make.
Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016Edit


Never seen or heard of this term. Perhaps protologism. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


I should've stopped where Fumiko stopped. No elements above 118 are attested. Nibiko (talk) 05:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, it would appear that the other systematic names hardly have any citations at all. The four new non-systematic names already have citations in Google Books, Groups, News, and Scholar, and are only going to get more, so it's not a general problem with the language. Note that some are more dated than others. Each of these needs to be individually verified, however, I couldn't verify any of these in my searching, so I think that very few, if any, would pass. The list starts from element 104 and goes to element 122. Note how the English entries for some of these are marked as dated and lacking a translations table. To be clear, the non-systematic names (such as ラザホージウム (razahōjiumu, "rutherfordium")) are easily attested, whereas the systematic names (such as ウンニルクアジウム (unnirukuajiumu, "unnnilquadium")) are very rare. Nibiko (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I’m sure the systematic names for elements 104-109 were in 理科年表. Elements 110-118 should be easily attested too. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
As I said, I can't attest them, so for whatever reason, people aren't using the elements with Latin numbers in the name. I get 10 hits on Google Books and 40 hits on Google Scholar for "104番元素" and 6 hits on Google Books and 1 hit on Google Scholar for "104番目の元素". Nibiko (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)



















Forms of the Latin synaeresisEdit

RFV for some of the declined forms of synaeresis. I know for sure that the dative plural *synaeresibus is unattested, I'll be very surprised if the vocatives exist, and I have my doubts about the isomorphic genitive singular and the dative singular. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

We don't normally do RFVs for specific inflected forms, do we? I thought we accepted terms if any form was attested, and in the lemma form if it's unambiguous. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
We don't afaik -- not for Latin anyway. Don't really see why these should be RFV'd. (though I don't doubt that the vocative plural of synaeresis is unattested) — Kleio (t · c) 19:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it depends on the language. We only have entries for attested inflections in Gothic, though we do include unattested inflections in inflection tables. —CodeCat 20:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Angr, KIeio, CodeCat: As I've argued before, inflected forms should always be subject to attestation requirements, though with a presumption in favour of inclusion unless challenged (that is, it's perfectly fine to bot-create entries for all such non-lemmata, but if they're challenged, they still need to be cited). See synaeresis#Declension for the way I've handled the unattested and probably-unattested forms of this lexeme (which is probably similar in effect to what CodeCat et al. envision for Gothic). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
As User:-sche, User:Ruakh, I, and others have argued before, we should include inflected forms even when unattested (unless there is some reason to think they don't exist, such as the possibility of a verb being intransitive or a noun being uncountable). See Talk:dulcamini for a past discussion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger: Thanks for the link to that discussion, and I'm sorry I neglected to contribute further to it at the time. From further reading, I note discussions from October 2011–June 2012, June 2012, November 2013, and the aforementioned one from September 2015–February 2016. The points raised make me a little less confident in my general position. In the specific case of synaeresis, however, I think its declension is sufficiently uncertain as to warrant RFVing particular forms (per Ruakh in this post); why might the dative singular not be *synaereseï or the dative plural not be *synaeresesin? And which vocative singular should we list, *synaeresi or *synaeresis? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 06:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Angr, CodeCat, KIeio, Mx. Granger: Compare the way amaurōsis, diaeresis, dioecēsis, haeresis, and syntaxis decline. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I see. If I understand correctly, then, the concern is that the challenged forms can't be confidently predicted from the attested forms. In that case, I think RFV is appropriate. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger: Yes, that is my lingering concern. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 04:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
But some of them can. If the ablative plural synaeresibus is attested, there's really nothing else the dative plural could be. Likewise if the nominative plural synaeresēs is attested, there's really nothing else the vocative plural could be, however unlikely it is that one would be addressing two or more synaereses. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@Angr: Dative and ablative plurals nearly always match, but they very occasionally differ in Greek borrowings (presumably because Ancient Greek has the dative case, but not the ablative case), so the dative plural could be *synaeresesin or something. I accept your point with regard to the vocative plural, however. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: When dative and ablative plural differ, then it's most likely just a matter of attestation, and not a matter of any dative-ablative difference. Sometimes just a dative in -sin is attested, sometimes just an ablative, sometimes both. Examples (according to dictionaries, not according to grammar books which might include invented forms): Adryas has dative plural Adryasin, herois has dative heroisin, ethos has ablative ethesin, schema has dative and ablative schemasin. -Ko·mine (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ko·mine: Actually, I have seen dative–ablative differences in the plural, but only in New Latin texts; I am inclined to believe that Classical scriptores would adopt a Greek dative as a Latin dative and ablative (in both the singular and the plural), whereas some Modern authors would adopt a Greek dative as a Latin dative only — believing that since Greek has no ablative it can supply no ablative — and that this is hypercorrection. There are more of these Greek-type dative and ablative plurals beside Ādryasin, ēthesin, hērōisin, and schēmasin; examples include Dryasin (Dryas), Hamādryasin (Hamādryas), Metamorphōsesin (Metamorphōsēs), Thȳniasin (Thȳnias), and probably many others. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
It has been my position that inflected forms should be subject to attestation, but I have not seen consensus on this. Unattested inflected forms could carry the label "hypothetical" or "unattested" and be kept if that would be the preference. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd personally favour a small disclaimer indicating that the form is predicted to exist, but has not yet been verified. Either way it seems obvious to me that the inflected forms should stay, even when not manually cited or otherwise verified yet. Many people use Wiktionary to quickly look up how a given form could be analyzed; for 99.9% of Latin words which follow very predictable inflections, it's an excellent resource in that regard, on par with something like Perseus. It'd be a great and needless loss to get rid of all those non-lemma entries by unleashing CFI on them all. — Kleio (t · c) 16:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


synaeresis (genitive)Edit

RFV for the isomorphic genitive singular form of synaeresis. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

synaeresis (vocative)Edit

RFV for the isomorphic vocative singular form of synaeresis. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


synaeresī (dative)Edit

RFV for the dative singular form of synaeresis. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

synaeresi (vocative)Edit

RFV for the Greek-type vocative singular form of synaeresis. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


RFV for the vocative plural form of synaeresis. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


There are hits, but not enough searching for both singular and plural in Google Books and Google Groups combined to pass any one sense- though the first one is close. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I have added two cites for the first sense -- all we need is one more Kiwima (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


Unattested. Nibiko (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


Unattested. Nibiko (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Attested in a government document: [72]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Needs 2 more citations. Nibiko (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


Is this attested? A quick search on Wikipedia reveals that the Google Books results may be referring to other things as well. Nibiko (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Attested in a government document: [73]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
One from Google Scholar (海外技術協力事情 尼国航空事故調査官能力向上プロジェクト長期専門家派遣報告), one from Google Books (英領と尼国国境). Nibiko (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

batchelor's fareEdit

Defined strangely as "bread, cheese and kisses". How would this be used? It seems to be the title of a famous comic painting. Equinox 16:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

That definition, which is found in a surprising number of old dictionaries, is from a quote by Jonathan Swift
  • 1772, Jonathan Swift, Polite Conversation, page 365:
    Lady Ans: Colonel, some Ladies of your Acquaintance have promised to Breakfast with you, and I am to wait on them; what will you give us? Col: Why, Faith Madam, Batchelor's Fare, Bread and Cheese, and Kisses.
But more generally, it comes from use of the term as simple food that requires no cooking, such as bread and cheese:
  • 1785, The humming bird: A collection of the most celebrated English and Scots songs:
    Tho' his house ben't so nice, he is sure to be neat, And the ladies are always well-pleas'd with his treat, By the smak of their lips, at a parting, declare How delicious a feast they think batchelor's fare.
  • 1825, James Heney, Agnes : Or the Sailor's Orphan: With Memoirs of the Dudley Family:
    The villain of a pedlar saw his discourse was attentively heard, and flattered himself with the hopes of a supper and night's lodging; he was not deceived, for the parson was so well pleased with his conversation, that he insisted on his staying and partaking of batchelor's fare, bread and cheese, and mild ale ; the latter he supplied his guest with so immoderately that he was obliged to convey him to his apartment.
  • 1840, John Patterson, Camp and quarters, scenes and impressions of military life, page 78:
    Neither batchelor's fare, nor lodging-house dinners have any attraction in his esteem ; nor is he a convert to the cold-meat and pic-nic school ; — no, no ! — to please his palate, there must be a regularly-built, smoking, well-sustaining table.
  • 1942, John Harvey Powell, Richard Rush, Republican Diplomat, 1780-1859, page 67:
    I am quite alone, but can give you batchelor's fare.
Kiwima (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I am calling this RFV-failed for the original definition. —This unsigned comment was added by Kiwima (talkcontribs) at 23:57, 19 April 2017.


