Open main menu

Wiktionary β

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.

July 2017Edit

grow tender and growtenderEdit

Any takers? (difficult to search for because of the verb + adjective sense) SemperBlotto (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You can search for the plurals and for article+noun/possessive pronoun+noun. There seems to be some rare usage in stories on newspaper websites- but I have no idea if those appeared in the durably-archived print editions. There are also a few legitimate uses on websites that definitely don't qualify for CFI. I would call this real, but possibly unverifiable. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

October 2017Edit


I did some digging and found that the form tharf had fallen out of use sometime in the late Middle English period. Only the form thair - which I personally heard used in speech and used in speech myself - still survives. Me thinks that it should be consigned to the Middle English section of the Wiktionary. Mountebank1 (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mountebank1 I find no RFV tag in the entry. Which sense(s) were challenged? Kiwima (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@Kiwima Etymology one contains a Middle English form of the verb thair. The form tharf did not make it into Modern English, only the form thair still survives in the Northern dialects. Mountebank1 (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I found a couple of uses in a Modern Translation of the Mystery Plays Leasnam (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Would someone who knows more about Middle English than I do convert this entry to Middle English? Kiwima (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

November 2017Edit


Two cites, needs a third. DTLHS (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


Is this a word that is actually used? Google books has results, but they don't seem to refer to the device mentioned here. A google search shows the word being used little outside of Wikipedia with the intended meaning. I also don't think the devices are in current production and something only a countable number of people use. The Wikipedia article on them is misleading. RightGot (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Is "Disabled World" durably archived? It looks like a website to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
That depends on whether you count pamphlets as durably archived. Kiwima (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I have to imagine they normally wouldn't be. Are copies of this pamphlet held at a significant number of libraries, or is there any other reason to believe it will still be findable decades from now? —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017Edit


DTLHS (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

So far, all I can find are uses in non-durably archived sources. Kiwima (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
A Google Groups search just finds two posts that don't appear to be Usenet, given by their group names, and are both by the same poster anyway. Khemehekis (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
*sigh*, yes, this is one of those frustrating words. I can find a LOT on non-durably archived sources. Enough that I am convinced it's a legitimate word. But I can't manage to cite it by our rules. Kiwima (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

January 2018Edit


I can see it being used for several things, but not for Utah. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not the only entry in need of verification – several of the entries added by Special:Contributions/ are a bit dubious, IMO. How should we treat these abbreviations? I mean, there must me hundreds of local and national teams who use abbreviations on their scoreboards, but that doesn't mean that we have to include them here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
This one is certainly worth the RfV and perhaps some others.
For some others we could decide, whether by precedent, vote, or consensus, that some classes of abbreviations are OK and focus on making them conform to some standard. For example, 3-letter codes for airports could be deemed OK and presented only as Translingual (See YUL, JFK and their histories.). This contributor is not even consistent for such entries and probably for other types.
We could also apply a short block to the IP to get its attention. If that doesn't work, longer blocks might be required. DCDuring (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the height of arrogance. None of you have ever left a message on my talk page, so how the hell am I supposed to know you have issues? Have you ever thought of ever interacting with anyone outside of blocks? MediaWiki has user talk pages for a reason, and messages posted there are actually delivered to the user in question. This Wiktionary BLOCK = HELLO THERE standardized behaviour is very disappointing. -- 07:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
You don't have a talk page. There is a talk page for your IP address, but that's sort of a hack, to get around the fact that there's no way to communicate with an anonymous individual. If you create a user account, then you will have a user talk page. You could also have a watchlist and look to see if people are having issues.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I can find lots of evidence for "University of Texas at Arlington" and "Utah Transport Authority", and some for a few other acronyms such as "Union de Transports Aeriens", "United Typothetae of America", etc, but none for Utah. Kiwima (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Judging by the geolocation and by the mediocrity of the edits, this is quite possibly Fête, who has never been known for taking a hint- whether administered with compassion and tact or with a 16-lb sledgehammer. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh well. You would know best. DCDuring (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a sports ticker and score card abbreviation for teams represented by the geographic name "Utah" when playing other teams. In North America, sports pages, sports feeds, and sports tickers frequently use three-letter abbreviations to represent teams. Teams are frequently referred to by their geographic name instead of team name. (ie. the w:Utah Jazz is frequently abbreviated via UTAH instead of JAZZ.) When multiple teams have the same geographic name in the same sport in the same league, then they don't just go by the geographic name, but instead either use the team name or a combination of team name and geographic name. University teams typically are abbreviated with the university name instead of the team name as well. If you watch sports television, the sports tickers will use these three letter abbreviations all the time. The particular team meant depends on the particular sport and league the ticker is currently displaying, as most locations have multiple teams in multiple sports that can be referred to by any particular 3-letter geographic abbreviation, so depends on context. This is a sports abbreviation though, so the context is sports. -- 07:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

