Open main menu

Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English

< Wiktionary:Requests for verification

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion/English
add new English request | history | archives

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

Requests for verification/English
add new English request | history | archives

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

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

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

Requests for deletion/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

Requests for verification/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

{{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfd-redundant}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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

This page is for entries in English. For entries in other languages, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English.

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 “green 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 (emboldened), indicating what action was taken. This makes automatic archiving possible. 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


April 2018Edit


This was in the requests list; if I removed it, whoever added it might get upset. So I've created it and brought it here. The Unicode spec calls it "uncertainty sign" or "query" and says nothing further. Equinox 19:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it might be used in – what do you call them – flow diagrams? — SGconlaw (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!


Seeking non-italicised uses in running English, to make it clear that it is not merely the transcription of the Japanese word but actually being used in English. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
All the texts currently used for citations clearly gloss the term (in one case, incorrectly), demonstrating the non-English-ness of the usage. It may appear in English text, but the manner in which the term is employed is decidedly non English.
I am not sure that glossing the term is an indication that it is not English, simply that it is rare. There are plenty of similarly glossed words that are clearly English. Kiwima (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Authors adding a gloss is a clear indication that the reading audience is not expected to know the term. While not an indicator of foreign-ness in and of itself, it is a piece of supporting evidence. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
In an earlier discussion in the Tea Room, Donnanz stated that "there is no other suitable word in English to describe something that seems to be uniquely Japanese" in trying to build a case for including this term under an ==English== heading, even despite agreeing that "It's pretty obvious that it's not an English word".
As I mentioned at the Tea Room, I'm quite happy for us to have an entry at [[ashiyu]]: I just don't think that any such entry should (currently) include any ==English== heading. This term is not lexically English, and English speakers and readers are not expected to know what this is. This term is not part of the currency of the English language. We don't say ashiyu, we say heated footbath or heated wading pool. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I think it is fair to describe a shop-bought ashiyu as a heated footbath, but not the communal ones, where the terms wading pool and paddling pool would appear to be inaccurate, not what they are intended for. In some cases geothermal water is used, which is of course naturally heated (memories of Hot Water Beach in NZ). DonnanZ (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps then pool is not the correct term. However, the expressions heated footbath or heated communal footbath certainly convey what this is more clearly than ashiyu, for an English-reading audience. The lack of a single-word term for this in English does not necessitate that we treat the Japanese term as "English" -- until and unless it actually catches on among English speakers / writers and gains currency, much like English sayonara, skosh, honcho, or even desu.
I don't think "geothermal" is germane here. It's interesting, but that detail seems more encyclopedic than lexicographic. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018Edit


Searches for "stevvons", "stevvoning", "stevvoned", "stevvon'd" turn up just enough hits that one (consolidated?) verb definition-line is probably citable, although several of the places the word occurs are dialect dictionaries, whose usexes (if not direct quotations of real people or works) don't count. - -sche (discuss) 06:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It's really a slightly more modern dialectal (spelling) variant of steven. It's listed as an Alternative form there Leasnam (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn't (and don't) want to RFV steven until I can make an effort to cite its various senses and find out which I can and can't find citations for, but ultimately it too needs to be checked. - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
In any case consider glossing as obsolete unless we have good evidence that modern northerners have a clue what this means. Equinox 20:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Even combining all the senses and reducing this to an alt form, it only has 2 citations for the verb and 1 for the noun. Several old dictionaries, including the EDD and dictionaries of specific dialects, have usexes (of "stevvon[e]d oot", etc), but CFI doesn't allow made-up examples of how a word could be used. I'm about to RFV almost all the senes of the "lemma" spelling, steven, because I can't find citations for any of them except the first one ("the voice"). - -sche (discuss) 07:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I've added a third cite for the verb stevvon. It comes from the Recontres section of The Dialect of Leeds and Its Neighbourhood, which begins at page 1. The cite is on page 67 here [[1]], so it is not a usex. Leasnam (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The verb passes. The noun still only has one citation. Kiwima (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

do someone a frightenEdit

Also the definition doesn't match the example sentence (the dog is doing the frightening, not being frightened) SemperBlotto (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It's an idiomatic use of frighten. And that's what makes it funny and apparently meme-worthy. -- Beland (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Kiwima. I have reworded the definition to reflect that they're not frightening the dog, the dog is doing the frightening. Khemehekis (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Only one of those is in print. At the very least we need some way of noting entries that only meet attestation with relaxation of the "durably archived" condition. See WT:BP. DCDuring (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
We now have two that are in print. Kiwima (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


Any takers? I can only see "definitions" not usages. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The definition "beta male" sounds like PUA/incel jargon/propaganda. We would do better to make this a synonym of New Man, I suspect. Equinox 19:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done it. The creator has a gender agenda; see e.g. history at hybristophile. Equinox 19:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I have found plenty of uses, but sadly, not on durably archived sources. Kiwima (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

NB: recent edit to make it specifically ethnic white. - Amgine/ t·e 19:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

July 2018Edit


Two web sources and one news source that doesn't use this spelling. DTLHS (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added one cite from Google books, but that is the only one I found. Kiwima (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


Spelled without a space. DTLHS (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added some examples from websites. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
"websites" -- is it durably archived (WT:CFI: "in permanently recorded media")? - 17:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
OK I have given up trying to find durably archived versions, only one good newsgroup, and about 0 books and 0 newspapers, so I have renamed this to eighth final. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Parker squareEdit

A specific "almost magic square" that doesn't quite work. Equinox 19:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The issue is that the word is from 2016, which is when the Numberphile video that led to the coining of the term was published, so any cites earlier than that simply cannot refer to this meaning. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 21:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Just to add: I do think this term is real, but it probably cannot be cited under Wiktionary rules. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 21:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018Edit


Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Apparently John Broderick was a well-publicized NY City police detective known for giving beatings to perps. This work on slang has some citations, but some look like mentions. I can't find use in books of fiction, where I would expect it. DCDuring (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
See w:Johnny Broderick, which mentions broderick as a verb. DCDuring (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The form “brodericked” gets a few use hits.  --Lambiam 17:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Neither verb nor noun appears in DARE. DCDuring (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


Animal lick sound. Maybe an interjection but I doubt this verb has caught on CFI-attestably. Equinox 13:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I added one cite, but most of what I find is on twitter, which, as far as I know, is not CFI-compliant. There are a number of borderline uses for mlem as a noun on google news. Kiwima (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

QQ brings up enough French usages, probably in this sense, but no English usages. Anyone want to convert this to/add this in French?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
What is QQ? I have added a French entry, the meaning is the same. Also I found one English use from a newspaper. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
The French quotes are mentions, not uses. Please delete if nothing else is forthcoming. Per utramque cavernam 13:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
vespivorous ought to exist as well, but is very rare. It is in Gilbert White#s The Natural History and Antiquities of Selborne however. (and I don't know what QQ is) SemperBlotto (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Quiet Quentin – see the "Gadgets" tab under "Preferences". — SGconlaw (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

October 2018Edit


"(Internet slang) The sound a dog makes." Also, please improve the definition: dogs make lots of sounds, such as barking, growling, yipping, panting, sighing, and skittering their little feet on the kitchen linoleum. Equinox 20:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Internet users hear blep sounds from all kinds of sources, a metal detector, a phone line, pvp matches. And here is another Internet definition: “Blep is an adorable phenomenon that involves the protrusion of a cat‘s tongue while its mouth stays closed, often due to forgetfulness or while asleep.” No dog sounds were spotted in this cursory investigation. As to how an audible blep sounds, a conjectural rendering is /bɫp̚/.  --Lambiam 14:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I also thought the word referred to any animal, but often a pet, sticking its tongue out. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


Fear of clouds- a good number of mentions in phobia lists, one mention-y Usenet use. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Personally I suffer from phobocatalogophobia – a phobia of phobia lists, in particular such as have been formed by the accretion of “the sort of thing idle pseudo-intellectuals invent on the internet and which every smarty-pants takes up thereafter”. We should only include -ophobias if they are attested by clear uses.  --Lambiam 05:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
This isn't that sort of thing; it's mentioned in non-Internet sources back to at least 1981. In fact, I suspect most of the phobia lists are derived from pre-Internet words.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't clear: I meant phobia lists in books, not the internet ones (I never bother to look at those). That said, the same things can be said about most of the ones in books: some reference makes up a word, and all the other references copy it. The rest of the hits are for a certain type of self-help book that talks about fears as something to be overcome, and includes a list of "official" names of fears as a sort of filler. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I could only find one quote that looks like a use. In addition, there is [this article], but the text is unavailable. Kiwima (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not an article but one poem in a series of four: “Cymophobia: Fear of Waves”, “Aulophobia: Fear of Flutes”, “Erythrophobia: Fear of Blushing”, and “Nephophobia: Fear of Clouds”, published together in the Summer 1988 issue of The Paris Review. They are behind a paywall, but I’ll be vaguely surprised if any of these terms appear anywhere else in the poems other than their titles.  --Lambiam 14:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Added two more cites.-Sonofcawdrey (talk)