Writing about wine. Though oenography (uncountable) exists, I can't find this spelling in either single or plural in Google Books. Equinox 18:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


"A narcotic addiction driven anti social sociopathic form of behaviour"; however, it's entered as an adjective, not a noun. Very little in Google Books: what I can find on the wider Web suggests it is about narcissism and sociopathy, not narcotics and sociopathy. Equinox 18:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I found and added two citations that clearly indicate narcotic addiction. We still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


Without hyphen? There are tons of scannos out there unfortunately. Equinox 14:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It's the kind of thing that makes you wonder about WT:COALMINE and whether we should have most of the hyphenated terms that we do. DCDuring TALK 15:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
An alternative form of claretcolored? It gets worse. Move to claret-coloured. DonnanZ (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
"-coloured" can be added to the name of any object that has a characteristic colour. I don't think we need separate entries for all of them, only for those (if any) that have special or unpredictable meanings. An entry for -coloured should normally suffice. Mihia (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


Adjective: "loud and clear". The example given is clarion call, which really seems like a set phrase of its own (and two nouns rather than Adj+N). You can't say "that call was clarion", or ask how clarion it sounded, etc. Equinox 14:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The OED treats this (and a few other examples) as attributive use of the noun, not as an adjective. Dbfirs 17:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. We just need to remove he adjective section and add a brief explanatory note. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree, it's attributive. DonnanZ (talk) 10:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


One Books hit, which I think might be a use. Lots of Google Groups hits, but these all look like mentions to me - variations on "Why do we say 'atheist' when we don't say 'asantaclausist'?". Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I have added one cite that is a use, but someone else will have to find others. Kiwima (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

wardrobe malfunctionerEdit

Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I have added two cites, but one is rather iffy. Kiwima (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


This may just be a misspelling of chrysosporium, used for three fungus species listed in MycoBank. See also Chrysosporium, a genus of fungi. Sometimes apparent misspellings are intentional respellings, though that occurs mostly in genus names, AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 20:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. cryo- is cold and chryso- is gold but I don't think I've seen cryso- before. Equinox 20:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The trouble is that there are ~30 Google Books hits and many more Scholar hits for this spelling, though I can't find it in MycoBank, Encyc of Life, List of Prokaryotic Names with Standing in Nomenclature, Index of Organism Names, Wikispecies, or Wikipedia. DCDuring TALK 21:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


Adjective sense:

  1. (cricket) Describing a spin bowler, or his style of bowling.

Can anyone give an example where it is a true adjective?


Rfv-sense for "till" sense. Listed in the Unihan database but I couldn't find it in other online dictionaries. Possibly a misspelling of "until" (which is a valid sense)? Bumm13 (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the language but since "till" and "until" are synonyms (no misspelling!) we should probably just merge those two lines. Equinox 08:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, sometimes the Unihan database gives too many definition lines. Nibiko (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


Created by an anon today. I searched that codepoint using Google and Google Books, and I looked on Wikipedia, but I don't know what it means. Current definition: "Ring in equal to." It should be replaced by a definition about actual usage if applicable, like maybe "Indicates equality in the context X". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The meaning of the symbol (one meaning, anyway) is explained on page 5 of http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~razborov/files/free_group.pdf. It is highly technical, and I don't personally understand it. I could copy-paste together a definition like "In combinatorial group theory, denotes graphical (or letter-for-letter) equality", but really we need a mathematician. Mihia (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The other issue is if this definition is widely accepted among group theorists or whether it was just made up for this paper. DTLHS (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Per WT:CFI#Independent, I'm pretty sure we would be satisfied if three separate, independent papers use this symbol. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
This book seems to use the same symbol with the same meaning. From a bit of searching, some other books use other symbols, such as or . Pinging User:Msh210 and User:Kephir, who I think know more math than I do. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Found another instance in this paper. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 01:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
It seems to be used for other things, like in this (relation of delimitation) and this (Boolean equality). On another note, it is often used in kaomoji to represent narrow eyes. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Have you considered asking Wikipedia:en:WT:MATHEMATICS ? -- 05:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok. See w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Please explain the "ring in equal to" symbol. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


1. Boring thing. 2. Unattractive person. Nothing much in Books; only a DJ's name in Groups. Equinox 02:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


Added one mention that's probably just a transliteration of the Greek term. There's also a poem called "Barythymia: A Poem, Addressed to the Sons and Daughters of Adversity" from 1810 that may be the origin of the word, but I couldn't see the actual poem. DTLHS (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Added one from 2012. That gives us three if we count the poem title, which seems to me more of a use than a mention (since it does bear meaning). Equinox 02:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Historically, we have counted titles as uses. None of the three are great, but I would still consider this cited. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
First half of the poem at HathiTrust. I'm not sure it's really a use; it's a name for the poem derived from Greek, not an English language word used in the title of a poem. The footnote, correctly or not, thinks it's basically Greek, not English. It's not used in the body (I don't think; I didn't look for the second half, though it should be in the next issue.) If a third cite is not found and it is agreed the poem title doesn't count, it desperately needs to go to dictionary-only words.
I've added a usage note about how rare and pointless it is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Is the word attested in actual Ancient Greek, or was it formed in English? DTLHS (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
There are attestations for βαρύς θυμός, but Google Books doesn't find any for βαρύσθυμός. Of course, I know no Greek, so there are any number of mistakes I could be making. this dictionary seems to have the Greek word, third column.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


Verb sense:

Purposefully to fail a standardized test in a conspicuous way.

Can't find any relevant Google hits (e.g. for "chuffed the test").

"purposefully" appears to be a hypercorrection of "purposely".

Originally added here as "To fail a standarized test on purpose, specifically in the conspicuous way that scores it: A.B.A.C.A.D.A". I'm not sure I even understand that. Does it mean to make write out the answers to multiple choice questions without regard to the actual questions but just so as to make a pattern with the letters? Could this be something "made up in school one day"? Mihia (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Since no evidence has been found that this sense exists, I have deleted it. Mihia (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


One quotation added. DTLHS (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

  • FWIW, I'm not sure the JA etymon qualifies as a singular term -- 連合 (rengō, combination; league) + 稽古 (keiko, practice; training; rehearsal; lesson). I can't find any JA materials that treat this as a lemma. I'm also finding online cases where the term is read as either rengō keiko or as rengō-geiko, suggesting that both are possible. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


Alt form of Jacobean. Just looks wrong without a capital to me. Equinox 05:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


Is this just merely based on the English name of Tezuka Osamu's Hi no Tori? ばかFumikotalk 14:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Most JA reference entries for this at least mention the translated title of Stravinsky's ballet L'Oiseau de feu, also known in English as The Firebird, as one of the earlier appearances of this phrase. It is also the title of various other books, manga, films, and anime. See the entries at Kotobank for examples.
There is some minor reference to this as a gloss for English phoenix, as in the second entry at Weblio. That said, there's not much about 火の鳥 that goes beyond SOP-ness: it is literally (hi, fire) + (no, possessive or genitive particle, also used to make one noun modify another) + (tori, bird).
I have no objection to removing the entry, if other editors also view it as SOP. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
It is likely to be popularized by Tezuka Osamu but it is common enough today. I don’t think it is an SOP because it is not just a bird of fire but usually an immortal phenix. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


"(ufology) One of a race of extraterrestrial shape-shifters purported to secretly control the world." Questioned by a user at Talk:reptilian. Equinox 02:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I discussed this with an Australian journalist named Peter Myers years ago in the context of criticizing a source he used named Eustace Mullins who used the phrase. I argued that Mullins using the phrase suggested Mullins was not a reliable source and Myers replied "the reptilian part [of Mullins' writings] is metaphorical" and "I understand that phrase of David Icke's is metaphorical, not to be taken literally". I'm inclined to agree with Myers' interpretation, on reflection, I don't think anyone has ever argued the world is literally ruled by reptiles. RandomScholar30 (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes a metaphorical meaning deserves a dictionary sense, like pig = "greedy eater". I don't think greedy eaters are literally pigs. Equinox 02:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, we would have to change the current definition to reflect a metaphorical meaning, I think. The current definition appears to be literal. RandomScholar30 (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I believe Icke's expression 'reptilian' is meant to describe political leaders as cunning, evil and duplicitous. It is similar to Hitler's description of Jews as 'parasites', in that it is intended as an offensive metaphor, not a literal statement of fact. So it should be defined in a way to show that its meaning is metaphorical rather than literal. RandomScholar30 (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter what Icke meant. The originator of a term doesn't own it once it becomes part of the language, and it means what the people who use it mean when they use it. If you search on the plural to weed out the adjectival uses, there seems to be enough usage that reflects the current definition. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I’ve spoken with a decent number of people who have argued exactly this (that »the world is literally ruled by reptiles«). Whatever Icke meant, others have subsequently latched onto the literal interpretation. —Vorziblix (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Its clearly sometimes used metaphorically though. For example David Duke once said "Yet, in the end it should be clear that Michael Hart was the one who chose to make a disruption in a reptilian response to my rather mild question. "[74] I'm pretty sure Duke was not saying Hart was literally a reptile. Duke's use of the term relates to Icke's, I think, because Icke's work has highly Anti-Semitic themes, so that was the basis of Duke using the term. I think both Icke and Duke meant it as a derogatory term with at least partly Anti-Semitic tones, similar to Hitler's use of the term 'parasite'. It is meant to describe world political elites as cunning, evil and duplicitous. So perhaps a metaphorical definition should be added after the literal one. RandomScholar30 (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Ignoring the question of whether it is literal or metaphoric, it is pretty easy to cite (I have added the requisite three), although in this sense it usually appears capitalized. Kiwima (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


This is Sichuanese romanisation, as used in dictionaries, what should be done? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

This particular entry is not Sichuanese; it's Wuhanese. I don't think this one is the most extreme of cases; since the cited article used 勒 for this, so there is hanzi used. It is possible that the locals actually write it with some hanzi, albeit not documented in the literature. If it were the most extreme of cases, I think we could allow romanization entries for varieties of Chinese covered by {{zh-pron}}, and IPA entries for varieties not covered by the template. BTW, we probably need some policy on including topolects not covered by the pronunciation modules. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

curry codeEdit

This entry started off as a big essay/rant. Now it looks reasonable, and currying is indeed a thing in programming, but I'm not sure about "curry code" as a term. Google Books finds virtually nothing, and possibly nothing at all with this sense. Equinox 04:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