11/13/17 Utah UTA 98 - MIN 109
GT: TOR @ UTA (Today) 9PM on TSN

-- 07:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

None of which matters much to RfV. See WT:ATTEST; URLs like forums..../boards/viewtopic.php (the second link) are clear warning signs that they aren't permanently archived.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I have cited and removed the RFV tags from VGK, CBJ, NYI, NYR, and NJD, all of which are abbreviations of NHL teams. EhSayer (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "Abbreviation of Kitchener. "

Tagged but not listed. Kiwima (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a sports ticker and score card abbreviation for teams represented by the geographic name "Kitchener" when playing other teams. In North America, sports pages, sports feeds, and sports tickers frequently use three-letter abbreviations to represent teams. Teams are frequently referred to by their geographic name instead of team name. If you watch sports television, the sports tickers will use these three letter abbreviations all the time. The particular team meant depends on the particular sport and league the ticker is currently displaying, as most locations have multiple teams in multiple sports that can be referred to by any particular 3-letter geographic abbreviation, so depends on context. This is a sports abbreviation though, so the context is sports. -- 07:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

8. Riley Damiani (KIT), Ryan Merkley (GUE), Noel Serron (OSH), Curtis Douglas (BAR) – TI Score: 16
Dec. 29/17 – ER (3) – KIT (4)
OHL - KIT (2015) RD: 3 (#44)

-- 07:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018Edit




RFV-sense of the variant of ad- used before certain consonants. I suspect that this only existed in Latin, and not English, where examples of al- etc in this sense are just borrowings of Latin words, as is the case with e.g. allocate. The one example of ag- which claims to have been formed in English (aggenital) is suspect, because aggenitalis (and aggenitus?) seem to exist. Compare Talk:sug-. - -sche (discuss) 20:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Tagged but not listed: Both noun and verb for analog of tweet on Mastadon.

I have cited both, but only as a hotword. Mastadon is too new for anything else. Kiwima (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  • @Kiwima, and do not seem to be durably archived. Both senses are now lacking one cite. And if you do find more acceptable cites and pass this as a hot word, you have to add the {{hot word}} template to the entry so that we can keep track of it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
How do I add the {{hot word}} template to a single definition rather than to an entire entry? Kiwima (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
With {{hot sense}}. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


An alternative spelling of llama, but seemingly a dictionary-only word; obsolete if real. @Cnilep is the creator. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I have just added two quotes from books published in the nineteenth century. I suspect the word is obsolete, though. Cnilep (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Also a twentieth century usage, from 1918. Cnilep (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
1918 is just a loose translation of Buffon, so not independent. Wood is also clearly reliant on Buffon, but I suppose his is a genuine adaptation (still plagiarism by modern academic standards!). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


Nonce word. DTLHS (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I DID find another citation besides those araphorostic shoes. We still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Another word to consider at the same time is araphostic: also with two cites. Kiwima (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
One dictionary that came ip when I GB'd "araphostic" said that the preferred spelling was arrhaphostic. Googling that, I found this cite here. Khemehekis (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh dear! Not yet ANOTHER spelling. Between the three spellings, we have enough to convince me that it is (was?) a real word, but not enough to meet RFV criteria. Kiwima (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Has Wiktionary specifically settled on a policy for when two homophonous spellings/capitalizations have the requisite three durably archived cites between them, but neither spelling alone meets COI? If we add the two araphostics and the one arrhaphostic together, we have just enough for the pronunciation without the -or- in the middle. Khemehekis (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
If no one spelling is attested, sadly they should be {{no entry}}ed, but (like Talk:gaplapper) one spelling will usually become citable as more books are digitized, etc. (With capitalization, things are more flexible.) - -sche (discuss) 22:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018Edit


Entered to mean A bird, the great bustard, from Webster 1913. Wonderfool requests verification in RFD. google books:"gustard", google groups:"gustard", gustard at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Most of what I find refers to a 1526 quote by Hector Boece, so I have left only one cite that refers to this quote, choosing the best reproduction of it I could find (quoted in 1881 by Henry Eeles Dresser). I did manage to find two other independent quotes, although the 1952 quote is a bit mention-y. Kiwima (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Unclosed: The 1952 quotation '... where it was called the "gustard" ...' is not just a bit mentiony; it is a mention. And the 1881 quotation is also a mention, "called a Gustard". It has been my position that phrasing of the form "called X" are mentions, not uses. Such phrasing may help reassure us of the meaning, but does not help meet WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

While I agree that the 1952 cite is mentiony, the 1881 quote is a use. It talks about the bird, then names it, the gustarf, before even mentioning any other names. Khemehekis (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


"A way of thinking in which one is basically pessimistic, but manages to use it to one's advantage." Equinox 23:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I think some are typos for "pessimism". Look at the actual meaning of the 1982 cite, for instance: it's saying nobody need feel negative because things are good. Equinox 12:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Given the proposed senses, it is incredibly difficult to tell which cites actually support them. 1982 and 1943 seem to be clear typos, and many others are suggestive of that; certainly none of them gloss the very rare and unexpected word, if it actually exists. 1978 is odd because it also uses "possionate" in the next sentence; there is clearly some kind of affectation or continued mistake being made there. I would consider this not cited, and by looking at BGC, I don't see how it can be. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