I once had an idea to combat this continual fight against arrant "phobia-adders", namely, add them all! Yes, add _all_ the stupid phobias from those phobia lists, and then the rest of the editors interested in adding real words could concentrate on more important things and the "phobia-adders" would recede away and stop bothering us. My idea was that we could add them as entries, and for the un-attested ones, simply have a permanent notice saying: This entry is not properly attested, it only appears in phobia-lists; please add CFI-worthy citations (or something to that effect). Once they got properly cited (if ever), the notice could be taken down. I suppose the problem with this solution is that it might be the thin edge of the wedge. I mean, if we do it for phobia-words, why not other types of words? There are lots of lists of -mancy-words, and -philia-words, etc. But, might not this idea be worth thinking about? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

We already do this in some places, e.g. Pokémon. I don't really approve. Having an entry saying "this is not an entry" is foolish. Equinox 10:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


A male given name. Equinox 13:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I have added three cites to the citations page, but I can't really say whether they are male given names or nicknames. I also found Darkeye as a surname, and as a woman's name. Also as a variety of sunflower, of daisy, and of dahlia. Kiwima (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

November 2018Edit


DTLHS (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia has an article Sidérodromophilie. Interestingly, the article opens with “La sidérodromophilie, serait une paraphilie”, as if the Francophone editors doubt that this is for real. Compare with Tricophilie, which starts with “La tricophilie est une paraphilie”.  --Lambiam 14:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
OTOH, the one cite I managed to find is a statement about a porn site in which a guy does nothing but drive trains, and you wouldn't expect there to be such a porn site unless there are SOME people with this fetish. Kiwima (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


I see it used in reference to various people named Kevin, Kevin Rudd for example, but not with the given sense. DTLHS (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Here are a few instances of the given sense:

Discover Magazine

CTV News

Nancy's Baby Names Driving55 (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


Equinox 17:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I see a lot of Google hits on non-durably archived pages, but nothing on Google Books nor Usenet. Khemehekis (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Not in Scholar or News. DCDuring (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


Doesn't sound natural to me, especially the supposed adjective. DTLHS (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the noun sense is close to cited, even though some of the cites may be debatable, especially the ones about the Simpsons which could be about a C.H.U.D. parody. I'm also sceptical about the adjective, though I found it in a dictionary of slang (didn't use the same phrasing of course).
Some people on Usenet also mentioned that homeless people on the NYC subway are also called "chuds". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Other findings for "chud" in different senses: alternative form of cud (etym 1), "sewage" (prob. etym 2). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018Edit


Humorous unit of energy, oft quoted but rarely if ever used. Equinox 21:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

invocation Edit

Sense 3: "Enforcement to the implementation & application of a right or liberty of just justification." I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Note that sense 2 already covers a judicial call or summons. Equinox 17:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Our entry seems, erm, dated.
MWOnline has four definitions including: "an act of legal or moral implementation: enforcement". I don't really understand that definition, but it does seem to be in English. The contributor (User:X8BC8x, last contribution: July 2016) was interested in law, especially human rights. This may make more sense to someone familiar with such law and/or with the Napoleonic Code. DCDuring (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm wondering if it might be covered by a missing sense having to do with use as a sort of alternative past participle or gerund of invoke. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Searching for uses that might shed light on this arcane definition I find numerous cases where “invocation” of a legal rule or right apparently means appealing to that rule or right in the course of an argument or presentation before a court or other body. Like when someone invokes the right to remain silent, it is an invocation of the Fifth. Might that be the intention here? This sense is not covered by any of the other current senses.  --Lambiam 01:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
That could be covered by generalizing our first sense and making the religious use an "especially". Does anyone understand the sense of implementation in the MW definition above? That definition strongly reminded me of the definition being challenged, partially because of the use of implmentation. DCDuring (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree that there is a relationship with sense #1, and that the commonality can be defined as “an act of appealing to a higher power”. I strongly suspect, though, that the current sense #1 is the original one, in which the higher power is a supernatural entity, and that the sense of appealing to legal or moral rights is the result a later generalization. French has an idiom sous l’invocation de which means so much as “under the protection of”, usually under the protection of some specified saint. Le Trésor notes that an extension to human rights such as égalité and fraternité is by analogy with the religious sense. As to the occurrence of implementation in some definitions, the sense of implementation in this context may be essentially the same as given on Wikipedia in the “industry-specific definition” of the term for political science, namely, “the carrying out of public policy”. Community standards, whether set by the law or by custom and sense of morality, need to be maintained by some process of enforcement, or they will dissipate. Enforcement needs a justification, and that justification is then an appeal to (invocation of) the standards being enforced.  --Lambiam 10:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with what Lambiam said. I think we are missing the basic sense of "an act of invoking something", and that the torturous sense 3 is just a specific instance of the act of "appeal[ing] for validation to a (notably cited) authority" (invoke, sense 2). — SGconlaw (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
See also my comment above. Indeed, not only tortuous but even most tortulous. French invoquer has a similar range of meanings as English invoke. Also for this word, Le Trésor gives the appeal to supernatural higher powers as the original one, and the others as derived by analogy or extension.  --Lambiam 10:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Good points. As a historical dictionary we should have a separate definition if a given definition was historically limited in its application. (Ideal would be having {{defdate}} information that allowed a user to see what senses a word could have had at a particular time.)
Is such limitation actually true of invocation? That invocatio was apparently so limited (ie, to the gods) is supportive, but not conclusive. DCDuring (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Had a look at OED Online. The entry has not been updated (1900), and is just as out of date as ours. It lists four senses which are, briefly: (1) an act of invoking or calling upon (God, a deity, etc.) in prayer or attestation; (2) a form of invocatory prayer during a religious service; (3) an act of conjuring or summoning a devil or spirit by incantation; (4) in admiralty prize procedure, the calling in of evidence or papers from another case. On the other hand, the more up-to-date Oxford Dictionaries Online includes the "act of invoking something" sense which I mentioned earlier. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Good old facts. Thanks. I still wish someone could explain the MW definition I gave above, which they apparently thought different from "act of invoking (something)".
I am legally trained, but the definition is not clear to me (particularly the reference to "moral implementation"). My understanding of invocation in the legal context is the act of relying on some authority (for example, a statutory provision, a legal rule, a contractual clause, etc.) in support of one's position. I'm not sure whether I would describe this as "implementation" or "enforcement". — SGconlaw (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
MWOnline also has as one of their 6 definitions of invoke: "to put into effect or operation: implement" DCDuring (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
We have a computing sense ('invoke a subroutine') that seems like a specialization of the MWOnline sense. DCDuring (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Apparently in law, at least for judges, and in computing, invocation is tantamount to implementation. DCDuring (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
In computing, an implementation is a computer program – or system of cooperating programs – created by software engineers/programmers/coders. The activity of creating an implementation (countable) may itself be called “implementation” (uncountable). Usex: We need to hire qualified personnel for the implementation of the new algorithm. On the other hand, invocations are actions performed by the running code (and by metonymy, the snippets of code responsible for such invocations may also be called invocations, in the same way that the formula 239 × 4649 denoting a multiplication may itself be called a multiplication). Usex: This was the last invocation before the fatal exception was raised.  --Lambiam 19:05, December 8, 2018 (UTC)
Yes. To be devil's advocate: it's even possible to (try to) invoke something that hasn't been implemented (e.g. a pure virtual function call), which would usually crash the software. Equinox 19:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Precisely. That’s what triggered the fatal exception.  --Lambiam 23:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, Webopedia has "Invocation means the execution of a program or function." which fits my (remote) understanding. I thought that a programmer can say that his program had several invocations of a subroutine, referring to the instances in the code that call the subroutine. But at the execution of the program each instance (eg, inside a loop) of (called) execution of the subroutine would also be an invocation.
But MWOnline's definition (of invoke "to put into effect or operation: implement") is not restricted to computing. The challenged definition seems to be related to this. Consistent with this definition of invoke is MWOnline's definition of invocation ("an act of legal or moral implementation: enforcement") is consistent with their definition of invoke.
I am unfamiliar with such usage and have yet to find another dictionary with the definition. Does anyone have any good ideas about how to search for the usage? DCDuring (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I have reworded the definition to simplify it and cited it. Kiwima (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC) RFV-resolved Kiwima (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


In Google Books this only appears in The Alchemist (play), a play of Ben Jonson, works about the play, glossaries, and older dictionaries (Century, Collins), DCDuring (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It appears in something called "Rosa Anglica Sev Rosa Medicinæ Johannis Anglici: An Early Modern Irish Translation of a Section of the Mediaeval Medical Text-book of John of Gaddesden", if someone can dig up the original ("take sorrel juice, liverwort and sampsuchine, a fistful of each;..."). DTLHS (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Here. I've also come across a use in a French work. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
We're not trying to cite it in Irish, French, or Translingual are we? DCDuring (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Just thought it could be added to a translation table if the word is verifiable. However, it may not be, as I haven't found any other occurrences apart from the two already indicated on the entry page. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear: the Rosa Anglica cite would be in an English translation of the Irish translation of the Latin "original"? DCDuring (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Failed: only two qualifying quotations found. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

sporae dispersaeEdit

Supposedly English but is a member of a Latin category. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