All I can find are references to code written in Curry, but that is capitalized anyway. Kiwima (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I think the core of the now deleted essay/rant here was probably actually correct. See https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22curry+code%22+indian+programmers. Mihia (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

naked apronEdit

Apron worn while naked. Seems to be a term invented by TVTropes. Equinox 21:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The citations now added are "naked apron bit" and "naked apron scene": I believe that, here, "naked" modifies "scene" (as in nude scene): it's not a (naked-apron) scene but a naked (apron-scene). So I don't think the cites are valid. Equinox 07:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Some quotes have "naked apron" between quotation marks. I believe this suggests that it's a set phrase.
I got 4 citations (+1 citation for "naked-apron" with an hyphen).
I believe the entry is cited. But if I'm wrong, then maybe this RFV will fail, because I went through all the results for "naked apron" in Google Books and Google Groups and got all the citations I found.
Then again, if we find some uses of "naked towel" meaning "wearing only a towel", "naked bra" meaning "wearing only a bra", etc., then we may want to delete naked apron and add a new definition at naked meaning "wearing only a certain piece of clothing". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Isn’t it a calque of the Japanese  (はだか)エプロン (hadakaepuron), which is quite common? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


"To make, to bother", as in can't be arsed. But you can't arse someone, or be arsing someone to get something done, can you? Equinox 00:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. AFAIK exists only as "be arsed", as covered at arsed. (I don't understand how it means "make" either, but obviously this is of no matter if it's deleted.) I'm not sure about the first sense either, "To be silly, act stupid or mess around". Doesn't this exist only as "arse about/around", both of which have separate entries? Mihia (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


Befitting a slave. Equinox 07:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

talent stackEdit

Possible protologism. Google Books results are different, along the lines of "how does your talent stack up against the competition?". Equinox 10:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

  • According to the Wikipedia article, which is tagged for possible deletion, "Dilbert creator Scott Adams helped popularize the term 'talent stack' in a blog post in which he evaluated the experience and abilities of Donald Trump after winning the 45th US Presidential Election." Mihia (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The relevant Wikipedia article lists seven different references to the term, all from different authors. Also worth noting that some users in the deletion discussion of the article have proposed to "move to wiktionary". Laurdecl talk 05:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Blogs don't count for us; see WT:CFI. And "move to Wiktionary" just means "it defines a word rather than a topic": whether that word is worth inclusion by our rules is not what they know about. I've added our hot word template to the entry. Equinox 23:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Mentioning "move to Wiktionary" comments won't win you any points here: we've seen so many misbegotten monstrosities sent here to die slow and ugly deaths in rfd or rfv, like something from a genetic experiment gone horribly, horribly wrong- apparently to spare Wikipedia having to face the unpleasant choices. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Yet another metaphor that might or might not become part of the lexicon, at least in some subculture. DCDuring TALK 13:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • ... isn't this just talent + stack? Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Words added by Werelopunitre: fapfest, fappability, faptastic, fapstinence, fapstronautEdit

DTLHS (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I've added three quotations each for faptastic and fapstronaut. I also see two [75] [76] for fappability, but I can't find a third. There are quite a few uses of fapfest on Google Groups, but I'm not sure how many are for the sense in the entry. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

mercy meEdit


  1. Synonym of pardon me

Never heard it used like this. Mihia (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


"drunk, smashed". Searches for "nuked on whisky", "nuked on vodka" etc don't find anything relevant. Equinox 03:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary has a single low-ranked definition for this (also, three low-ranked defs for "stoned"). I tried some google phrases unsuccessfully as well (e.g. "getting nuked on" ~bar); possibly this is too minor and/or local usage to be citable. --Tropylium (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


Request added by Prisencolin. It should be fully cited now. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (Min Nan) a contraction of bô iàu (無要). It seems to be from the article on Hokkien on Wikipedia, tracing back to this edit on Wikipedia. I can't find it outside of Wikipedia. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


アムブロシア (amuburoshia) seems to be used much more often in reference to the mythical Greek foodstuff. —suzukaze (tc) 11:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


English + Japanese. —suzukaze (tc) 11:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Youtube is filled with MMDs [77] (switch your preferred language from English to Japanese to see both sets) -- 05:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Well yes, but specifically "computer-generated cartoon" (akin to powerpoint and photoshop)? You don't even see people talking about blenders and mayas. —suzukaze (tc) 23:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


Also this one. —suzukaze (tc) 23:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense. Copied from Sichuanese dialects on Wikipedia by @Prisencolin. I can't find it with the pronunciation men4 in any Sichuanese dictionaries. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I found it in 渠县方言词语研究, but it doesn't have a pronunciation. I don't think Wikipedia has any basis for this reading other than personal knowledge. I found 澎(𡌂) pen2 in 四川方言词典, which has the same meaning and seems to fit this character well with its pronunciation. @Prisencolin, should we replace men4 with pen2? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Sure. Maybe it could've been a typo too.-Prisencolin (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


Alt form of going over (noun); I think it's just a scanno. Equinox 10:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

You are right that in most cases, it's a scanno, but I did find the following:
  • 1959, United States Congress House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on Mines and Mining, Depressed Domestic Mining and Mineral Industries:
    The intent of Congress has often been appraised by our courts, but the long-term schemes of those within and without our executive departments have seldom if ever been exposed to a thorough goingover; that is, with regard to the domestic mining policy.
  • 1973, Barry Faulkner, Barry Faulkner; sketches from an artist's life, page 62:
    McCartan and I gave London a hasty goingover, had a calm Channel crossing, and parted company in Paris, when I went on towards Rome.
  • 1998, Sides Sudyarto D. S., Baliku, ISBN 9799530202, page 12:
    No full stops, no cross-outs or goingovers - just telling it like it is, warts and all!.
also, another example, although it's a mention rather than a use, but we are trying to justify a spelling, not the fact that the term is a real term:
  • 1984, Jacek Fisiak, Historical Syntax, ISBN 3110824035, page 385:
    Since then, this class has expanded to compound verbs, such as put down, run off (as in the rebellion was put down, the copies were not off), even to whole transitive predicates, such as give a goingover (as in he was given a goingover).
Kiwima (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • How does one distinguish between a rare but legitimate spelling variant and a typo or spelling error? I can easily find examples of, say, "alot" in books, yet we would all (I very much hope) agree that "alot" is an error. How do we know that "goingover" isn't an error too? Mihia (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    For English I use Garner's Modern American Usage, 3rd ed., 2009. They report stages 1-5 of usage: 1 - rejected; 2 - widely shunned; 3 - widespread but ...; 4 - ubiquitous but ...; 5 - fully accepted. Using the word stage implies that they expect a significant portion of the less accepted or rejected usages will become more accepted.
They put alot at stage 2 and don't discuss goingover.
As we are in the business of describing language behavior rather than making style recommendations, we need to accept usage for Wiktionary that we might not use ourselves.
One indication that going over may be increasing in acceptability is that there are some instances of the plural being goingovers, not the more common goingsover or much more common goings-over. DCDuring TALK 16:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
One can also find going-overs and going overs. This suggests that there is a great deal of uncertainty about the spelling, which seems to have put the expression in play, for change in acceptability among the forms. DCDuring TALK 16:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Isn't this why we use labels such as "rare", "proscribed", and "informal" ? Kiwima (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Going off at a slight tangent ... I see that alot is labelled "proscribed". I am not massively keen on "proscribed". It is a word that many readers -- certainly the type who might be at risk of writing "alot" -- would not understand. Fair enough, there is a link, but people might just gloss over "proscribed", thinking "some technical thing that I don't need to worry about". I would prefer a label whose meaning people could not miss, such as "widely considered incorrect". Mihia (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree. It is too similar to prescribed which has essentially the opposite meaning. John Cross (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: pile (Sichuanese). Taken from Wikipedia by @Prisencolin. After looking at three Sichuanese dictionaries, this spelling is not found. It is only found as 𤆵拉 and 𣲩拉. Also, in all three dictionaries, it does not appear on its own, but only as 一𤆵拉. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017Edit