April 2018Edit


We have a sense "(obsolete) At the time that; when.", but it's only backed up from a quote from Malory, 1485, which is technical Middle English (pre-1500), and more importantly says "Than the knyght sawe hym lye soo on the ground," not then.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Pretty common in Middle English, but AFAICT doesn't seem to have survived past the 15th century. Ƿidsiþ 08:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


I just seem to find a trademark called Understitial Ad® and a lot of hits in German. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a lot on google news about undersitial ads, which seem to be adds on a cell phone in the analogous region. Kiwima (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, but do you understand the current definition cause I'm struggling with it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
You know how some pieces of furniture sit solidly on the ground (as opposed to on legs), but after a short rise of about the height of a skirting board (base board), stick out into the room a bit more? It is that small indentation before it sticks out. Kiwima (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Kiwima! It was the OP's defintion I didn't understand, but Equinox (and you of course) made the entry perfectly clear. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


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)


Without eyebrows. DTLHS (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I have added two cites to the citations page, but we still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I tried ... apart from the New Sydenham Society Lexicon, nothing. Alas, "to seek is not always to find" - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


Adverb: "very". If this is AAVE or US usage, needs to be glossed appropriately too. Equinox 11:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Searching Usenet, I found a tweet here. Is this durably archived? Khemehekis (talk) 04:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


Google searches don't seem to support a CFI-compliant adjective, let alone a noun. Equinox 10:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I've added one citation from PLOS ONE (can't find any others). It could well be an adjective though. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

OTOH dasyphyllus is a fairly common specific epithet. DCDuring (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
MW actually has two meanings: "having leaves thick or thickly set" and "having woolly leaves". DCDuring (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


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)

May 2018Edit


A type of sports bet. No Google Web hits for "a T-Play" bet. Equinox 18:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This is painfully hard to search for, for technical reasons. When I type in "t play", I get contractions like don't or can't, followed by play. Khemehekis (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
As you probably know, one strategy is to eliminate those by adding e.g. -can -don to your search, but yes, still a pain, since that might eliminate legitimate matches with can etc. elsewhere on the page. Equinox 20:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


"Used as a gender-neutral suffix as an alternative to -ter or -tress". The only example given is waitron, but that entry doesn't mention -tron, mentioning patron as the origin instead. Equinox 18:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

In waitron, the suffix seems like -ron, anyway: we don't have English entries for -ter or -tress, only -er and -ress (and -ess). Merriam-Webster does claim waitron uses -tron, saying it is suggestive of "the machinelike impersonality of waiting tables", but they then link it to neutron, which strikes me as fanciful at best. Paul McFedries, Word Spy: The Word Lover's Guide to Modern Culture (2004, →ISBN) agrees that the suffix, to the extent it exists, is -ron, claiming to know of examples of seamstron, actron and laundron from 1992. I find a citation from 1995, Citations:laundron. Other sites also mention actron as a derivation of -tron or -ron, but when I try searching for it or "huntron", brand names crowd out any valid hits there might be. "Dominatron" is too often a scanno to find anything useful. - -sche (discuss) 05:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
DCDuring opined once that three citations of words using a suffix could be enough to verify it (as distinct from three attested words using the suffix, which would take three citations each, nine total). If I could find a citation of another of the words mentioned above, I'd suggest moving this to -ron, but as it is, I can only find waitron and the one citation of laundron. The latter does seem to confirm that it's not -tron, but the citation could mean something more like "mechanical laundry-machine" rather than "gender-neutral laundry-doer" (it can be hard to distinguish from just a snippet!), compare the two different senses of waitron. - -sche (discuss) 20:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


Just some short-term meme? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I can find quotes spanning from at least as early as 2016 to as recent as three hours ago -- but not on durably archived sources. We have no good durably archived sources for this type of internet slang. Kiwima (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Usenet produces nothing. Khemehekis (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
This is one of those terms that is often used is some online communities, but hasn't had mainstream use yet. Google finds 129 thousand results, but they are mostly from internet forums and nothing from reliable sources. Amin (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


Need uses, not mentions of a word that was coined to translate a Chinese term. DTLHS (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Usenet has 118 hits, but every godsforsaken one of them is in Chinese! Khemehekis (talk) 04:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
The definition, in case the entry gets deleted, was "smiling without saying anything", a blend of smile and silence. - -sche (discuss) 17:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "The quality of being cancerous."