What exactly are we supposed to verify? Occurrences of the term in Latin texts? Obviously, this is a Modern Latin neologism (like spora by itself is), somewhat like the term generatio spontanea, only much more recent. Since it was coined only after Latin had fallen into disuse as a language for scientific discourse, any uses in Latin text wil almost be like borrowings. Perhaps we should classify the term as translingual, something we should probably also do with in vitro and other “Scientific Latin” neologisms that are used across language borders.  --Lambiam 11:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
It's botanical latin in origin. See IRMNG and Paleopalynology: Second Edition by Alfred Traverse --NessieVL (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

desvesetlanocide Edit

Any takers? Needs cleanup if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

(Doubt it will pass, but I note the etymology does not adequately explain the lan; could the word land have been a passenger on the train wreck too?) Equinox 11:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
A corresponding article is under an RFD at the Simple English Wikipedia. Looks like an invented word IMO; doesn't appear to have extensive social media use and not a lot of usage elsewhere. Hiàn (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
The lack of use isn't surprising: it has awkward consonant clusters, too many syllables, and the morphology is mangled beyond recognition. Why on earth would anyone go back to Old French for one of the parts, especially one that's hard for English-speakers to pronounce and less recognizable than its English descendant? Chuck Entz (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
No hits on Usenet. Khemehekis (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "(fandom slang) A fan of the Australian singer-songwriter Sia Furler.". A couple of first-party tweets documenting an apparent attempt to coin the term aren't really convincing sources to prove that the term is actually used. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 11:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Sia talks about lovers all the time, and fans themselves call them lovers all the time. There are Instagram profiles named sia.lovers etc. -Visual917
  • Comment: just seems like an application of sense 3. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
It's conceivable that this could be attested distinctly ("when it comes to music, she's a Deadhead, not a lover"). Not likely, but conceivable. We might also want to RFV maggot "a fan of the American metal band Slipknot". - -sche (discuss) 05:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC) End of discussion. -Visual917

Quoting yours truly, "[a] couple of first-party tweets documenting an apparent attempt to coin the term aren't really convincing sources to prove that the term is actually used." — surjection?〉 20:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

tracer Edit

Rfv-sense "The act of tracking or investigating something." Some other dictionaries seem to have a similar sense, but this is unfamiliar to me. Is it specific to a dialect? Can we provide some usage examples to support this sense (and make it clear to me how it might be used)? - TheDaveRoss 14:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you can "put a tracer on someone" (similar usage to trace). I've added two citations. One is from a sci-fi story but seems to refer to a group of people/trackers rather than any sci-fi gizmo device. Equinox 16:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
That second one looks like it is referring to call tracers, which are potentially their own thing. The first one is certainly solid. - TheDaveRoss 16:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I have added a definition: "A request to trace the movements of a person or an object, such as a shipment." That has been a fairly common usage in police procedural fiction and in shipping. Current technology may have reduced the need for such "tracers", eg, text messaging that a package has been scanned somewhere. DCDuring (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I’d rather just define as “a process of tracing”, as there is no reason why the “act” should be seen (or defined) as punctual. What @DCDuring just added as “A request to trace” seems to miss what is intended to be expressed, because the important part is the tracing itself, with any motivation (requested or not). The one artist writes: “It starts to feel like a tracer” – but you don’t feel the request. Fay Freak (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
As the common collocation is with the word "put" a punctual interpretation is quite natural, even unavoidable. If there is sufficient evidence for some other interpretation as well, so be it. DCDuring (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@DCDuring No, the commencement, the opening cause is put, and then a process of tracing starts. I can’t even discern what the factual difference between “trace the movements of a person or an object” and “tracking or investigating something” is. These definitions describe the same. Fay Freak (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I can't use put with "the act of tracking of investigating something." The definition as written is not substitutable.
The only usage that I am familiar and can document is that a tracer is "a request" that is put. So the definition under challenge doesn't meet the basic test that it must meet to be said to fit the usage I know. I am not familiar with usage of tracer by someone who is a recipient of the request. To the extent that it is an activity that takes time my expectation is that the activity would be called tracing unless a wholly different term (eg, investigation, DMV check) is used. The definition of tracing would probably be adequately covered in the lemma trace. DCDuring (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
RFV-passed. If you are unhappy with the wording of the definition, I suggest you put in a request for cleanup. Kiwima (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
How confident are you that the second cite supports this sense? I have no idea what the writer is trying to say from context. It also isn't terribly clear that a self-produced album which wasn't released anywhere would meet the durability criteria, but that is secondary to the quote actually conveying meaning. The first quote seems solid enough, the third is slightly than the second. If this is the best evidence available I would consider it failed. - TheDaveRoss 13:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I have asked myself often how the durability criterion can be applied to current forms of music distribution. The written CFI are clearly aimed at written sources while of course the intent of the dictionary is to catch spoken language too, not to be slanted more towards written language more than necessary, but spoken language is saved and sold rather incommensurably. The question I personally ask myself is: Will the internet community as a whole be likely to keep the thing on the internet? In this case I emphasize that the lyrics are on Genius legally, it is extremely unlikely that the authors delete the lyrics from the internet and it is likely that other lyrics sites are filled with the lyrics by bots. The same happens with songs: You hope they get copied over all those MP3 search engines. I guess you can make any song durable by uploading the lyrics to relevant lyrics sites so they get copied until death of the internet (and Wiktionary, since when the free internet as we know it is gone we will have graver concerns than lyrics we don’t know where to find). This is “institutions of some degree of permanence [that] will keep the material accessible” DCDuring mentions about the word “black pill” below. And also at least you’ll here witness that the quotes are real, this being enabled by the form the things have been “published” in. “Evidence” comes from vidēre (to see), you have seen it, you have even heard it. On one side this is better than some rare print you don’t have access to but lies “durably” in the archives of my city where you won’t go to: Troll-safe quotes is what we are concerned about, not to be fooled by the protologisms of a 4chan board or some redditors. Concerning the second quote it seemed to me that it is the gloss that fits best, of the glosses that are in the entry. That works until you find another meaning of the word the quote fits even more to. Fay Freak (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, I have replaced that second quote from a clearer one from a book. Kiwima (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

ostrobogulation Edit

ostrobogulous behaviour, natch. Equinox 21:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I only managed to find one use (on the citations page) and one mention. Kiwima (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

amphihexahedron Edit

I have no idea what this definition is supposed to mean. Furthermore it doesn't seem to be used. DTLHS (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete. I think I have an idea what is meant: Glue two truncated pyramids together, e.g. along their base squares, and you have joined two hexahedra – only, by the gluing operation you have eliminated the joint face, so this raises the pressing metaphysical problem whether polyhedra can share a face that has ceased to exist, like lose your face and share it too. The result has 10 faces, 2 × (6 − 1) and so would be a – not very interesting – decahedron, one of 32300 topologically distinct types. However, a diligent search has not revealed any uses. BTW, the term amphihexahedral appears to exist but does not mean “of or related to an amphihexahedron”, but ”can be viewed as hexahedral in two different ways”.  --Lambiam 06:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

eponysterical Edit

DTLHS (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure smells like a funneologism.  --Lambiam 06:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

HNO Edit

This refers to Historia Numorum Online, which seems to be a worthy project, but which is not even mentioned in durably-archived sources as far as I can tell. I can't find the initialism, either, but there are tons of scannos and references to chemical formulas that make it hard to verify anything. Historia Numorum Online is a new project, so at least you can filter out all the older usage. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

pay-as-you-go Edit

A mobile phone on a pay-as-you-go tariff. This implies a plural ("I have two pay-as-you-gos"?) which I can't find in Google Books. Equinox 20:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Some nouns have clumsy plurals to which circumlocutions are preferred, so the absence of a plural is not definitive. In my experience this is mostly use attributively. It looks to be easier to find attestation of it as an comparative (And so we are on a somewhat more pay-as-you-go system), graded, or predicate (I don't think our system is pay-as-you-go right now.) adjective than as a plural noun. DCDuring (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

brown leafEdit

Rfv-sense: (biology) a disease of plants, characterised by the presence of brown leaves

I see no evidence that brown leaf is a specific disease, rather than a condition like dry skin in humans.