A RfV for the two pejorative senses. Personally, I have never heard it being used in a pejorative way, but only in historical or endearing ways, so thought to put it forward for a RfV. 13:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Here, here (same author), here, here, here and here. All for sense 3, which is extremely easy to find on Google Books. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I removed the tag on the entry, replacing it with sense tags for the 2 pejorative meaning in question Leasnam (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Here are some attestations for the pejorative sense 2: [78], [79], [80] (in these texts deerne does not seem archaic or affectionate, and slightly pejorative, but it doesn't go as far as sense 3). Less clear is [81], it could also mean "maidservant" or "rural/common girl" there. (Not CFI-compliant attestations: [82], [83]) Also see the WNT on this, sense 5. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
RFV-passed based on those citations. - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "to make or show something similar to; to match". I don't understand what this definition has to do with sampling, nor do I find similar definitions in other major dictionaries. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure, but after poking around, I found something that may be what this definition is trying to capture - or possibly two things, one from music and one from image processing:
  • 2011, Kembrew McLeod & ‎Peter DiCola, Creative License: The Law and Culture of Digital Sampling, ISBN 0822348756, page 130:
    To address this novel legal quandary, one legal treatise on copyright has developed the concept of fragmented literal similarity, a method of determining whether a sample-based work is substantially similar to the source it sampled. The name reflects the exactness of the similarity between the snippet of a track that is sampled and the sampled copy of that snippet.
  • 2005, Ted LoCascio, InDesign CS2 at Your Fingertips, ISBN 0471779792, page 46:
    The Eyedropper tool allows you to sample colors from anywhere in your open InDesign documents (yes, even from placed images!) You can add a sampled color to the Swatches palette and then apply it to the fill or stroke of any frame, shape, path, line, or table.
  • 2006, Translation of Digital Process to Architectural Program, ISBN 0542772329, page 6:
    It means that a larger image field can be sampled from a lower resolution copy without much loss in comparative data, only the number of data points to be manipulated.
  • 2008, Mark Fitzgerald, Photoshop CS3 Restoration and Retouching Bible, ISBN 0470372567, page 148:
    The Healing brush is similar to the Clone Stamp in that information is sampled by Alt-clicking and then painted into other parts of the image. The big difference is that the Healing brush attempts to make the sampled data match the lighting and shading of the area to which it's being applied.
Kiwima (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Of your examples #1 fits the music sense: "to reuse a portion of (an existing sound recording) in a new piece of music.". The second and fourth examples could be understood as cases of the first definition: "to take or to test a sample or samples of". In the example sentences one takes a sample of a color and then applies this sample somewhere else. In the third one the usage of the verb "to sample" seems to include both phases, i.e. taking the sample and applying the sampled color in another image. I still find the logic behind the wording of the definition quite fuzzy. Also, is the sense specific to image processing? If so, proper labeling would help. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


Request for verification for German Rechtler - and also see e.g. Strafrechtler.

  • Words like Forstrechtler, Holzrechtler, Frauenrechtler, Staatsrechtler, Verwaltungsrechtler do exist, but these could be analysed as ([word] + [maybe some interfix known as Fugenelement] + Recht) + -ler, e.g. Staatsrechtler = (Staat + -s- + Recht) + -ler.
  • Rechtler as a proper noun can be found. It can also be found as a common noun, but this seems to be a short form of Holzrechtler or similar words, which refer to a person having a certain right. Both do not mean jurist, and thus, even if Rechtler exists, it could be that Staatsrechtler has to be analysed only as (Staat + -s- + Recht) + -ler and not as Staat + -s- + (Recht + -ler).
  • Even if Rechtler as jurist could be attested, it's most likely rare, uncommon, and thus it would rather be Staatsrechtler = (Staat + -s- + Recht) + -ler than Staatsrechtler = Staat + -s- + (Recht + -ler). - 17:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
According to German wiktionary de:Rechtler and wikipedia w:de:Holzrechtler, this word has a specific sense, namely someone who has a customary right to provide themself with firewood from municipality-owned forests. It occurs equally often as "Rechtler" and "Holzrechtler". I'm adapting the entry and remove the request, because it's definitely citable. Kolmiel (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


English Bank of England has extended senses. It's not guaranteed that Japanese shares these senses. —suzukaze (tc) 02:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I can only confirm the literal sense, not the "building" nor "controlling organization" senses. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "Christianity: angel". —suzukaze (tc) 02:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "football club". Using トトナム for the place alone already has a rather weak existence in Google. —suzukaze (tc) 02:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense ばかFumikotalk 08:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Why don’t you search it yourself? GIYF: [84]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Three citations: [85], [86]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


"Not checked, not looked over." Seems strange because you look at something; you don't just look something. Equinox 21:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Should it be unlooked at? I don't think "unlooked" can be used on its own. DonnanZ (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
For sure, it is almost always found followed by a preposition, but there are some instances of unlooked standing on its own, so to speak. Most of them seem obsolete to me:
  • 1592, William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of King Richard III:
    God I pray him That none of you may live your natural age, But by some unlooked accident cut off.
  • 1841, John Payne Collier, The Mad Pranks and Merry Jests of Robin Goodfellow, page 4:
    ...for when Hengist his men (that were placed to cut them off) fell all upon them, they found such unlooked a resistance, that most of the Saxons were slaine, and they that escaped, wond'ring how they could doe that hurt, having no weapons (as they saw), reported that they strucke downe men like lyons with their tayles; and so they ever after were called Kentish Long-tayles.
  • 1870, Robert Wharton Landis, The Cross: A Poem, page 101:
    And, hearing, months ago, my officer, Who has become a convert to the gods Here worshiped, say, that his young daughter was From death restored by Jesus, greatly I Desired to witness some such exercise Of his stupendous powers; when, all unlooked, Th' occasion offered as I now will tell you.
The more modern citations I could find were a bit dubious. There is this strange, stream-of-consciousness work:
  • 2012, Don Yuriy Skoverko, Bad Boys Crow, ISBN 146915451X:
    Bullets are made with rill spirit waiting on to his revenge, there is no actual rifle fire the bullets are govern by the complex program cold matrix, the sin is the most important because it's the fuehrer we unlooked and to control the unknown the presents is now sitting in the corner of the window rite by the balcony the seeker of the rifle looked undetected, cop says looked the target Jon Ocaner interred the perimeter, he simple detective working on won cays cold 70 million dollars cays some smack in the government was shipping drags trod Mexico in the wheals.
And there are a few instances that are probably typos for unlocked, such as:
  • 2016, Ron Young, A Dark Walk: Older Men, ISBN 1514865971, page 74:
    Jittering up the stairs losing balance at the top I finally got to our room pushed the unlooked door open and feel in bed with the lights on.
Kiwima (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I marked it archaic and am calling this RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


"To sag and collapse like a deflating balloon." Seemingly a nonce word invented for the cited text given. Equinox 22:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the definition is off, but the word seems legit. I think it's a blend of wobble and flop:
  • 1887, Punch - Volumes 93-96, page 45:
    And the fish flobbered back with a flop, JACK'!
  • 1957, The Saturday Evening Post - Volume 230, page 74:
    The aide raised a fast-clenched fist to his mouth, flobbered his throat muscles in a horrible spasm of crimson-faced control, repressed his cough silently and looked briefly toward heaven.
  • 1963, Andrew Sinclair, The paradise bum, page 80:
    My cheeks flobber up and down while my arms whirl like electric fans.
  • 1967, James Warner Bellah, The Journal of Colonel De Lancey, page 79:
    Hornsby's Adam's apple flobbered but he did not answer.
  • 1978, Further fables for our time, page 2:
    And she began flobbering, almost imperceptibly, toward the scrubby brown growth beyond the sand and toward the sun.
  • 1990, Richard Francis, The Land where Lost Things Go by Olive Watson, page 227:
    They flobber as they walk with their fat damp flabby feet.
  • 1991, Wilbur Sanders, The Big Wolves, page 101:
    He flobbered and flumped all over chairs, and he talked endlessly in that rapid, insinuating, confidential marshmallow voice of his - so swift to compassion!
  • 2002, A. M. Jolly, Grumble Soup, ISBN 0595238483:
    I've never seen a blimp close-up. It bobbled. Slowly. It flobbered. It was a bit like a whale acting coy -- or one of the hippopotami in pink tutus in Fantasia.
  • 2006, Patricia Marks, The 'Arry Ballads: An Annotated Collection of the Verse Letters, ISBN 0786423919, page 69:
    And when he had hooked a fine perch, and Miss BELL made a dash at the line, And the fish flobbered back with a flop, JACK'S escape from a cuss cut it fine.
  • 2012, Steve Turner, Amber Waves and Undertow, ISBN 0806186550:
    So we proceeded at chastened speed, the dust reduced enough that our headlights showed Ross's flattened tire as it flobbered joltingly around the rim.
In addition, I could find some instances that looked like a corresponding noun:
  • 1996, Annie Proulx, The Shipping news, ISBN 1857025938, page 263:
    The wind dead and the thick sky pressed on the sea. Calm. Flat calm. Not a flobber, Billy would say.
  • 2016, Gerald Duff, That's All Right, Mama: The Unauthorized Life of Elvis's Twin, ISBN 1942531184:
    About halfway through the assignment, Leo came back into the room and sat down in front of me again, looking back over his shoulder as he did, his flobber lips wet and hanging.
Kiwima (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


Is this attested in Latin script? —CodeCat 14:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


As above. —CodeCat 14:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


As above. —CodeCat 14:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


As above. —CodeCat 14:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


Per Talk:xamixunga. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


RFV for the inflected forms (except accusative singular gelum). - 04:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


RFV for the inflected forms with stem genor- (genoris, genorī etc.). - 04:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

When searching at Google Books for genoris one often finds OCR errors for generis and sometimes for Agenoris. Exceptions:
  • books.google.com/books?id=glNJAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA103&dq=genoris (German text relating to Medieval Latin which also mentions Vulgar Latin and Romance languages): "die Gen. sg.-Form genoris zu genu [= knee]"
    books.google.com/books?id=-cMAurDgc0MC&pg=PA45 : "In einem inschriftlichen Gedicht der Antike erscheint die Gen.-Form genoris zu genu566 [...]" and "566 CE 1253 (= CIL VI 9604), 5 (vgl. ThLL 6, 2, Sp. 1875, 32). That is: "In an inscriptive poem of the Antiquity the genitive form genoris for genu appears".
  • books.google.com/books?id=QofQAAAAMAAJ&q=genoris (English and Latin, might have a medical context): "In volnus genoris quot subito occidimus: genoris esse τοῦ γόνατος [Greek for of the knee or the knee's] (the knee) viderat Mommsen"
  • books.google.com/books?id=rRwjAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA99 (about Vulgar Latin inscriptions): "ín volnus genoris quot || subito occidimus." í should indicate an ancient I longa, and the text resembles the one above.
Thus, genoris should be attestable as a Vulgar Latin genitive for genu meaning of the knee or the knee's. But this is different from genus meaning kind, sort. - 16:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


Anon placed RFV with following reason:

Dictionaries (Georges, L&S) have "gelus, ūs, m." (L&S: gĕlus, ūs, m.) and mention "Nom. gelus, [...] Akk. gelum [...]" with references. So nominative gelus and accusative gelum should exist, which could belong to both gelus (*gelūs, m.) and gelus (*gelī, m.). However, the genitive gelī and the dative and ablative gelō of gelus could be unattested. (Note: The genitive gelī and dative and ablative gelō could also belong to gelum.) Also the genitive gelūs, dative geluī etc. for gelus could be attested. If no further forms of any gelus can be attested, then maybe one should note that the nominative gelus and accusative gelum are the only attested forms and could belong to both gelus (*-ūs, m.) and gelus (*-ī, m.).