I can't make sense out of how this would be used and can't find this definition in OneLook dictionaries. I'm not even sure how to find an unambiguous indication that a use of cancer is in this rather than another sense. ???"That nasty meme has cancer". ???"That growth has cancer." DCDuring (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Even "that growth has cancer" could plausibly/probably be using the usual sense (meaning the same as "...has cancer in it"). Introduced in diff; looks like a misunderstanding. - -sche (discuss) 21:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@AltHypeFan, can you give an example sentence to illustrate what you were thinking when you added this? That would greatly help in the search for supporting citations. Kiwima (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's something like "this game is cancer" (= this game is very bad)- modern slang. DTLHS (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Is it an adjective? If it means "very bad", that is distinct new sense, which would eliminate the need for meeting the more rigorous of the grammatical tests for adjectivity. But the definition would need to be changed to something like "very bad". DCDuring (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's still intended as a noun (grammatically comparable to "this feeling is dejection"; compare "this post gave me cancer"). It's using an even-more-generalized sense of cancer than the one we currently have. - -sche (discuss) 19:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "Outstanding stupidity"

Not in a OneLook reference. Can we find citations that unambiguously support this definition? DCDuring (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

AltHypeFan's block has expired. They should be around to defend this definition by now. Khemehekis (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
It is 4chan slang, basically a synonym of "obsessive pedantry/attention to detail" or "anal-retentiveness". I feel as though the other existing senses cover it. Equinox 20:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "forward". I only found results for "four-wheel drive". – Einstein2 (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Texting abbreviations like this are almost impossible to find on durably archived sources. Kiwima (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

lygophilia Edit

Only in dictionaries. DTLHS (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I added two cites to the citations page, but cannot find a third use. Almost thought I found one, but it was an example sentence in a silly review of a dictionary of psychological words. Kiwima (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
@Kiwima: I added a third citation, although it's an odd duck. You can view it with a free library card. The silly review you refer to is probably this one ("she gave him a diagnosis of anxiety disorder and insisted that he was suffering from lygophilia.") Alexis Jazz (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Yes, that's my silly review. The ebook for the cite you added is currently on loan, so I couldn't view it. Kiwima (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Kiwima: oops, I didn't realize that's how it works. (makes sense now that I think about it actually..) I returned the book. Alexis Jazz (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


Can't find this in English. DTLHS (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I can find no evidence for this definition, but I added two cites for a different meaning to the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
This word is also an older variant of a Scottish word, knewel which means "wooden [cross]pin at the end of a halter for holding by, securing toggle passing through the ring of a tethering rope or chain". The Dutch word meaning "moustache" is apparently a special adaptation of this in the sense of "handlebar" (short for knevelbaard) Leasnam (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
...In effect, yeah, I cannot find anything with the current definition either :) Leasnam (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

orrorrhœa Edit

"Unhealthy increase belonging to secretion of serum; liquid discharge." (Does that mean it's an increase in the secretion of serum?) Dunglison's medical dictionary is referenced. Nowt in Google Books. Equinox 18:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

"Orrorrhoea" is listed under "Local Diseases" here. The alternative spelling "orrhorrhea" occurs here: "part, the polymorphic skin lesion, orrhorrhea and frequent recurrences". Khemehekis (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


Squirrel. DTLHS (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@DTLHS: Please check (first and last probably refer to the same, but the word seems to have existed) Alexis Jazz (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The 1913 quotation is a mere mention. As for the other two, they look like Middle English rather than modern English. (MED Online indicates that ōc-querne means "the fur of a squirrel", not "a squirrel". Variant spellings are aquerne, aquierne and okerne.) — SGconlaw (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Sgconlaw: It's (as far as I can tell) indeed not modern English. I don't know if English Wiktionary also covers Middle English? Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the English Wikipedia (theoretically) covers all languages. However, the main header for the entry would have to be changed from "English" to "Middle English", which is treated as a different language from modern English. For examples of such entries, see "Category:Middle English nouns". — SGconlaw (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Sgconlaw: that should be done, but I don't know if we can just change it or should add an entry for that and remove the current entry with this RfV. Are the requirements for that the same? It seems fairly obvious the Middle English word for "squirrel" would have been used in more than 3 books back then, but we may or may not have online access to any of those. Alexis Jazz (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Sgconlaw: I misread, acquerne is not the same as aquerne. Alexis Jazz (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: sorry, I'm not following what you mean. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@Sgconlaw: I would expect that the Middle English word for "squirrel" would have appeared more than 3 times in books, but that word may be aquerne and not acquerne. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, the 1898 and 1920 citations seem to be quoting the same Middle English passage. - -sche (discuss) 14:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Yup. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, I believe the normal word for squirrel in ME was squirrel (obviously spelt differently). "Acquerne" may have meant something slightly different – the Dictionary of Middle English defines it as "the fur of a squirrel" (in the same way, perhaps, that otter once meant "the fur of an otter"). Ƿidsiþ 04:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


Seems like a product name or neologism. I highly doubt this is a genericized name. Cannot find any references in literature. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 19:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything either. There's a Chinese Wikipedia article with the title 髒剋. DTLHS (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
An English Wikipedia article seems to never have existed, I'd assume it would get shot down at AFD if it existed. How the Chinese entry has persisted for so long is a little surprising, maybe they were more of a hit over there? SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 20:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Did you check the links of the Chinese Wikipedia article? --Hekaheka (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
All of them are either from the company that makes them or someone reselling them. Any other use is in uppercase (and even some on the site itself!) SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 21:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