Thus, this sense would seem to be NISOP. Contrast it with the other definition of a specific condition affecting a specific product of timothy grass. DCDuring (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

What does NISOP stand for? --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Non-idiomatic sum of parts. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Ohh, gotcha. Thanks. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I like that. From now on I'm using NISOP rather than SOP. bd2412 T 17:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I didn't invent it. I forgot who I got it from. DCDuring (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Send to RFV – this is a question for citations. If we can find citations saying something like "The disease caused by E. plantkillerii, commonly known as brown leaf" or "The leaves only turned brown because of lack of water, not because of brown leaf", those would be evidence of a sense like this. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Moved from RFD. Per utramque cavernam 22:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I found "brown leaf rust", "brown leaf spot", and "brown leaf blight", but no "brown leaf" on its own. Kiwima (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense One of a group of underground subhumans who kidnap humans for torture and food. All of the current cites are specifically referring to the original fictional source. Is this used generically? - TheDaveRoss 23:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Please don't tag words for RFV in a minor edit; that's definitely a major edit.
I have no idea what Harold A. Skaarup is going on about in the quote from his work. They're also used in D&D and Pathfinder -- see w:Derro (Dungeons & Dragons) -- but spelled with two r's.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


Supposed to be a medical abbreviation for ante - which doesn't have an English medicine definition. --Pious Eterino (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Ante occurs in the medical term ante cibum, abbreviated in prescriptions as a.c.. The Wikipedia article Overline claims, without giving a source, that in medicine ā (a overbar) stands for Latin ante. Apart from that, I have seen no references to “ā” being used as an abbreviation of ante in a medical or any other context. The Wikipedia article List of abbreviations used in medical prescriptions does not mention such a use, but states that “āā” stands for “of each”. This is supposed to be from Latin ana, but I know of no such Latin word. Perhaps the distributive use of Ancient Greek ἀνὰ (anà) is meant. In any case, this has nothing to do with ante.  --Lambiam 20:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


Supposedly the National Institute of Childcare and Education, which probably does not actually exist. --Pious Eterino (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

As late as 18 December 2014 they had a website (archived) up and running, but on 12 July 2015 it no longer was in the air. It looks like a scam, online lessons in childcare for hefty fees leading to certificates like the “NICHED Advanced Certificate” that were probably not recognized by anyone. I find nothing in permanently recorded media.  --Lambiam 12:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


I used the search function. Nothing looked particularly good --Pious Eterino (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It would be so useful if were understood. DCDuring (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
There's always GIYF. Every use of UTFSF that I find seems to be for a language other than English. Kiwima (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "a mayor". Is this a misunderstanding of the fact that, historically, the holder of a jagir might exercise powers corresponding to a mayor and police chief and several other offices? Or is it ever used to mean mayor, e.g. ceremonially in India today, or historically? - -sche (discuss) 23:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


Acronym of "Kiss, Lick, Suck, Fuck". --Pious Eterino (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


"Shut Up And Eat It." - comes from Babylon 5 so limited usage (if any) outside that universe --Pious Eterino (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


stevven, steavenEdit

RFV of everything (except the first sense, "voice", which is cited). Compare the RFV of #stevvon. Note that several of the citations are Middle English or are mentions and/or are not of this spelling.
The "that which is uttered; cry, petition, prayer" and "command" senses could possibly be combined if it would make them easier to cite (note that one of the three citations they have between them is Middle English and the other two use steauen, which has an a even if one overlooks the variation in u~v).
George Ellis's Specimens of the Early English Poets has a citation of "Stephen kept his steaven" which supports the "appointment" sense, although again not in this spelling.
I took all the citations from the EDD and Century that were not made-up usexes or Middle English. - -sche (discuss) 07:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


Definition may be off even if the word is citable. - -sche (discuss) 07:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I checked both "tradthot" and "tradthots" on Usenet, but all I could find was one thread talking about the word itself. Khemehekis (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I have added quotes from the typical “new right“ news publications, making it seven quotes, all with authors. The definition is okay. We only need to wait a bit to have quotes to span more than a year. Fay Freak (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Only the NYT cite looks durable to me. There is nothing usable on Usenet right now. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the definition is definitely too loose right now. "A single woman who advocates traditional family values to cater to a conservative or alt-right audience, while not conforming to those values", while less than ideal, seems a better place to start. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "(metaphysics, geometry) A visual aid depicting a hypothetical fourth dimension". — surjection?〉 11:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the drive-by editors who added and modified this sense were having fun at the expense of more serious contributors. The attribute “hypothetical” and the label metaphysics (added without using the {{lb}} template) do not make much sense. Some nonce uses found (e.g. a 3-dimensional arrangement of eight smaller cubes into a cube) and a capitalized gnostic use, apparently short for “Metatron's Cube”, representing (depending on whom you ask) the Cosmic Christ (888) or the Holy Trinity.  --Lambiam 15:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Rfv-sense Thank you for providing examples of prior use of the term. The block party metacube problem, may be one example of effective use of the device one might term a metacube. The cited block party metacube problem in the verification request may be similar in concept and different by design to our version released recently to Wikimedia Commons. —This unsigned comment was added by Unidentified Flying Cheeseburgers (talkcontribs).

This apparently refers to File:Metacube on Black Background, 3 pt line.jpg. The comment makes it clear that, in the sense provided, the term is a neologism.  --Lambiam 00:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Laurel and HardyEdit

I'm a bit hesitant between RFD and RFV here. How is it used? Here are a couple links for "real Laurel and Hardy". Per utramque cavernam 18:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Makes me think of Talk:Rolling Stones. I could have sworn I had nominated something else of that kind for deletion but I can't find it. I thought it was Britney Spears but apparently not. Per utramque cavernam 18:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Take a look at the cites. DCDuring (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
The "situation ... devolved into a Laurel-and-Hardy skit" does not match the definition, because it does not refer to a skit by some random inept people but rather to a (hypothetical) skit by the actual L&H. Equinox 22:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
That's what bothers me with attributive uses: I always feel they can be interpreted in that way. I had exactly the same type of misgivings with the other entry I was speaking of above; a pity I can't find it: see Talk:Marilyn_Monroe. Per utramque cavernam 22:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I read it as signifying: "... into something as funny to watch as the typical Laurel-and-Hardy skit, and funny for the same reasons”. In other words, I believe it refers to the characteristic aspects of a Laurel-and-Hardy skit, not to an imaginary one performed by the historical duo.  --Lambiam 23:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
See Mutt and Jeff, which only has one cite. DCDuring (talk) 05:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

skots at Google Books (with luminance). DCDuring (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


I'm not convinced it's an actual English word, rather than a Latin word being used in running text in English. User:Equinox? Per utramque cavernam 00:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Compare this to candelabrum, which is not italicised, is used in contexts where one wouldn't expect to find Latin words: [2], [3], [4], [5], etc., and is even pluralised as a regular English noun. It has "taken off". Per utramque cavernam 00:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
In the first four hits I examined the term is in italics and explained: [6], [7], [8], [9].  --Lambiam 16:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


Same. Per utramque cavernam 00:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly italicized. Not finding anything. DTLHS (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Benson and HedgesEdit

One cite seems to refer to the cigarette only and not meeting WT:BRAND. DCDuring (talk) 04:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


AFAICT only the first noun sense survived into modern English (and it is rare and probably archaic/obsolete). All the hits I see for wemmed and other verb forms look to be Middle English. - -sche (discuss) 05:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


Equinox 16:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I've added 2 cites for "super-monogamous", and one for the entry title. There may be another (in Part of the Solution: Portrait of a Revolutionary), but I can't actually view the purported text. Based on the number of attested cites, it should be moved to super-monogamous; however, the related term is "supermonogamy", so I'm a bit torn Leasnam (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
The 1990 citation seems more likely to mean "very monogamous" as in not thinking about other people while with the current partner, not "never having another relationship if the current relationship ends". This seems like it is corroborated by supermonogamy saying the sense wasn't coined until 2004. Context would help determine whether the 2017 citation is using the "one partner ever" sense or a more general sense (as seems more intuitive for that hyphenation). - -sche (discuss) 05:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


Trivial matters. I see a mere handful of possible uses of "such trife" in a Google Web search, but it looks like an uncommon confusion of tripe (= nonsense) and trifling, or similar. Equinox 03:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

It is a common scanno for wife as well. DTLHS (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "to deny". This does not seem to have survived into English. Incidentally, we're doing better than old dictionaries if we're right that this is a separate etymology (the ones I checked didn't distinguish this etymologically from warning someone of danger, but did offer usexes "warned 'im the house" and "would warn us" if that helps searching for citations). - -sche (discuss) 05:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


"(transitive) To force in a mental sense." So something like compel? Equinox 07:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand what it is supposed to mean, and no dictionary I consulted lists a meaning that involves forcing in any sense.  --Lambiam 10:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Nothing like it in the online OED - seems to be some sort of misunderstanding. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