- Amgine/ t·e 05:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

This rfv nom is already listed on this page by the anon who nominated it. — Kleio (t · c) 20:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


I cannot find this term in Google Books. There are less than 1,500 google results but some of these seem to from mirrors/clones of Wiktionary.

John Cross (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I have found one citation but that is all.

John Cross (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


Taiwan seems to use 𨧀 now. Is this obsolete? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

This site which created in 2002 used ⿰釒都 for dubnium. On the other hand, this pdf file which was used in Taiwan, 2003 used 𨧀 for dubnium. So I think ⿰釒都 was obsoleted during 2002. --飯江誰出茂 (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The latter was also published in 2002. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: both senses in etymology 2. It is still a bit dubious with the references given. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


Type of ash tree. It seems that this isn't really a general-purpose common noun, as entered, but a rather obscure abbreviation used within something called the "Fire Effects Information System". Equinox 15:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


RFV the Wiki-related senses. This passed RFD ten years ago, but this really should have been RFV'd. --WikiTiki89 18:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Cited the adjective, but I would RFD it again. Wikipedia didn't invent the word and I don't see the distinction between their use and more general uses. DTLHS (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

speak ofEdit

"To be worthy or important enough to mention." I just don't get this; how would it work in a sentence? Equinox 01:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's probably referring to this sort of usage. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, right, like "there were some actors there, but no celebrities to speak of". My feeling is that we should extend to speak of for this, as the to-particle is always present. Equinox 01:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that makes the most sense. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Once modified as proposed, I would argue that "widespread use" applies. We just need some usage examples and usage notes showing and explaining that it is always used with a negative (not much t.s.o., nothing t.s.o.) or something like little, small, few. (What is the word for those?) BTW, other dictionaries, including MWOnline, have both speak of at OneLook Dictionary Search and to speak of at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 13:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
It is used (I would guess much less frequently) with a positive e.g. "Even so, that is something to speak of, sheepherder." - Robert Jordan. It feels a bit more SOP when there is a positive, for no good reason I can come up with. In the example sentence it could easily read "Even so, that is something worth mentioning, sheepherder." - TheDaveRoss 16:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Also "like to speak of" when introducing a topic; definitely SOP but includes the same sense of worthy of discussion. - Amgine/ t·e 16:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
It does feel somewhat more SOP in the positive, but I would still argue that it's idiomatic. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


Looks unlikely from where I'm standing. French probably has a meaning tho. --Quadcont (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be from this dictionary. DTLHS (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I can't find any uses, but found it in another dictionary as well - that one defined it as a disorder where the patient barks like a dog. Kiwima (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Most b.g.c hits appear to be scannos for aboiement, the French word for "barking". This, that and the other (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


Could only find one actual use, the rest on Google Books seem like mentions. Looks like a dictionaryism to me. — Kleio (t · c) 18:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


English sense - somehow defined as itself. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not, it's defined as the initialism of the French form, which is not defining it as itself (the English form); click on the bluelink and it will lead to French, not English. -- 06:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but the blue link is part of the French definition, not the English one. Kiwima (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The blue links in the English definition state it is an initialism of the French, and originates from the French. The French definition states that the English term for CLSC is CLSC. I don't see the problem there. -- 06:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
"initialism of" has to be followed by a string of words, not a string of letters (see our definition of initialism). SemperBlotto (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


Is this actually used (outside of Wikipedia)? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be used. All the cites I found were in italics however. DTLHS (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


Weird partial calque of iPhone? I don't see anything relevant in Google Books. —suzukaze (tc) 23:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

va fa NapoliEdit

This was posted in RFD, but belongs here instead. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete unless it is used in some way in English. Not an Italian idiom. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] (parla con me) 15:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

all-over oneselfEdit

"Feeling self-satisfied." I suspect the hyphen is wrong, but I can't easily find the phrase in either case. Equinox 06:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I can find this in a few dictionaries, and also in the following:
  • 1999, West Straits, Kingdom Come, ISBN 096678832X, page 13:
    "Like the boy wonders were running the studios, and they were all over themselves wanting new, new.
  • 2011 February 25, Kathryn Kalinak, “Best Original Score: What will win (and what *should* win)”, in OUPblog:
    I think Academy voters are going to be all over themselves to show how cool and hip and young they are by giving Reznor and Ross the edge.
  • 2013, Jesse S. Ward, My Lady and the Rogue, ISBN 1626757267:
    Those women lite up they were so excited they were all over themselves we did it girls we made the King happy and Diane to.
  • 2015 November 25, Evelyn, “Review: Fangirl – in which Rowell successfully unleash the fangirl in me”, in Books with Chemistry:
    She loves her twin despite all the petty disagreements that passed between them and she's completely all over herself when it comes to Levi who's simply the best guy a girl can ever ask for.
I'm not sure the blogs count as durably archived, so it may not be enough. Kiwima (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, found a third book quote:
  • 2003, Mary Karooro Okurut, The Official Wife, ISBN 9970024019, page 81:
    Anyway, the network tells me Ishaka is all over himself over his new baby, kissing and cuddling her and calling her every endearing name I didn't even know existed.
Kiwima (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Like Equinox says, I doubt there should be a hyphen. DonnanZ (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Hyphen looks wrong to me too. Mihia (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I suspect the hyphen is there because it appears that way in at least one dictionary. Kiwima (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Two of those ("Best Original Score" and "Kingdom Come") and don't seem to match the definition given - rather, they seem to be using as a synonym for (or malapropism of?) fall over oneself. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

ice perryEdit

Equinox 06:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I found a mention on a blog, but nothing durably archived. Kiwima (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
It's found on labels on the wine bottles themselves, so is durably archived. (just look for piles of empties in the trash pits of the world) -- 07:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Midden heaps of the world preserve fragile materials in a stratigraphic manner for millennia, so better than any other archive; modern archaeology of recent landfills find decades old well preserved newsprint -- 07:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Not saying it is durably archived, but this product (dang, just slid into typing md rather than mediawikitax) would support both ice perry and poiré de glace. - Amgine/ t·e 03:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for "a river in Shenxi [province]" definition. There is no "Shenxi" province in mainland China; regardless, I can't find a sense for this character referring to a river name. Bumm13 (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I should be Shaanxi. I've added a quotation for it, but I think this is probably the only one out there. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


Humph, is anyone able to provide attestation for this term? A couple of sporadic hits on Google, but I'm still not convinced. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I found one on Google Groups:
  • 2000 July 16, bi...@clanlords.com, “CL: -SPOILER- New Path Found?”, in comp.sys.mac.games.adventure, Usenet[87]:
    well, i guess that goes for wizitches too... or maybe that's not RL mythology... hmm, Elephants probably fall under this umbrella too...
Also, the review on Amazon.com indicates that the term is used in Brian, His Granddad & the Cup of Ages by P. J. Taylor (2012) -- Kiwima (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

フラワー, スターズEdit

Are these used outside of transcription of English? —suzukaze (tc) 23:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

フラワー is okay. There are tons of examples: [88], [89], [90]. スターズ is just a transcription. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Is フラワー "compounds only" like ファイヤー? —suzukaze (tc) 09:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


To snatch at with the teeth. Google Books appears to have only scannos for gnash and grasp. Equinox 06:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Search on "gnasp" and "Palsgrave". It's an old dialectal slang word. Apparently it also means "vex" Leasnam (talk) 06:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, an earlier form is spelt gnaspe Leasnam (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I knew the word before, so I'm surprised to find that it's so rare. I'm just not sure where I would have read it... Reminds me of immeasurate, which wasn't in any online dictionaries until I added it to Wiktionary, though I was positive it existed and had used it before. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


"It had" and "it would", yes, but "it should"?? Equinox 04:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Possibly, if it's a UK use of should for NA would, but isn't that normally restricted to first person ? Leasnam (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The only instance where should = would that is not first person that I can think of off the top of my head is the passage in Numbers 23:19 where it say "God is not a man, that he should lie" where should there clearly means would, but this is archaic usage at least Leasnam (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I cannot think of any context in BrE in which "it'd" could mean "it should". I question even whether "I'd" can reasonably mean "I should". "I should" in the sense of "I would" (e.g. "I should like to ...") feels formal or dated, and I'm not sure whether anyone would understand "I'd" as meaning that. Mihia (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


Does not appear to be use in credible Japanese(-language) sources [91]. ばかFumikotalk 09:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be rare and dated. It appears in the table of contents of at least two books (1934 and 1953): google:鴯鶓 site:ndl.go.jp (click on 詳細レコード表示にする to show) —suzukaze (tc)