Supposedly a poetic contraction of "good"; but that's already a monosyllable, so I don't see why this would be used. Equinox 01:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the idea is that its a clitic that attaches to vowel-initial or d- initial words, making it a 0-syllable--for example good + day = g'day. But this entry doesn't mention d-initial words, I can't find any uses of it that are with vowel-initial. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
What other English clitic consists of a CVC-shaped word with the vowel removed? What is the standard for comparison? Equinox 20:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't know of any, which is why I'm sceptical of this entry. That was just my guess at the reasoning behind it. The g' in g'day isn't a CVC-type clitic really, as its functioning more like a contraction of "goo' day", with the d eclipsed by the following word.
In short, I agree with you, and I can't find any evidence of this existing as a lemma, especially one in poetic use. I can only find it in mock-transcriptions of accents, (such as the following [2], [3],[4]). But those probably support an entry for g'd evening specifically (much like g'night) than a separate entry for "g'd"--there isn't an entry for g' either. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

septifolious Edit

Found one use. DTLHS (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

luck out Edit

Rfv-sense for supposed British definition. There are cites for the "good luck" version. --Superiority (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. I searched for a few permutations in Google Books (with "unfortunately", "London", etc.) but no luck. I did spot this on the Facebook page of a New Zealand band [5]: "Evening legends! Unfortunately we lucked out on playing ACL AKL, but just wanted to thank you all for the love & support! Means a lot". Equinox 19:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
According to this (you need to scroll down to the bottom):
luck out
1. To be very unlucky; be doomed (WWII Army)
2. To be lucky; get something by good luck : that he will luck out after his search and create operation (1954+)
[one of the slang expressions that can mean opposite things]
There is also a discussion of this issue at Mihia (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
... and as far as the supposed BrE distinction goes, I rather tend to agree with one of the posters at that forum who suggests that "luck out" is hardly used in BrE, but BrE speakers would take a guess at what it might mean, and would normally guess the opposite of what AmE speakers use it to mean. I think that applies in my case anyway. Mihia (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


Abbreviation of pull-you-round traction engine: I can find a limited amount of stuff on the Web, but nothing in Books or on Usenet. That expanded entry probably also won't pass CFI (I too hastily created it as an expansion of the initialism, before noticing the CFI issue). Equinox 20:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


Added one citation. DTLHS (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I did some research and discovered that cataglottism was the proper form of the word. It's a nonexistent entry, which had only two citations on its citation page, but I found and added a third citation. Perhaps the entry can be created now. Khemehekis (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

candlewasting Edit

The quotation in the entry, including in other editions I found, hyphenates the term; I can find no examples of this unhyphenated form. Whether the term should be deleted or moved hinges, I suppose, on how SOP "candle-wasting" is felt to be. - -sche (discuss) 18:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I found one cite with no hyphen (on the citations page), but it is a noun, not an adjective. Kiwima (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


Seemingly only in dictionaries. DTLHS (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@DTLHS It's in the OED where there are some attestations not from dictionaries. 2WR1 (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I have added two cites to the citations page. One is, yes, a dictionary, but it is still a use rather than a mention, as it is part of the definition of another word. Kiwima (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

strickenthrough Edit

Unhyphenated form. DTLHS (talk) 04:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

in the safe Edit

Is this a regionalism? It's quite difficult to search for. (This feels like it might be one example of a predictable pattern of in the + adj phrases which might not merit its own entry, but I am struggling to think of other examples, and in any case that would be a matter for a separate RFD discussion.) This, that and the other (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

in the pink? in the black? in the right? in the wrong? in the nude? Khemehekis (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The last three are what I was thinking of. The first two are restricted to particular senses of the adjective, so not quite what I had in mind. This, that and the other (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The entry is simply nonsense. The given citation is talking about replacing papers in a literal safe/strongbox! Equinox 23:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Heh, I didn't look at the citation. You're absolutely right! This, that and the other (talk) 04:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


All I see are scannos of cancellation. DTLHS (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

decretage Edit

A surrealist art technique; seemingly deleted from Wikipedia. Equinox 15:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I did a little digging on Daniel C. Boyer and discovered that he has quite the history at Wikipedia of adding COI material. Turns out he used to have a Wikipedia article despite being non-notable. Khemehekis (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Wow, and this has been here since 2003. Good find. - -sche (discuss) 16:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "ante era vulgaris". The Latin is terribly wrong, and it seems this is a misinterpretation of actual use in Italian (as a.e.v. or a.E.V.). Is there any use in English? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


Is this attested in modern English? - -sche (discuss) 16:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Edna Rees Williams, in The Conflict of Homonyms in English (1944), page 100, says it is not:

  • OE swīᵹan 'to be silent' became ME swīᵹe, swie [MED: swīen], by normal phonetic development, by the year 1200. Middle English had, in consequence, in the 13th century two verbs identical in sound, one meaning 'to make a noise, to resound,' the other 'to be silent.' Confusion was, obviously, unavoidable between them so long as both remained in the language. Swie 'to be silent' became obsolete almost immediately, except possibly in one dialect survival. Swie forms of swēȝan [MED: sweien] 'to make a noise' vanished; swei(e forms survived. But they did not survive into Modern Standard English.