I don't believe this to be an English term, rather than a Portuguese term used in running text in English. Per utramque cavernam 12:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn’t this go straight to RFD since RFV requests quotations and it is quoted? Sooner or latter we will need collapsible “code-switching” templates like the quotation templates so all can be kept in the respective language switched to, or perhaps a a kind of language section design that refers a reader to the language switched to for definitions (even though in English text the other Portuguese meanings have not been used this does not make it English and it cannot be excluded that arrastão suddenly means a fishing-technique or a dragnet, and even if people using this Portuguese term in English do not know Portuguese code-switching is not excluded: If a journalist who known no Portuguese reports what he hears from informants transmitting Portuguese words he thinks it as giving up English as a tribute to exacticude). Or should we rather give up rationalize and let anarchy reign, in that some create English sections for Portuguese words, others use a (yet-to-be-created) language section design referring to the Portuguese, others just give the English quotes in a code-switching template in the Portuguese section? What does the word need for you to be English, and can this be agreed upon? Fay Freak (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@Fay Freak: "Shouldn’t this go straight to RFD since RFV requests quotations and it is quoted?" : I think this issue hasn't been clearly resolved yet, but I use RFV when I want quotations showing non-italicised uses[1], and people do not seem to mind.
"What does the word need for you to be English?": assuming we're specifically talking about words of foreign origin: 1) it has to be written without italicisation, and 2) it has to be used in contexts independent of the place of origin of the word. For example a word of Portuguese origin cannot, in my view, only be used in books talking about Lusophone countries, or realities specific to Lusophone countries; otherwise it's still simply a Portuguese word (maybe that's a bit too stringent and has to be refined, but do you see what I mean?). In other words I'm looking for proof that a word has "taken off". I think a good example of what I have in mind is candelabrum: it still looks Latin, but nobody is thinking about Ancient Rome or Latin when they're reading random literature such as this.
  1. ^ Maybe uses without quote marks too? But that's a different issue: italicisation is used for foreign terms, while quote marks seem to be used for terms of language-internal derivation that are felt to be ad hoc coinages; an example. See the exchange between LBD and me here.
At the same time italics have various uses or can be considered unnecessary for code-switched terms, as the writer wants (plus italics do not exist in every script, they don’t in Arabic script, nor in audio records, this is to show that they are just one, weak indicium), and foreign words can be used in any context as it pleases. I have heard people be like “Da ist eine соба́ка” and I think I can attest шлю́ха (šljúxa) with German -s plural ending from German rappers in German sentences referring to German contexts if I really want too (I remember this from Olexesh), and I can attest zébi from raps in German, obviously not referring to something foreign unless the origin of the bearer of the relatum counts. That criterion assigns some kind of area (country) to a language which is not the reality. I have written other criteria in Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/December § Wiktionary lemmas written in a nonnative script but so far it seems like a contest of rhetorics determines if a word has passed. I don’t want to create these German entries, but sadly so far the rational criteria to delete the entries are not found (not to create them rather yes, it is “we don’t need these words as German”); what I’d like to avoid too for obvious reasons is phonetic analysis with computer graphs “whether this words sounds more German or more French”, though this be possible.
Maybe after all ignore the considerations once the article is created, these considerations being private to every editor? It would however slant the “borrowed from” and “derived from“ categories – but they will always be slanted, as it seems, for other reasons (like right now personal names and place names not being distinguished from non-proper nouns) too.
Or can there be the criterion: This entry is useless, so we do not want to host it even after the useless effort has been made? French hnouch and French jdid is useful, German zébi and German шлюха is useless, better fitting in a code-switching template under French and Russian? Maybe as a middle ground {{spelling of}} (or a new template if this cannot be changed) should also be able to direct to other languages, so French jdid would be the “French spelling of Arabic جَدِيد(jadīd)” – but also where to stop, English jihad would be the “English spelling of Arabic جِهَاد(jihād, holy war)”, German Dschihad would be the “German spelling of Arabic جِهَاد(jihād)”. Fay Freak (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@Fay Freak: Maybe italicisation and context-restriction are a sufficient condition for considering a word to be code-switched, but not a necessary one (meaning there are more instances of codeswitching than those covered by these criteria)?
I think the usefulness criterion is a dangerous one: people always come up with reasons why an entry could be useful, some of which seem very obscure and improbable to me, but what can you respond to that. Per utramque cavernam 21:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Words borrowed from other languages are words that aren't generally in the experience of the users of the borrowing languages. A quinceañera is a thing for Mexican girls; there's no reason to use it in a work that's not about Hispanic culture. That does not make it any less the English word for that celebration.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with that. "Words borrowed from other languages are words that aren't generally in the experience of the users of the borrowing languages." That's not true; it's perfectly possible to borrow a word describing a reality that is part of the experience of the borrowers (all right, you hedged it with "generally", though I'm curious how you came to that conclusion). But for words denoting an outside reality, I'm arguing that we ought to ask ourselves the question whether we're really dealing with an English word. "That does not make it any less the English word for that celebration": well, maybe it does. I'm not talking specifically about quinceañera, though there too I'm not convinced an English section is warranted; but if English speakers are speaking about about a Russian celebration, maybe they aren't using the English word for that celebration, because there isn't any; they might just be using the Russian word.
To speak of something I'm more familiar with: a Russian word doesn't instantly become a French word when used in a French sentence. "Les habitants d'un ostrog ne sont pas taxés selon leur nombre mais selon la surface de l'ostrog" ([10]) is nothing alike "Les peintres en conviendront lorsqu'ils cesseront d'être intimidés par les ukases de tenants farouches de la peinture pure" ([11]). I'm against the mindless approach of going by attestation alone. Per utramque cavernam 23:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Logic time: it is possible to do something that is not generally done. Making an "it's possible" claim as a retort to a "it is generally" is not a reasoned or helpful response.
Why would a language not already have a word for everything within its user's worlds? Only when something is introduced from the outside does one need a new word to describe something. There's rare cases where one language has a specific word for a more general human experience, like schadenfreude or umami, but I suspect it's overwhelmed by the ostrogs and kiwis and kimonos.
Things aren't always improved by making them the result of argument then providing a simple rule; frequently a simple rule will save a lot of time and offer a more consistent approach. You're against the "mindless approach" here, I suspect, not because it's mindless, but because you object to treating such words as being borrowed. As I've said before, I believe we need an entry for ostrog, whether it be as transliterated Russian or French, instead of forcing people to figure out that despite the fact they were reading French or English or German, they need to look up острог (and then figure out how to type that into the computer.) That's more important to me than the philosophical question of whether that word is really French.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
A consistent approach can be good, but it's not the end goal. I don't see the point of having a consistent approach if it leads to silly results and absurd situations, such as the one we can observe at Schultüte (I'm sorry, but I really can't fathom how someone could think it's a good idea to add an English section there, and not be disturbed the least bit by the result).
"we need an entry for ostrog, whether it be as transliterated Russian or French, instead of forcing people to figure out that despite the fact they were reading French or English or German, they need to look up острог. That's more important to me than the philosophical question of whether that word is really French". Well, we obviously have diametrically opposed views and priorities. I consider it of paramount importance not to present as French words that aren't French. On the other hand, it seems extremely improbable to me that someone reading a book titled Récit d'un voyage à pied à travers la Russie et la Sibérie tartare would be incapable of figuring out by themselves that what they are looking for is a Russian word, which simply happens to be written in another alphabet.
Truth be told, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of having romanisation entries for Cyrillic, but I don't see that as a necessity or a priority; the search engine should be quite sufficient. Per utramque cavernam 01:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
What are French words? I think that that is mistaking human categorization for objective reality. There is no objective way to measure whether a word is French or not, and differences in categorization do not differences in fact make. If an author writing in French uses a word in his French writing, that is a French word. But that is in my opinion, and certainly the Académie française would disagree with me.
Actual entries have the advantage that they match spellings in actual use, which even if they are actual romanizations by some standard, may not be the romanization we use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "(obsolete) A penthouse or awning." Per utramque cavernam 13:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Presumably from Century, which has it used in "old law" (no idea what that means). DTLHS (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Burrill's New Law Dictionary and Glossary has a bit more detail, saying that the 1197 Assize of Measures of Richard I of England made it "forbidden to all merchants throughout England to spread over their shop windows red or black cloths or awnings (scuta,) or any other things by which the sight of purchasers is often deceived in selecting a good cloth." (This Magna Carta book also says "Merchants were prohibited from darkening their windows by hanging up, to quote the quaint language of the ordinance, 'cloth whether red or black, or shields (scuta) so as to deceive the sight of buyers seeking to choose good cloth.'") From this, and from its absence from the Middle English Dictionary, I get the impression that a scutum may have only ever referred to an awning in British Latin of the Middle English time period, but not in English. - -sche (discuss) 03:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


I don't believe this is an English term, but a Latin term used in running text in English. Per utramque cavernam 13:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Verb - password-protect --Pious Eterino (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

medicinable fingerEdit

Labeled as rare and obsolete, but can we find at least one cite to include on this entry? - TheDaveRoss 15:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I have added a rather mention-y quote to the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