Rfv-sense for "mound" definition. That sense was added by an anon IP and I can't find it in any of my regular online Chinese dictionary sources. Bumm13 (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017Edit


Rfv-sense for "take small" definition. This doesn't appear to be a proper English phrase and only shows up in the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Based on other definitions from a quick online search it might be a truncation of "take small bites". —suzukaze (tc) 05:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


Apparently descendants are not real. I don't see reason why this entry should exist. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Presumably to explain prefixed forms in daughter languages, no idea how to handle it properly though. Crom daba (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Author could create entry with prefix (for example *orzmysljati, *otъmysljati). —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

As far as i understand, *mysliti is imperfective, so what is *mysljati? —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


Is this spelling ever used instead of 亞歷山大? Or is it a result of simplified-traditional conversion error? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Oddly, there are some cites on Google Books. Wyang (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang: Sufficient to pass RFV? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it is likely sufficient to pass. @Justinrleung Looking at Google Books, a lot of the cites are from three publishers (which is not ideal), but there seem to be some (for example [92]) valid ones. Wyang (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The one you picked (東正教修道主義) only uses it in 亞曆山大利亞. I can't find any other good cite from Google Books at the moment, but there might be some from Google News. I'll look through them later. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


"Mostly or perhaps exclusively used to indicate trees that resemble Populus tremuloides" sounds like this might be a non-Latin term just used in species names etc. - 04:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's only used in species names, but the question of whether it's Latin or not is rather difficult. The problem is that taxonomic nomenclature started out unquestionably as Latin, with running sentences complete with all parts of speech and the full range of inflection. As taxonomic works shifted more and more to being written in modern languages, and the creation of taxonomic names became more formalized, taxonomic Latin became less of a language and more of a system of manipulating symbols.
If you read the taxonomic codes, they stipulate that taxonomic names are in Latin, and follow Latin grammar. That said, they only use nouns in the nominative for the generic name, and either adjectives agreeing in gender and number with the generic name or nouns in either the nominative or genitive case in apposition for the specific epithet. Names of taxa at higher/non-binomial taxonomic ranks are formed from standard endings added to the genitive stem of a noun. There's also the matter of words and other pieces of morphology from other languages or even "arbitrary sequences of characters" that are converted into Latin by certain standard methods. Thus, the specific epithet john-tuckeri has probably never appeared in an actual Latin sentence, but it does have a genuine Latin second declension masculine genitive singular ending.
I have mixed feelings about this entry, because it was originally created under the mistaken impression that it was just a synonym of tremula, which I corrected (though I absentmindedly put "resemble Populus tremuloides" rather than the correct "resemble Populus tremula", which is what I meant to say). I left things structured the way they were because I didn't want to completely throw away the work already put into the entry. It doesn't matter that much to me whether it's Translingual or Latin.
Finally, this isn't really a matter for Requests for Verification, which deals with demonstrating usage. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "taxonomic nomenclature started out unquestionably as Latin, with running sentences complete with all parts of speech and the full range of inflection"
    That was Latin. If one says in English "Homo sapiens is ...", in German "Der Homo sapiens ist ..." or in Latin "Homo sapiens est ...", then it's English, German, Latin, respectively. (Well, actually one could still argue wether or not this would be English, German or Latin, and a purist could argue that it isn't, but the English wiktionary as well as recent dictionaries include such words.)
  • "If you read the taxonomic codes, they stipulate that taxonomic names are in Latin"
    Which doesn't mean that it is Latin. (a) Pseudo-Latin as it is also used in sciences sometimes doesn't follow Latin grammar. For example: (1.) Serpens Cauda (English or Pseudo-Latin Translingual used in astronomics) with it's English translation Tail of the Snake doesn't fit together. Serpens Cauda would literally mean Snake Tail, while Tail of the Snake would be Serpentis Cauda or Cauda Serpentis in Latin. (2.) There are different ways of capitalising Latin words, but in all I've seen, proper nouns start with a capital letter. So fleischmanni (i.e. *Fleischmanni, genitive of *Fleischmannus, from German Fleischmann - the Latin terms actually are attestable, so the star got removed) as in Hyalinobatrachium fleischmanni and Craugastor fleischmanni just looks wrong. (b) Just because one claims something (like a word) is part of a certain language (like Latin), it's not necessarily so. For example, Handschuhschneeballwerfer or handschuhschneeballwerfer (Handschuh + Schneeball + Werfer) is a Pseudo-German word mentioned in English books, but google book search has no results with a German usage.
  • "but it does have a genuine Latin second declension masculine genitive singular ending."
    Which does not necessarily makes it Latin. There are several English and German terms with Latin endings, and some of them most likely never appeared in Latin. For example, several terms for letters (r rotunda, s longa, s rotunda, I longa) as well as some grammatical terms (deverbalis, casus generalis, hyponymum, ...) maybe never appeared in Latin. And in contrary to john-tuckeri, these terms look like Latin terms.
  • "Finally, this isn't really a matter for Requests for Verification, which deals with demonstrating usage."
    Well, if one claims that it is Latin, one has to attest it as a Latin term. Are there any usages of the term in a Latin text?
    Otherwise, one could and should simply change the language to Translingual like e.g. Populus tremuloides is Translingual and not Latin too or as sapiens also is Translingual.
    (BTW: Maybe see also WT:RFV#iroquoianus below which has the same problem, a Translingual term having been added as Latin.)
- 02:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I think the TL;DR of this is that the IP wants to change the language from Latin to Translingual, which I'd agree with. Benwing2 (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Should that be done for all similar cases? How would you define the class of similar cases? DCDuring TALK 03:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I see your point. I don't really know. The thing is, -oides is a strange suffix, borrowed directly from Greek and probably not attested anywhere except in taxonomic names. Even the definition for -oides says it's Translingual rather than Latin. iroquoianus at least has a normal Latin ending. Taxonomic Latin is barely Latin at all, pseudo-Latin as the IP said. It reminds me of the way that Ottoman Turkish would fairly freely coin pseudo-Arabic words and compounds using Arabic grammatical elements, and use them in Turkish sentences, pronounced according to Turkish norms. I wouldn't call those things Arabic, and likewise it seems strange to call taxonomic terms Latin, since they're (almost?) never actually used in Latin sentences and are pronounced according to the host language's norms. I wonder if we shouldn't create a new language tag for neo-Latin. Benwing2 (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I could be happy with any implementable approach to taxonomic epithets. Had folks been willing to to reach some kind of consensus earlier, we would not have to redo some entries now. I now realize that we probably need a label/category for specific epithets, which, when implemented, would render the choice between Translingual and Latin and L2 headers virtually irrelevant for Wiktionary's taxonomic vocabulary purposes. Of course such a category fits in neither our language-based categories nor our topic categories (IMO). But we can (mis)treat taxonomic names just as we treat other newer Latins. We ignore the translingual usage of scientific, medical and legal Latins while also excluding them from Latin. We would also have to create Translingual versions of the Latin inflection-line templates for those epithets that are not Latin for our purposes, notwithstanding the taxonomists assertions that such epithets are Latin. Programming and search would remain a bit more complicated than they would have to be to find all specific epithets. DCDuring TALK 15:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@Benwing2 (1): In the end, yes. (Quote: "Otherwise, one could and should simply change the language to Translingual").
@DCDuring (1): Well, it would simply be to place Translingual taxonomical terms as Translingual (and not as Latin). So the question "How would you define the class of similar cases?" should lead to "What are (Translingual) taxonomical terms?". The answer to that should be somewhat obviously. If there is an English, French, ... text with long and somewhat unusual or unnative names for animals and plants than it's most likely a Translingual taxonomical term.
But there are already similar problems with English terms of Latin origin. Terms like argumentum ad hominem are sometimes incorrectly put together with English examples under a Latin header.
@Benwing2 (2): Words ending with oides do appear in Latin and already in ancient Latin (Old, Classical, Late Latin). But in ancient Latin it could be an element which only appears in words borrowed directly from Greek. In New Latin however there could also be words with -oides not borrowed directly from Greek.
Like (Pseudo-)Arabic in Turkic, one could also compare it with (Pseudo-)Latin in English and (Pseudo-)English in German, French etc. (Pseudo-)Latin terms used in English are considered to be English and not Latin, like e.g. argumentum ad hominem (this might also be a real Latin term, but could also be sum of parts (SOP) in Latin). And (Pseudo-)English, so called anglicisms and pseudo-anglicisms, used in German, French etc. are considered to be German, French etc. and not necessarily English. Just a few examples: (a) of anglicism: computer/Computer (= computer), (b) of pseudo-anglicism: Handy (= mobile phone), last not least (= last but not least), Showmaster (= show host), baby-foot (= table football).
@DCDuring (2): Instead of repeating many things, I'd rather point to the discussion below.
  • Taxonomical categories exist, and IMHO there should be one for specific epithets.
  • Translingual scientific, medical and legal terms would be Translingual. If it is scientific, medical or legal Latin, then it's Latin, and may it be Medieval or New Latin. The below mentioned precativus could be an example for a scientific New Latin term.
    (Some people consider so-called social science not be real sciences like the natural science, so for some people precativus would not be an example of a scientific Latin term. In that case, one most likely could find a mathematical and thus scientific New Latin term in the works of mathematicans or physicans like Newton or Euler. With logarithmus, coefficiens, zerum and differentiale there should be New (or sometimes already Medieval?) Latin scientific terms. BTW: These terms could be just Latin and not Translingual, because for example English has logarithm, coefficent, zero and differential and German has Logarithmus, Koeffizient, Null and Differential.)
  • "We would also have to create Translingual versions of the Latin inflection-line templates for those epithets that are not Latin for our purposes"
    Not necessarily. It could be that Translingual terms are just used in the nominative in Translingual, or it could be that the nominative form is used for other cases in English, French, German (but most likely not Latin). In "The Rise of Homo Sapiens" and "a recent African origin for Homo sapiens" the form of the nominative form is used for the objective case. In German there could be forms like genitive Hominis sapientis (note: German declined terms borrowed from Latin like they are declined in Latin), but if they exist, they should be old like Linnaeus' work is old too. In "modern" New High German correctly inflected forms are uncommon as well (with a few religious exceptions like for Christus and Jesus) and the nominative is used for the dative and accusative and sometimes or in some cases the genitive (thus in singular: der Homo sapiens, des Homo sapiens, dem Homo sapiens, den Homo sapiens). So most likely one would just need the nominative forms (of all three genders and most likely both numbers), or one would need language specific information, that is placing taxonomical terms as English, German, Latin etc. if attested in the language. Thus, for the same reason why musical terms aren't translingual, also taxonomical and chemical terms maybe shouldn't be translingual. In German one can for example say "das H2O" (of neuter gender; snobby/scientific) for "the (pure) water". So a Translingual entry H₂O could miss the German gender. But well, maybe one could put a general note for genders etc. at Wiktionary:About Translingual or less fitting Wiktionary:About German, Wiktionary:About French etc., or maybe in case of H2O there could also be a German entry.
  • "taxonomists assertions that such epithets are Latin"
    People who dislike anglicism and pseudo-anglicism could also assert that such terms aren't German, French etc. This then could mean that "handy" (= mobile telephone) and "showmaster" (or show-master, show master) are English terms. Native English speakers however could reject this too, which then would mean that "handy" and "showmaster" do not belong to any language. So just like it's done here, pseudo-anglicism should be considered German, French etc. Similary for example argumentum ad hominem should be English, and taxonomical terms should be Translingual.
    PS: A better comparision instead of people rejecting (pseudo-)anglicisms in their language: People who invent or like pseudo-anglicisms could assert that these words are English. E.g. the inventor or a liker of handy (= mobile telephhone, not the English handy) or showmaster could say it's an English word which he just used in German texts. But English speakers could reject these assertions and in wiktionary pseudo-anglicisms are French, German etc. and not English (if not attested in English texts). Similary pseudo-latinism like taxonomical terms not found in Latin (like in Linnaeus' work) should not be Latin but something else. So iroquoianus could either be an English term as it might be only attestable in English at the moment or it could be Translingual. It would be kind of funny to say that modern New English has genders (masculine iroquoianus, feminine iroquoiana, neuter iroquoianum), so Translingual might be the better choice. But well, gender-less languages maybe could also have (pseudo-)gendered words, like a pseudo-masculine Filipino and a pseudo-feminine Filipina just like a pseudo-masculine father (replaceable in texts by the masculine pronoun he) and pseudo-feminine mother (she) in English.
    PS 2: As for scientific, medical terms etc. it should be simply be like this: If used in Latin (and may it be Medieval or New Latin), then it's Latin. If not used in Latin, then it's not Latin. There's much scientific NL, but a lack of dictionaries for NL and maybe a lack of knowledge of old theories, so theoretically there could be many more scientific Latin entries, but in practice it's not so easy to create these entries.<br / In case of mixed language texts it would be more complicated. I've once seen a German book about medical recipes. If I remember correctly it contained many Latin words, but had so much German mixed into it that it wasn't Latin anymore. In Lehrbuch der Receptirkunst für Aerzte (1854) the recipes start in Latin, and then there is a "d. s." and a German explanation. The first part could be Latin, while the second part is German, but I'm not totally sure about that. In Recepte der besten Aerzte aller Zeiten (1831) it's rather German even though the ingredients are Latin, and there the abbreviation r. (for recipe with the meaning take, maybe a ML or NL meaning) could already be considered to be German. In The Medical Companion (1816) the recipes are in English with take and no r. (or rec., rp., recipe), thus it's in English. In The medical formulary (1838) it's similar to Recepte der besten Aerzte aller Zeiten, it's starts with r. and Latin ingredients but it's rather English. If more sources could be found, r. could be a Translingual abbreviation for Latin recipe with the meaning take. There could also be completely Latin recipes, especially in earlier times, so r. could also be a Latin abbreviation. I've seen one book from the 18th century which has Latin recipes followed by a German translation, which should attest a Latin usage of r.. In Antidotarium generale et speciale (Joan. Jacubus Weckerus, 1642) and Schola medicinæ universalis nova (1794) it's in Latin and does attest a Latin usage (though theoretically there could be doubts about the meaning of r. as it doesn't come with a translation and maybe the books never spells out its abbreviations, but seeing some 16th and 17th century Latin texts always spelling it out "recipe" and seeing the Latin and German 18th century text and German and English texts, there shouldn't be any doubts). But as it occurs in Latin, English, German, maybe also French and other languages, it's maybe better placed as Translingual. Also I've seen one 16th century German text with recipe and Latin or Latin and German names of the ingredients, but with German masses (e.g. "Recipe [...] Zinober ein halb pfund. [...] Arsenici ein halb viert."), so "recipe" could also be Translingual. The abbreviation r. could have been missing in wiktionary because (a) there maybe aren't many medical persons around here or (b) because modern recipes are written differently like completely in English, German etc. and not with Latin parts anymore (note: there is some time-related bias here in wiktionary favouring contemporary usage and discriminating against older usage, e.g. the English verb form sayth isn't mentioned at all in say) or (c) because people had problems to decipher r. or (d) people couldn't attest it with enough usages. Medical recipes sometimes also contain pictographs like a character similar to Θ (this is a Greek Theta) for salt, but maybe there are no unicode characters for it, so maybe it's not easy to create entries for it.
(And sorry for being a TL;DR text writing person, but a short version like just re-answering with "Taxonomical terms should be Translingual and not Latin" would most likely not be satisfactory either.)
(And sorry for PS2 becoming longer. I searched and attested it while I was writing and mentioned sources.)
- 07:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC), the PS 14:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