- -sche (discuss) 00:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I haven't find anything in the English Dialect Dictionary that looks like a dialectal survival of this verb (the EDD sometimes has citations or pointers to other spellings, which can be helpful). It does mention swig (a card game in which all players must remain silent) as a possible relative, and swech (verb) as a possible 'survival' of the other ("resound") sweien, both already obsolete in Wright's day. - -sche (discuss) 00:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't the two senses ("be quiet" and "shut up") be merged? Same thing. Equinox 18:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Is it used transitively? DCDuring (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
If this is kept in Modern English, a note should be added that it's a homophone of swai. Khemehekis (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


Cites given are mentions. DTLHS (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes. I couldn't find any natural usages. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I could, but mostly not on permanently archived sources. I added two cites to the citations page, but although I found some better ones as well, such as this, but they were not on permanently archived sources. Kiwima (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense - "archaic form of fire". I only found "Scot variant spellings of fere". --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018Edit


One "Zo Youth Organization" in India, Myanmar and the USA. Equinox 16:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

With every edit I'm less convinced the editor adding all this Zo-related stuff is here to build a dictionary. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 15:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Sure they are- a dictionary of Zo-related stuff... Chuck Entz (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "(derogatory) the German language". I found one citation that is probably this sense, but everything else I see looks like the preceding sense, "the language (ideological jargon) of Nazis". - -sche (discuss) 00:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Ha, I bet I can guess who added that! Mulder in The X-Files (episode "Triangle") did once say "I don't speak Nazi": he was talking to a Nazi but presumably referring to German and not jargon. Equinox 18:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
There is a (somewhat) common phrase "I don't speak X" used when one wants to imply that one doesn't care about what a person is saying due to the class of person they are/represent. I have also heard that formation used when someone is using excessive jargon. I have heard "I don't speak moron", "I don't speak fascist", "I don't speak cop", etc. This might be an instance of that. - TheDaveRoss 00:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


Abbr of "'tis true". I assume it's Internet slang, though the entry doesn't say. I've never come across this and I spent an unholy amount of time around chat rooms in the late '90s/early '00s. Can't find evidence in Google Web search either. Equinox 18:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


LGBT slang: used by (some) gay men to address each other. I've seen it around social media a lot but can't find any good cites. Might be a usage notes thing rather than a sense, idk. [6] [7] [8]Julia (talk• formerly Gormflaith • 19:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't they use "bitch" too? It seems more a general usage practice (referring to gay men as though they were female) and less a property of this particular word. Equinox 23:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I've only really heard "girl", but I'm not a gay man. I think it might fall into the class of "gendered" terms (e.g. dude, bro, bitch, guy, etc.) have become more gender-neutral. But, the perceived gender (or lack thereof) depends on the context, like the use of girl. Should these all be in usage notes? Or considered a "sarcastic" usage? – Julia (talk• formerly Gormflaith • 02:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Other female-coded words that gay men may use for each other: babe, honey, girlfriend. Our girl entry doesn't mention "used by gay people to address each other" either in a sense or in the usage notes. Appendix:Cultural pragmatics?? Equinox 16:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking about this this morning. I agree that it's more of a cultural thing. Some other things like this that I was pondering:
  • noun → verb zero derivation: Like weird 20-somethings saying "omg I can't even adult!!!" (= "I don't know how to be an adult")
  • (idk what the ling term for this is): Do you like him or do you like like him?
  • reclaiming slurs (though this might be for usage notes)
  • (usually older women) calling everyone "honey", "darling", etc. in the South, but it would be weird in the North (US)
Ideally an appendix might be good but I think it'd be hard to make. And might be beyond the scope of an online dictionary. – Julia • formerly Gormflaith • 17:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
"Do you LIKE-like him" is contrastive focus reduplication. (But we have an entry for "like like", lol.) Equinox 17:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Oops. But it can be used with almost anything. party vs party party = lowkey party vs big house party / jacket vs jacket jacket = quarter zip vs winter coat. "like like" might be more idiomatic tho. I feel like this is like Category:English elongated forms, which I think is pointless but whatever. – Julia • formerly Gormflaith • 17:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
This does seem like it may be a general practice of (jocularly/affectionately) referring to other gay men as if they are female, since so many other terms in the same vein are also used, as Equinox notes, up to and including the "gay she" (which might deserve an entry like royal we)—referring to other gay men with "she"/"her" pronouns. Compare Wiktionary:Tea_room/2015/February#girl, about derogatory references to boys/men as "girls" e.g. by drill sergeants. However, it might be useful to add an interjection sense, defined somewhat like dude but with the note that it refers especially to a woman rather than especially to a man, to cover things like "girl! I love your hair!" etc (spoken to women, gay men, etc). - -sche (discuss) 17:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, for some reason girl is on my watchlist and I saw you add the discussion to the talk page. Which inspired this RFV thing. I think the interjection usage notes should be there, but then again, we'd have to add it to every word with this property. And speaking of "gay she", "he/him lesbians" are a thing too apparently, but it might just be within Tumblr, lol. – Julia • formerly Gormflaith • 18:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Bi men also use this, as do other flavours of LGBTQ generally in my experience. It's just sorta camp I guess, not specifically gay. I somewhat frequently use it to refer to my heterosexual male friends. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 22:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
At the risk of straying overly far from the original topic, this reminds me that gay has a broad sense by which it's synonymous with queer, and historically even with LGBT-including-the-T, which I've been trying to find enough citations of for a while, if anyone wants to help. It's just...difficult to find citations that can't be interpreted as the now-more-common sense. - -sche (discuss) 23:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