black pillEdit

Rfv-sense: "(slang) Something that enables or compels a person to overcome illusion and perceive harsher reality. (referencing the term red pill/take the red pill)". Familiar with the latter, not so much the former. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It's one of those Reddit incel-type terms, denoting a bleak pessimistic attitude. Does exist, almost certainly not per CFI. Equinox 04:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
PassAMethod??? Khemehekis (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
RFV-passed. Well surprising, it has been the only sense I know. 8 quotes for @Robbie SWE, including an extra in Swedish, and also 6 for the verb. One can search endlessly to find more media reports using the word. Fay Freak (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Fay Freak, you've outdone yourself ;-) Thank you for the quotes (not sure if the Swedish one should be used to validate the English word though). --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't we wait a week before we strike it out? Khemehekis (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. Some people may object that those sources are not durably archived.... Kiwima (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Reopened. The Swedish cite doesn't belong under an English header, Medium and 21st Century Wire are not durable and I'm also not convinced the others are either except maybe The Independent. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Swedish cites belong under an English header if they evidence English words. On Medium authors can delete articles but it is rare (?), anyway this one I have only added for informal proof. I cannot think of a reason why the durability of 21Wire would be diminished. Else what is with Mic, The Daily Wire‎,, Vice News? No reason to cast doubts upon them. WT:ATTEST says: “Where possible, it is better to cite sources that are likely to remain easily accessible over time.” This bids a prognosis, not that the texts need to be on paper, CD, cassette, microfilm etc. – which might become more or less or even absolutely inaccessible too, so web sources are even better to show use (also a different understanding is an evaluative contradiction for a community that rummages digital corpora to find printed sources – the CFI of other language versions like e.g. the Russian one even command more explicitly to provide web-accessible sources for accessibility). Also note that all the quoted sources are on the Wayback Machine and on Plus the supreme rule is to include words that exist in communities (as distinguished from ad-hoc formations or protologisms) (”all words in all languages”) and I have verified this existence in a pending procedure so that the case is to be closed, which would means that the term has to be included even if WT:ATTEST is not met (what I deny), since nowhere in the WT:CFI it stands that WT:ATTEST is the only way to evidence terms processually. § 1 pr. of the CFI rather suggests the contrary: “A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means. This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of” – so WT:ATTEST states a regular case (which I also fulfilled, as I claim) and other cases are admitted. How can one even get an idea that a term should perhaps be removed if a linked Quartz article includes an investigation into the origin and a graph counting usage in thousands? (It is mention, but one that points to perception of use, unlike mentions which derive from other mentions, or dictionary entries that could be copied, which is what the “use-mention distinction” in the CFI aims to exclude.) That words can be proven informally in a pending procedure can also be seen by the hypothetical case of a reverse RFD where people would vote to undelete a term given its quotations (assuming they are on the Citations page or else given in that procedure) after which the term cannot be deleted again by the procedure because it has been undeleted by consensus. So the Argumentum a maiore ad minus is that even against a formal RFV procedure a term has to be kept if there is no consensus against it (which there shouldn’t be as I said as I have given copious example to become acquainted and everyone find more in the non-durable web proper). Also competition with other dictionaries through coverage of internet slang suggests to keep terms that are shown to exist at any given point, since “professional dictionaries” track terms of informal appearance: Dictionary editors witness terms, they decide to include them. You aren’t applying the CFI correctly, @Lingo Bingo Dingo. RFV-passed, and   Keep.
I am aware that people might opine that for such an inclusion practice the CFI should be formally reworded, but nonetheless I hold that what I have stated is already the lex lata. And I am not the first one either to believe the same – the rule has always been in many editors’ hearts and what newbs are told: “Just add words that exist.” And those incel guys understood this (not PassAMethod who also defined strangely etc., that is a different problem) and hence did nothing wrong in including those here so-called “not-attestable” terms. Wiktionary editors have perverted the meaning of the words attestable and to attest. I have attested the word, in convenient form. Fay Freak (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Durably archived is well understood; the case law is clear. As is attestation, which we have a sense specifically for this case. Personally, if I were told to produce an attestation (sense 1, the general sense), I would expect to have to follow some weird rules, be it signing in particular ways or notarized by a public notary or involve an expert in some way; I would not expect any random format I used to be acceptable.
If you object to the rules as applied, I do not think this is the place and way to challenge them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how this can be called "RfV-passed". The cite problems included failure to be durably archived, ambiguity as to meaning, mention rather than use, foreign language. DCDuring (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Responding to some parts of that post:
Swedish cites belong under an English header if they evidence English words.
In this case the first two attestations in Swedish are mentions, the others take Swedish plural articles so can hardly count as English.
On Medium authors can delete articles but it is rare (?), anyway this one I have only added for informal proof. I cannot think of a reason why the durability of 21Wire would be diminished. Else what is with Mic, The Daily Wire‎,, Vice News? No reason to cast doubts upon them.
If authors can delete articles it isn't durable. 21st C Wire is an alternative "independent news" site that is little more than a group blog and is almost certainly not included in electronic databases. If the others are included in such databases they might be durably archived, but that is not a settled matter at all.
WT:ATTEST says: “Where possible, it is better to cite sources that are likely to remain easily accessible over time.” This bids a prognosis, (...).
This is only a recommendation, and doesn't qualify what is considered durably archived.
Also note that all the quoted sources are on the Wayback Machine and on
The Web Archive isn't considered durable, because of its robots.txt exclusion policy (though this isn't followed strictly anymore). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
It would be interesting to find out whether each citation for this RfV was in well-funded, well-indexed internet archives, and whether one could somehow find the relevant passage within a reasonable time.
"Durably" implies more than resistance to deletion by authors. It also implies that institutions of some degree of permanence will keep the material accessible. For print publications that means libraries. For usenet that means the various entities that host copies of it. The pace of change in electronic media has meant that there has been a high degree of mortality among the companies that publish electronically. Institutions like the Internet Archive are dependent on grants and don't have histories comparable to those of libraries. It is not unusual to find dead links in such archives or to be unable to locate the exact text one requires due to incomplete indexing.
In any event, this is not an RfV matter. It may be worth bringing it up again now at BP because it is important to us. DCDuring (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@DCDuring Apart from Mic and the Swedish site (which block archiving services), all cites are in the Wayback Machine and
The Wayback Machine isn't durably archived however, because they sometimes obey robots.txt. The FAQ of on the other hand states that they do not respect robots.txt, but that some content may be deleted if it violates their hoster's rules. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Let's take this to BP. We need to have some way of dealing with non-print publications that respects the basic objective of reliable attestation. Also, tt would be handy to have step-by-step instructions or an automated or semi-automated tool for efficiently getting a link to a durable archive after having gotten the cite from a fast search engine. DCDuring (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikihow has the basics here. Is there a tool (template, script, etc) available that can take a link from a fast search engine, eg, Google News, and find the link in a "durable" archive, eg, Wayback Machine/Internet archive? DCDuring (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Of all media, the reliability in what can concerns Wiktionary is highest in Wiktionary itself. You’ll witness that those quotes are real, that you didn’t let yourself be fooled by ad-hoc inventions. If in hundred years all the quotes are gone, we can say: Well Fay Freak, DCDuring & Co. looked into them, the quotes are real, the existence of the term is already demonstrated, case closed, ne bis in idem. We somehow need to get the terms that don’t have an intersection with Google Books or Usenet. I bet anyway that for any of the web quotes given some printed newspaper had the same term and we just don’t know which, we don’t reach out to them without disproportionate expenses, but what’s even the meaning of “languages well documented on the Internet” if it does not mean the internet taken as a whole, used to demonstrate words in a verification proceeding, since we all are working for free on the internet and the willingness of unpaid editors to go into far libraries to browse the pages for words is already mostly theoretical and the more so if the word does exist demonstrably online and its existence in the language is thus is shown in easier fashion. Google-Books and Usenet are for languages that use complex scripts (those that need complex text rendering) crap anyway, it probably does mean the web hence and since the language of the internet is directly the investigation object of Wiktionary, not via media in other form. The question is not even if a word exists in certain formats, if it exists on cassette or CD or only online, this is not so interesting, people care to have words in a dictionary that exist (sufficiently widely) anyhow, that the dictionary is reliable in any way. This is assuming that the section “Number of citations” does not contradict what is written before it in the CFI. Anyway surely one should fix the CFI formulation, going to the BP, since the way the CFI are written the application of the CFI has become detached from the goals of Wiktionary. You see: When people pursue verification requests though they are convinced that the term exists, rethinking many things is due. Fay Freak (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Again, these types of argument should go to the Beer Parlor, not to RfV. There's lots of discussion to be had about open Internet citation, but this is not the place.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: A corporate strategy about adapting intelligence (i.e. Artificial intelligence) other than human cognition in every process of the company... DTLHS (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Sounds made-up by a consultant. DCDuring (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps the same sense as sense #1: The process of making corporate entities smarter by adding a small sliver of dim intelligence.  --Lambiam 08:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Def. 1 is only for "objects". A wording change, like "objects or systems" might be sufficient though. I'd still like to see three cites for the application to organizations and three for other systems. DCDuring (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
It just looks like an invention by a so-called management consultant. I would just remove it. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

band candyEdit

AmE for chocolate bars. Most of what I can find is a Buffy TV episode title. Equinox 12:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I found some hits that looked genuine (like here), but on deeper examination all turned out to refer, one way or another, to the Buffyverse.  --Lambiam 17:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
The episode was called Band Candy because the chocolate bars were sold to raise money for the Sunnydale High School marching band. So there is nothing generic about the term; it only has this meaning in this one episode set in one fictional universe.  --Lambiam 17:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Granted, I'm not up on the latest in pop culture, but I've never heard of this. I've bought my share of candy for various fundraising campaigns, but they can benefit just about any youth organization or school program. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


Act of being hit with a bone. Citation suggests a Simpsons nonce word. Equinox 13:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