толстый троллингEdit

Is this idiomatic? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be; see e.g. [93]. However, as defined on that page it refers not to lazy trolling but to direct, in-your-face trolling, the sort that is nothing but insults and gross violations of a site's rules, whereas the opposite "тонкий троллинг" seems to refer to more subtle trolling. Benwing2 (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


As it now stands, 病癥 is clearly a wrong traditional form of 病症. Is there a separate word from 病症? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 02:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It probably is. It is now cited, but lacks a definition. @Wyang, Tooironic, any ideas? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a variant traditional form of 病症, isn't it? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Tooironic: I don't think so. 癥 is only read as zhēng, never as zhèng. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
If that is the case, 古代汉语词典 and CEDICT are wrong. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
As I understand it:
zheng1, zing1
"(strictly) disease signs; (loosely) signs and symptoms"
among other non-medical meanings and the music zhi3, zi2 pronunciation
zheng4, zing3
"symptoms of disease; disease"
zheng1, zing1
"abdominal tumour; (fig.) sticking point"
(alt. form of 徵/征 - "signs and symptoms of disease")
(alt. form of 症/症 - "disease")
Wyang (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Wyang: I agree, with one exception. If 癥/症 is read as zhēng, would it really be an alt. form of 症/症? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Alt. term would be more appropriate (for example, at 病癥). Wyang (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


Entered to mean drunk. Can three independent attesting quotations be found to show this meets WT:ATTEST? If not, this could be a dictionary-only word. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added two more cites. Kiwima (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

punctus (genitive punctus, sense point)Edit

From dictionaries:

  • L&S: "punctus, ūs [...] II. A point: mundi, Plin. 2, 68, 68, § 174; cf. Isid. Orig. 11, 1."
  • Georges: "Spät. Nbf. pūnctus, ī, m., Gromat. vet. 360, 29 u. 374, 11 13. Boëth. inst. arithm. 2, 30. Isid. orig. 1, 19, 3; 3, 12. no. 1 u. 6."
  • Gaffiot: "punctus, i, m. c. punctum: Isid. 1, 19, 3"

Pliny the Elder's Natural History (e.g. here) contains "mundi puncto", Isidore's of Seville The Etymologies (or Origins) (e.g. here) contains "punctus oculi", and in New Latin it's also sometimes punctus, -i, m. in mathematics while other authors use punctum, -i, n.
Thus, it looks like L&S contains an error which was copied into the English wiktionary. - 22:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Yu Garden, the shopping district around the Shanghai city god temple. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

All words in Category:Cia-Cia lemmas in hangeulEdit

According to the Wikipedia article Cia-Cia language, writing Cia-Cia with hangeul has never been official and seems to have been already abandoned. Isn’t it just a linguistic experiment rather than actual use? I’m afraid they don’t meet our criteria. Japanese Wikipedia has decided to delete them. @Visviva : do you have a source of Cia-Cia words in real use, not a word list? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a linguistic experiment. I do not believe that Cia-Cia was ever written in Korean Hangeul. I read somewhere that there were 190 students (out of 79,000 speakers) recruited to try to learn it. I believe that the individual who originally proposed the idea wrote some sample transliterations in Hangeul. Supposedly there is a little Cia-Cia book that used Hangeul, but I could never locate a copy of it. Perhaps the original proponent of the idea wrote an example text, transliterated it into Hangeul, and printed a few copies on his inkjet printer. That would explain why I was never able to obtain a copy of the book. That would mean that the Hangeul examples are simply protologisms. The specific booklet that I was searching for was a story called 뼁겜발라 돔바 마이 스리갈라 (penggembala domba mai surigala, "the shepherd and the wolf"). I can’t find the book. —Stephen (Talk) 09:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
It is in the book “바하사 찌아찌아 1” but I can only find Korean translations: [94], [95]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