"Anything that is performed in parts, spread over time." Not the preceding sense ("A part of a broadcast or published serial"): this challenged sense appears to refer to the entire series. Might just be an error...? Equinox 23:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

ultime avertissementEdit

All occurrences are in italics, and the last four quotes are rather mention-y. I think it's still French. --Per utramque cavernam 15:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


Collective noun for pandas. If nonstandard/humorous/etc., please gloss. Equinox 22:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

resiliate Edit

Rfv-sense: To make resilient. DTLHS (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Are you sure the quotes you've gathered pertain to that sense/to a single sense? I'm having a hard time making sense of them. Per utramque cavernam 20:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I echo Per utramque cavernam's concerns -- at least one of the provided citations seems instead to demonstrate a sense of resonate, resonate with, while the others are largely incomprehensible. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 20:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree that "to make resilient" may be off - they all seem to have the same meaning if you go to the sources, and that meaning seems to be along the lines of strengthen in the sense of providing additional support for. Kiwima (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
It's still not very clear to me. @Wikitiki89, I think the literature involved might be somewhat up your alley. Are you able to make sense of the recent quotes? Per utramque cavernam 12:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
In the last three quotes, I think it might mean something like "to prop up, to support, to underline, to elate", etc. Per utramque cavernam 12:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Whoops, that's what Kiwima said above, sorry. Per utramque cavernam 17:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
To be honest, that book (assuming you're referring to Jerusalem {Resiliating Jerusalem} and Athens‎) seems like a bunch of jumbled garbage that doesn't make any sense to me at all. I have no idea what resliate means in it. But also note that the word reslient does not appear in it at all. --WikiTiki89 14:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Mh, yes, I've had the same impression when skimming it through. I don't know what we should do then. descriptivism, yes, but I don't see the point of describing mumbo-jumbo. Per utramque cavernam 17:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
The 1763 quotation seems to be using a verb derived from resiliō (spring back, rebound), indicating that the rays bounce back. Phrases like "resonations and resiliations" (in other works) confirm my suspicion that it is in the same conceptual area as resonant, from Latin re-sonō ("again-sound"), but apparently with regard to something other than sound. The 2006 book nowhere uses resilient, but uses resiliation in phrases like "[x is] resiliation back to [y]", seemingly in the sense of "x is a reference back to y / is harkening or calling back to y"; 2008 and 2014 are probably using the same resiliation-related sense. - -sche (discuss) 21:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Resiliation is also attested in the sense of cancellation, with regard to contracts. It is possible that the exegesis-related sense is the same, although "[x is] cancellation back to [y]" would be weird phrasing. - -sche (discuss) 21:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
So, the contract sense is cited, the "make resilient" sense is totally uncited, the exegesis-related sense is cited but defined only by reference to resiliation which in turn only currently has the contract-law sense (so, it still needs work, but could be moved from RFV to RFC). The "bounce back" sense could use a couple more citations, if any exist. - -sche (discuss) 21:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I found one cite for the "make resilient" sense, but it looks to me as if it considers itself a protoneologism, and as someone has already deleted this sense, I have simply added it to the citations page. The Other meanings are now all cited. Kiwima (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe this is now cited Kiwima (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@Kiwima, -sche: thanks. Shouldn't we add some labels? All of this looks obsolete or nonstandard. Per utramque cavernam 07:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to you and Kiwima, too—between the lot of us, we've managed to take a mass of confusing citations and suss three senses out of them! The "rebound" sense seems like a literary borrowing of the Latin verb and its sense. "Reecho" is an extension of that, although I'm not sure whether it's "literary" or "nonstandard". "Make resilient" seems nonstandard; some of the authors using it seem to question it or to possibly be non-native speakers. - -sche (discuss) 08:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