And, apart from being a nonce word from a fictional universe, this was clearly meant to be analogous to stoning, so the passive-only sense of the definition is misguided.  --Lambiam 18:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
A search for "act of being" would seem likely to yield quite a few entries with definitions that need challenge or rewording. DCDuring (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
That search yielded 96 entries. IMO "Being X" or "The state of being X" are good substitutes for "The act of being X" at the very least where X is an adjective and probably where X is a past participle. DCDuring (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I have added two cites to the citations page. One is for a different sense entirely (meat taken from the bone), but is a missing sense. The other does not exactly meet this definition, but comes close, as it represents an attack with a bone. It we find a third attack with a bone cite, I would suggest broadening the definition. Kiwima (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I found another use of boning as an attack, but it matches the other one too precisely, so I am dubious about lumping them in with the Simpson's quote. It is apparently some form of Australian aboriginal magical attack. Kiwima (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
See point the bone Chuck Entz (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: From the Fucking Article --Pious Eterino (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: California Commuters Alliance. This probably exists or existed as a group, but as it's quite obscure there are very limited hits for it. So much so that I have no choice but to add it to RFV. Perhaps RFD would be better in this case. Anyway, I'm stumbling on lots of these obscure acronyms/initialisms etc. in my work that a bigger question could be brought up. Working on CCA I have checked a number of the definitions, and some are things that no longer exist (Computer Corporation of America, Canadian Conference of the Arts, Centre for Corporate Accountability) and some are extremely obscure, such as Caribbean Contemporary Arts. I assume we want to keep them if they are cited, but perhaps there are special criteria for acronyms. --Pious Eterino (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

That the entities the abbreviations refer to no longer exist is not directly relevant. The question is: Are the abbreviations attestable? We are a historical dictionary, among other things, and should be able to help people read old books, journals, and newspapers that may contain these. DCDuring (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019Edit


Not in other dictionaries, seems to have a sense related to Buddhism, but that is not the sense which is listed. Can we cite the sense as listed and possibly add the other sense? - TheDaveRoss 14:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It is supposed to be a synonym of the neologism incel in the uncountable sense. Compare incelibate for the countable sense. The term may be found used (in a quotation) here. If inceldom has permanently archived outlets (but they appear not to be doing well in terms of outlets), more instances should be attestable.  --Lambiam 15:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


Can we find evidence of this obsolete spelling? I see some which may be good or may be typos. I also see some French, maybe someone can add that. - TheDaveRoss 14:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks like a common misspelling to me. Kiwima (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
These seem like the real deal: [24] [25] [26] [27] In the last two cases the texts are anthologies and contain many attestations of both "chief" and "cheif", but it looks like this depends on the original usage of the included documents. Many more attestations can be found in texts before 1800, but "cheif" isn't always the dominant spelling. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

zoo breakEdit

Can we cite this one? - TheDaveRoss 16:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. DTLHS (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Is it worth trying though? It looks like it is just zoo (sense 1) + break (noun sense 10) and I can only find two independent uses of zoobreak. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, perhaps it should have been an RFD. - TheDaveRoss 19:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I took the liberty of RFDing it. Per utramque cavernam 20:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed. Kiwima (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)



  1. Something worthy of being LOL'ed over, or laughing out loud over.

Nothing like that on Google Books or Google Groups as far as I can tell, though there does seem to be some kind of French term, and a hit or two for something along the lines of "like or characteristic of Lola" Chuck Entz (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  • If it does exist, then it's an adjective, not a noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
    If it exists, possibly as a nonce word, it may have been formed using the noun burlesque as a model.  --Lambiam 08:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The kind of people who know about traditional forms of comedy like burlesque don't strike me as a particularly strong overlap with the people who bash out "lol" in a chat room... Equinox 09:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
    Someone may know the term in the metaphorical sense of “laughable travesty”, as used here in “this propaganda burlesque”, without being particularly cognizant of its comedic origins. Also, just a single individual can come up with such a neologism; the overlap does not have to be strong.  --Lambiam 10:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

forlong Edit

Rare/nonstandard/obsolete/weird at best, so needs glossing if kept. But let's see what we have here:

  • A verb, "to be possessed with longing", with one citation: the cite's meaning is not clear to me, but it suggests that the narrator is "forelonged", in which case the def mixes up its object and should be "to possess with longing".
  • A verb, "to keep or continue longer, prolong". Three cites, one from 1496 (should be Middle English instead?), one from James Joyce (famous inventor of nonce/nonsense words, and in this context it's clearly a noun, not a verb: "forlongs I have livramentoed"), and one with "forelonged memories" which is of unclear meaning but might fit this def. Equinox 19:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I have added what I could find to the citations page. I find a number of cases that look like an obsolete variant of furlong (I only added three of them). I also saw a number of quotes that look like an adverb meaning "for a long time", but it was usually hyphenated (for-long), with only one that I could find that clearly omitted the hyphen. Then there were a number of uses of "forlonged" or "forlonging" that seem to match the first definition, but might also indicate instead two adjectives (the originally supplied citation is similarly ambiguous). I suggest we convert Etymology 2 to Middle English, ignoring the Joyce quote as a nonce, and treating the 2005 quote as belonging to that group of "filled with longing" quotes, where it also works. We could then either clean up Etymology 1 as a verb, or convert it to a pair of adjectives. In either case, it should probably be considered poetic. I am inclined to ignore the furlongs, as part of the variation in spelling you find in very old texts. Kiwima (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
This older(?) text has furlongs (“within two furlongs of a Bounſing Prieſt”). Can we be sure that forlongs is not a typo?  --Lambiam 11:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Seems like a good plan, AFAICT. DCDuring (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

RFV-resolved Kiwima (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Google, Google Books, and Usenet come up with no uses, only a handful of mentions. Khemehekis (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Same at Google Scholar. DCDuring (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, have you got access to my bookmark folder of shitty entries? I was about to do this one. Equinox 16:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


(seduction community slang) Initialism of way-below-average frustrated chump. - there were some links to Google Groups on the page, they may help with cites, but the books outlook is bleak. - TheDaveRoss 13:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding BAFC to this. - TheDaveRoss 19:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


I doubt the Englishness of this Finnish food term. In OneLook, only Wikipedia and Wiktionary have it. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

cited DTLHS (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

abnormie Edit

Can we get some cites for this one? - TheDaveRoss 16:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Quebecoise pizzaEdit

DTLHS (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

German pizzaEdit

Rfv-sense: Synonym of flammkuchen. DTLHS (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

And sense 2 looks like a dodgy SoP too. (Informal? Why?) Equinox 23:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
This confirms sense 2, but does not make it look any less SoP. But here we find another colloquial SoP use, this time in a recipe for an onion and bacon tart. And again here, but now for something that defies description (perhaps “German Spanish tortilla”?)  --Lambiam 15:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Here and here, as well as on numerous places elsewhere, the term is used to explain to the reader what a Flammkuchen is; but in my opinion that does not count as a use. You wouldn’t use the statement that idli is a kind of rice cake as support for adding idli as another sense for rice cake.  --Lambiam 15:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I have added a number of cites to the entry that seem to use "German Pizza" as a name for the stuff rather than a description, although the News Tribune quote is admittedly pretty questionable. Kiwima (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Japanese pizzaEdit

Rfv-sense: Synonym of okonomiyaki. DTLHS (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

This web page claims (without giving examples) that okonomiyaki is often casually described as “Japanese pizza”, a claim repeated here (same website, different author). This doesn‘t prove anything yet, but at least makes it look plausible. Here are three recipes identifying “Japanese pizza” with okonomoyaki: [28], [29], [30].  --Lambiam 15:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Yerg. FWIW, I'm more used to Japanese pizza referring specifically to the kinds of pizza served in Japan, with toppings like mayonnaise, nori, corn, mochi, and squid. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
There is a similar thing with Turkish pizza. Foreigners use this to describe lahmacun, but in Turkey the term Türk pizzası will normally be understood as a pure SoP, a locally produced pizza, which will be halal (not contain pork) and use locally available herbs. It is not uncommon for a tourist-oriented eatery to offer both lahmacun and Turkish pizza as different menu options, with the expected occasional resulting confusion.  --Lambiam 07:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


Not the railway, but the individual train. (An example like "I got on the metro" doesn't prove anything, since you can also say "I got on the London Underground".) Can we say e.g. "Paris is introducing longer metros" [trains]? No such sense in the modern Chambers Dictionary. Equinox 03:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