"A local form of continuous cricket played in Surrey". Mentioned in Andrew Collins' book Where Did It All Go Right?: Growing Up Normal in the 70s (p. 47: "One of the games we played, made up I suspect, was a variant on French cricket called 'Puttocks'") and apparently nowhere else. Equinox 13:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Nansha, short for Jianyanansha, one of the shoals of Jiuduansha off Shanghai in the East China Sea — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

cross cover versionEdit

Song cover version by an opposite-sex artist. Equinox 17:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


A team of foreign exchange traders. This seems to be pure invention. Equinox 15:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


While this is used, it is always italicized which suggest to me that it's simply a transliteration of the Greek term. The content could be moved to an Ancient Greek entry. DTLHS (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I have made the Ancient Greek entry anyway (κρήδεμνον), however, please see:

--FocalPoint (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


Any takers? Needs formatting and putting in some categories if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not Old English; nor Middle English Leasnam (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a dialect word, and an alternative form of clomax. Leasnam (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I've created clomax and labelled glomax as an alt form. I found only one cite for clomax, and it isn't all that great. None for glomax, although there are many for the trademark name GloMax. The fate of these two are now in the hands of due process. Leasnam (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm wondering if that "clomax" cite is a misprint for "climax". SemperBlotto (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Possibly. It was an obvious misprint in several others I found, but this one kinda sorta made some sense (?)... Leasnam (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto, yeah I think you're right. I've removed the cite. The word is now citeless Leasnam (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


Male given name. Note this is separate from the stereotypical-caveman-name sense. Equinox 19:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Nah. RFV failed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


"A command that creates...etc." Equinox 20:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

𐌷𐍂𐍉𐌸𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐍃, 𐌷𐍂𐍉𐌸𐍃Edit

Fairly sure both are unattested. — Kleio (t · c) 04:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they are. 𐌷𐍂𐍉𐌸𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐍃 should just be deleted outright; I'll move 𐌷𐍂𐍉𐌸𐍃 to *𐌷𐍂𐍉𐌸𐍃 (*hrōþs) since it's mentioned as a reconstruction in 𐌷𐍂𐍉𐌸𐌴𐌹𐌲𐍃. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The proper noun 𐌷𐍂𐍉𐌸𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐍃 is mentioned in Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/Hrōþirīks, so shoudn't it be moved for the same reason why the common noun 𐌷𐍂𐍉𐌸𐍃 got moved? If there are doubts about the etymology of the Romance Rodrigo, then shouldn't 𐌷𐍂𐍉𐌸𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐍃 also be removed from Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/Hrōþirīks, and shouldn't the removal require a proper WT:RFD discussion? - 09:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
It shouldn't have been mentioned on that reconstruction page, because it's a very unlikely reconstruction; since the first element of the compound is an i-stem, one would expect *𐌷𐍂𐍉𐌸𐌹𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐍃 (*hrōþireiks) instead. If such an entry is to be created (an ancestor of Rodrigo - if the Spanish name is indeed of Visigothic origin - did apparently exist in some form in Gothic) it should be in the Reconstruction namespace. There's not much precedent for reconstructed Gothic names so far (I see now that recently someone did create *𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐍃 (*alareiks)) but I don't see a problem with them in theory, as long as they're attested somehow in Latin/Greek transliterations and their reconstruction is unambiguous. — Kleio (t · c) 17:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Angr, CodeCat I just noticed Köbler has *hroþ[s] (and its PGmc. etymon) as an a-stem noun, which would make *𐌷𐍂𐍉𐌸𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐍃 (*hrōþareiks) correct here. However, that does not make sense to me, since the derived adjective 𐌷𐍂𐍉𐌸𐌴𐌹𐌲𐍃 (hrōþeigs) has -𐌴𐌹𐌲𐍃 (-eigs) (which is usually from i-stem nouns) and not the equivalent a-stem suffix -𐌰𐌲𐍃 (-ags), plus we have the PGmc. term as an i-stem noun. Am I missing something here? What do y'all think? — Kleio (t · c) 18:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Koebler is grasping at straws just as much as we are here, having to go off the attestations in other languages. I wouldn't put too much importance to it. —CodeCat 18:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough I suppose. The -eigs suffix seems like a pretty clear indication of an i-stem, though. Made me wonder how Köbler (and his sources, presumably -- I haven't checked Holthausen yet, not sure if my library even has it) missed that. (And hroþareiks is all over Google too - but then, the internet is generally embarrassingly bad at Gothic, so I'm not taking that as an indication of anything)Kleio (t · c) 18:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


WT:ATTEST. I can't find any use of this comedy neologism outside of direct references to the SNL skit in which it was coined, unlike similar comedy neologisms such as cromulent. 04:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This should probably be at WT:RFV instead. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Moved accordingly. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
And I see Justin added two cites. Counting the original use on SNL (which should really be added to the entry), that would make it cited. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

jiak ba buayEdit

Googling this only returns results about the Singaporean show. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Justinrleung @Metaknowledge Haven't been following this. But seems to be used in Straits Times, referring to the show but implying that it's both attested and in English. A Straits Times archive search suggests a few variations on English spelling thought.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


Obsolete form of scion. Curiously, the plural cyuns failed RFV, while the singular was never challenged. In my experience (though I don't necessarily agree with it), we don't normally do this, and allow unattested hypothetical inflections to stand as long as the lemma is legitimate. Equinox 22:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

In case of Latin there are already RFVs for inflected forms above. But well, it might be different for Latin:
  • In Latin one sometimes has to know inflected forms to know the declension.
  • In case of Latin words, especially words with Greek origin, the inflection can be disputed, i.e. it might be unclear how a hypothetical inflection would look like.
  • There can be doubts whether or not a plural existed or exists. Even if English has water and waters, who know whether or not Latin has aqua and aquae or just a singular aqua? But one could most likely ask this for some English words as well.
Similary in case of German the inflection can sometimes be disputed.
So, to sum it up: RFVs for inflected forms can be justified and can make sense. - 02:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


Tagged for speedy deletion by PapiDimmi with the reason “Not an actual word”. The entry has three quotations (all dated 2017) from Tumblr, which I believe is not a durably archive source. This is a verification matter since, if attested, this word would otherwise satisfy WT:CFI, AFAICT. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Tumblr users make up words for fandoms all the time. Tumblr is not a verifiable source for words to add to the dictionary.
PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 11:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@PapiDimmi: Indeed it isn't, but the word may be attested elsewhere (as much as I doubt it). Submitting a request for verification is the proper procedure in cases like this one. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Should a word be in the dictionary when it a word created by a fandom to refer to one specific relationship in a webcomic? Doesn’t make sense to me. By this logic, we’d add a lot of other fake words to Wiktionary, too.
PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 11:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@PapiDimmi: Read the preamble to this page and WT:CFI (especially WT:ATTEST). My actions should then make sense to you. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
What is a "fake word"? — Kleio (t · c) 20:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Move to RFV. (oops this is RFV!) We already have a load of fandom ship names like Korrasami, Rayne and Steroline. They're words with meanings, not brand names, nor used in fictional works. Equinox 19:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Equinox: Huh? This is RFV… — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
No excuses, just move it again! —CodeCat 23:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Pairing names and similar fandom terminology strike me as entirely subject to WT:FICTION, even if they don't strictly originate from the parent work itself. There should be room for many, many more fiction appendices than we seem to currently have, though. --Tropylium (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Google Groups did not produce any citations, so much of the discussion above is moot. RFV failed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


Isn't this just dark side? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't encompass farside, and not completely nightside either -- 05:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I have added some cites. Not every sense is fully cited yet, however. Kiwima (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


One who discriminates based on the first letter of a name. I think this word means something, but not that. Equinox 11:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

That sense does appear on Google Groups a few times: [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106]. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

suck offEdit

def: "(slang, transitive) To fellate a man, usually until he ejaculates."

I question whether this definition is correct in two regards:

  1. Is it limited to "man"?
  2. Isn't it always to the point of ejaculation (excluding instances of interruption)?
Isn't there a sense of off#Adverb that we lack, to wit, that reflected in get off, suck off, jerk off, wank off and any similar expressions. (You may guess where this is going.) DCDuring TALK 13:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
It wouldn't necessarily have to be a man, since pre-surgery transgender women have penises as well (though, depending on your politics, you may or may not view them as men still). Anyway, I suppose you could go out and find porn where dildoes are sucked off as well. Given that last point, and given the existence of coitus reservatus and orgasm control, I don't think the sucked-off object, be it a penis or a pseudo-penis, necessarily must ejaculate during a sucking-off. There's a few sentences I didn't expect to write today.Kleio (t · c) 17:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Silly me. I meant to also require support for "he ejaculates" (rather than "orgasm"). Lastly one can find abundant citations of "[suck] her off", so "fellate" seems wrong.
IOW, can we show that the existing definition is correct, rather than simply wrong in multiple ways. DCDuring TALK 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I found this citation:
  • 2011, Luke Williams, The Echo Chamber:
    Nice surprise and all the hott