When you are waiting for the metro, what are you waiting for? The railway? It is easy to find examples, although mostly not in durable archived sources: “Informative count down of when the next metro will arrive. The metro's are always on time - some even a little early!“; “You don't have to get out the paid area, and the next metro will come in 5-10 minutes”; “The metro was delayed by eight minutes as protestors laid siege to the metro station.“  --Lambiam 14:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
While we are addressing this entry: do we really need two pairs of definitions one for underground and the other for light rail? As it is, we omit els, surface "heavy" commuter rail, and part of the NYC rapid transit system that runs on the surface. I doubt that the term metro necessarily excludes all those. That said, NY natives don't call the local rapid transit, street-car, and commuter rail systems or the trains that they run "metros". DCDuring (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

throuble Edit

Rfv-sense is this obsolete or eye-dialect (as the usage note indicates) or some WF joke that is going over my head? - TheDaveRoss 21:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the latter. An Irish-English speaker might pronounce throuble as trouble (possibly with a dental t), not the other way around, so it is patent nonsense.  --Lambiam 21:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
No, it used to be very common to spell things like this (with th and dh) to convey an Irish accent. Rudyard Kipling does it frequently in his works. Equinox 21:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

cited, although I would call it eye-dialect. Kiwima (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

dimoraic, etcEdit

The page for moraic has a list of supposed derivatives that use both Latin and Greek prefixes for multiples up to four, but these have no attestations. Although some of the words with Greek prefixes appear to exist (see the Wikipedia page for "mora"), some others look as though they are just inventions to pad out the list: for example, "quadrimoraic" generates only one Google hit, to a page pronouncing the would-be word. — Paul G (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The term quadrimoraic is used here: [31], [32], [33]; and its synonym tetramoraic is also easily attestable: [34], [35], [36]. Of course there is a (fuzzy) natural limit, but we find pentamoraic here: [37], [38], [39].  --Lambiam 10:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
These are easily attestable. Here are a few links for dimoraic (there are many more on Google Books): [40] [41] [42]. In general it's good to do a Google Books search before RFVing. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I added two uses to the citations page. I found a third quote, but it was too mention-y. Kiwima (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


These quotes don't look good since they're all explaining the term and / or italicized. DTLHS (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


Here it's mentioned as a slang term for a drug, which isn't one of our senses. DTLHS (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


mmmhmm Equinox 17:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that can be removed. It's from the NED, here [[43]]. The Middle English form is leodliche, so a move is not necessary. ledeless too. Leasnam (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. No modern uses with that exact shape. Leasnam (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


Ledish (and, frankly, leden/ledden and the "people" senses of lede) seem to be in the same boat as ledely (above). A Google Books search turns up various scannos, and the EDD has no entry, let alone pointers to citations, as they sometimes have. - -sche (discuss) 20:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

ledish in its current sense can be moved to Middle English. There is a ledish2 which is an obsolete spelling of leadish Leasnam (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


I can't find anything, but there are a few mentions of the singular CHSTREP. --Pious Eterino (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

If this were a plural of CHSTREP, shouldn't it be CHSTREPs? --Hekaheka (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "person engaged to be married". Is this really a sense or should it rather be a "misspelling of.." -entry? At least none of the OneLook dictionaries has it as a sense. The translations can be moved to betrothed. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

On second thought, there is this article under [44]. The last chapter reads: "Even outside the realm of same-sex marriages, there seems to be an increasing use of fiancé as the unmarked form for both a man and a woman. But as we may expect, this use may be subject to criticism, especially for those who speak a language in which masculine and feminine forms are distinguished from one." Also Merriam-Webster's [45] discusses the topic under the header "fiancé or fiancée", but does not mention the usage of fiancé as a gender-neutral option: "People may well be anxious, when referring to their betrothed, to make sure that they use the correct term. So the fact that fiancé and fiancée are pronounced exactly the same may cause some degree of worry and uncertainty. These two words are borrowed directly from French, in which language they have equivalent but gendered meanings: fiancé refers to a man who is engaged to be married, and fiancée refers to a woman. We have, as of this date, no evidence suggesting that the meaning of either word is affected by the gender of the person to whom the fiancé or fiancée is engaged." --Hekaheka (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Confectionery of the Philippines. Appears to be a brand name, Choc Nut; might not occur in this form. Equinox 19:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd say delete if possible. It's a relatively unsourced neologism without a commonly agreed definition, and an invalid sexual designation at that. Same goes for digisexual. Учхљёная (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC).

cited Although the definition needs to be broadened, because it is not just sexbots. Kiwima (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


A sense in statistics looks includable. DTLHS (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

For the sense of media being available on a network in a widely dispersed distributed form: [46], [47] (the term occurs only in the title of the Master’s Thesis), [48]. The sense as currently given may be too specific.  --Lambiam 07:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
More precisely, everyone defines or uses the term differently, with little commonality.  --Lambiam 07:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The term does not occur in the Encyclopedia of Mathematics. Different authors use the term for different mathematical concepts, such as a generalization of the mathematical (not statistical) concept of distribution, currently not even listed as a sense here at Wiktionary. There does not appear to be a single commonly understood mathematical sense.  --Lambiam 07:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I have added two missing senses (the statistical sense mentioned by DTLHS, plus a sense of distribution on a massive scale). The original definition looks like an overly-specific case of this latter meaning, and I could not find cites that support it. Kiwima (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Magical incantation. One book is cited, which seems to be making it up arbitrarily ("say a magic word, such as googly-moogly"); no evidence that this is in general magical use. If this RFV fails, remember to remove Category:en:Magic words and please check the alt forms and incoming links such as the synonyms at hey presto. Equinox 01:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


"A reduced form of and-", as in answer. Was this ever productive in Modern English? Equinox 02:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


Sense 2: "One who disappears for a time and suddenly reappears." Equinox 11:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I have altered the definition, because it is not so much a matter of reappearance as of bouncing back, and I have added three cites. Kiwima (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: gender-neutral 3rd person singular pronoun.

Other dictionaries don't have it. We should (assuming it's real), but with good attestation in the entry. DCDuring (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I can find some evidence for its use in Thailand, but not in English. Kiwima (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Suzukaze-c 03:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

(If it passes RFV, then RFD as SoP may well be appropriate.) Equinox 14:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Compare big-dicked, Talk:big-dicked. Per utramque cavernam 20:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "To address (a person) using the pronoun you, rather than thou, especially historically when you was more formal." I'd be especially interested in recent uses.

Here's one old quote found by Lingo Bingo Dingo: "... not to be misled by a pestilent way that he has of youing me, ...". Per utramque cavernam 10:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, this youing the man was worse to poor Bill nor callin' him Mister. Per utramque cavernam 10:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
But in spite of the fact he 'youed' instead of 'thoued' me, he was not happy to see me.
That's not much. It would be good to find more. Per utramque cavernam 10:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
More occurrences of youing and thouing, used as gerunds / verbal nouns. Per utramque cavernam 11:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

This makes me notice there's apparently a verb "to thank you". See thank youing. Per utramque cavernam 10:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added three citations, but they're not brilliant. 1930 (Barrington Hall) and 2004 (Ellen Miller) intend: to address someone using "you". 1992 (Barbara Anderson) is to address someone using "you" rather than "one". None of them are doing so "rather than thou". (Note that the italics in 2004 (Ellen Miller) are conveying stressed intonation rather than the inclusion of a nonstandard term.) -Stelio (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

address using the formal pronounEdit

Unattested. Per utramque cavernam 10:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I find it hard to grasp how an ordinary human would benefit from the entry. Lack of attestation would be evidence of lack of utility. DCDuring (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Is address using the formal pronoun synonymous with address using the polite form? (See persirati#Serbo-Croatian.) They don't seem so to me. DCDuring (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The meaning is, in both cases, to use the V-form in a language that has a T–V distinction – which includes Serbo-Croatian.  --Lambiam 16:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I cannot find this precise collocation, but a sufficient number of cites for address with a formal pronoun:
  • 1982, Peter S. Engelson and Robert S. Detrick (but the actual author of the quotation is Rafael L. Bras), “1982 James B. Macelwane Awards to Rafael Luis Bras, Donald W. Forsyth, and Steven C. Wofsy”, Eos 63:31, pp. 598 ff.:
    Early in my graduate student career we had a very serious conversation where he insisted I overcome my cultural habit of addressing him with a formal pronoun and by last name.
  • 2009, Margareta Rebelos and Antonella Strambi, “Address Pronouns in Italian CMC Exchanges: A ‘Good Example’ for L2 Learners?”, Italica 86:1, pp. 59-79:
    As suggested by Dewaele (2004) with reference to French speakers, age and especially status and familiarity are fundamental factors in selecting address forms, with older and unfamiliar interlocutors being most often addressed with a formal pronoun.
  • 2009, Roel Vismans,“Advanced Learners’ Use of Dutch Second Person Pronouns During Residence Abroad”, Journal of Germanic Linguistics 21:2, pp. 211-230:
    Someone in a superior position is addressed by someone in an inferior position with a formal pronoun (in Dutch u) but uses the informal pronoun (so the other forms in Dutch) to address the inferiors.
  • 2014, Yves-Oliver Tauschwitz, “Pronominal address among Russian Germans in the Altai Krai – preliminary results of empirical data”, Linguistik online 64:2:
    The paramount importance of status could be seen in the address of family members and friends, as older interlocutors expect to be addressed with a formal pronoun of address, but respond asymmetrically with an informal one.
I also found uses of using a formal pronoun, but somehow only in combination with a different verb, such as speak (as in, “In Spanish, one might speak to one’s parents using a formal pronoun”).  --Lambiam 21:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "To feel infatuation with or unrequited love for", outside of crush on.__Gamren (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

cited. I'm sure there are more (and probably better) quotes out there, but this is a very difficult one to search for because of all of the other meanings of crush. Kiwima (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


A pretty horrible compound. Thought criminal (two words) appears here. DonnanZ (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima. Initially coined by Orwell, although he hyphenated the word. (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)