Misspelling of statutory; nothing on GB. User:Gilgamesh~enwiktionary userpage has lots of interesting respellings, but I suspect most of these aren't attestable and/or sufficiently common to deserve an entry. --Per utramque cavernam 14:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


Attested in modern English? If not, move to Middle English? - -sche (discuss) 02:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Or possibly move to Scots Leasnam (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


Does not seem to meet CFI as a misspelling of starboard. Might be attested with a more star- and/or bird-related meaning. - -sche (discuss) 02:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


- -sche (discuss) 02:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

As the author, I cannot today find any reference to this words outside of a mention located here [[9]] (which is barely viewable). I am deleting the entry. Leasnam (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


This does seem to be attestable as a 'dialect' spelling... but of little (which we could cover in a manner similer to ze), not riddle. - -sche (discuss) 06:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


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)


Rfv-sense: "An academic course in quantum physics". How would this be used in a sentence? "I studied a quantum at college"? Or was the author aiming for something like "I failed my quantum exam"? That latter case would surely be a simple, unremarkable abbreviation of the full title of the course, wouldn't it? This, that and the other (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

More probably it's intended as uncountable ("I studied quantum" - not heard it myself though); however it's true that the entry's en-noun template doesn't show uncountability at present. Equinox 22:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Even that just seems like shortening of "quantum mechanics", "quantum physics", and also seems like it should be defined as those terms directly, not as an academic course. - -sche (discuss) 23:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "to use as a recreational drug". – Jberkel 13:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


"Something transparent or diaphanous" - distinct from sense 2 (a type of fabric). If this fails, it may be necessary to remove the plural diaphanes and make the entry uncountable. Note that Google Books finds various discussion about "diaphanes", something in Aristotelian philosophy possibly, but this appears to be its own Greek word (not a plural of an English "diaphane"). Equinox 22:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


To discourage. (If kept, consider glossing as obsolete, which I assume it would be.) Equinox 22:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I found one cite...pretty recent...however, it seems to mean just the opposite (i.e. it's an antonym of "discourage") Leasnam (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I was wondering about that... it's more consistent with the prefix be- to impart courage than remove it. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Counterexample: behead. Khemehekis (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah, good point. Also belimb and besleeve. That said, though, the overwhelming majority of be- verbs are in the more/towards/with/adding categories. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)



Batavocentrism, batavocentrismEdit

I did a very cursory look and couldn't find three durable citations, but they may be out there. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be attestable in Dutch either. – Julia • formerly Gormflaith • 15:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Nor French or Portuguese, as far as I can find, which the creator put in as translations. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
No word anything like it (apart from Batavia and Batavian) in the OED. Sounds reasonable, but looks like a protologism to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Nothing on Usenet. Khemehekis (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


I was torn between sending this to RFV or RFD, but I don't think I will take the role of an arbiter of everything concerning WT:CFI. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 17:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a meme, it appears, originating with the rapper Lil Pump. There are also a lot of mentions of it (mostly explaining its origins), but I haven't found any durable citations yet. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Usenet contains only one post with this word; apparently "esketit" is somebody's signature in that post. Khemehekis (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The creator of this entry has now also created esskeetit, which seems like an alt form. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 21:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "to be hit by the vegetable". Citation is a pun, joke entry? – Jberkel 12:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be reworded in the active voice: "To hit someone with a squash (or other vegetable???)" Otherwise, we could delete it because we won't find much attestation for the passive wording.
As this is a trivial kind of conversion of a noun definition to a verb definition, I wouldn't lift a finger to verify it. DCDuring (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm pumpkinned. – Jberkel 05:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


Collective noun for goldfinch. Mainly/only in word lists? Equinox 18:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I see that can also refer to finches in general, not just goldfinches, and has an alternative form in charm Leasnam (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


Specifically this single-word, unhyphenated form. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)



Needs one more citation. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Kiwima Thank you!

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Mozarkite Edit

Really? A rock in uppercase? Probably, yes, in fact. But would that make it a proper noun? --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


Sense 2: computing slang: "A co-worker who does not deliver a useful contribution." This is from Eric Raymond's New Hacker's Dictionary, which has quite a number of otherwise unattested terms and/or protologisms. Equinox 18:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


The only citation is a single Facebook post, and I'm skeptical about the durability of this term. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Oddly, I see the IPA given as /cɪlf/. /c/ doesn't look like any English phoneme I know. What's /c/ in the IPA? Khemehekis (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that IPA transcription is definitely wrong. /c/ doesn't occur in any "standard" versions of English that I know of--it's an unvoiced palatal stop, which is more or less halfway between /t/ and /k/. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Usenet pulls up "Cartoon(s) I'd like to fuck", but not "corpse I'd like to fuck". Khemehekis (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed something. The timestamp given to the alleged Facebook post is September 9, 2018, which is still in the future. Either we have a time traveler on Wiktionary, or we're being had. Khemehekis (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
>.< I can't believe I missed that. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
This is obviously bullshit, deleted. DTLHS (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to strike this one as resolved. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


1859 and 2004 are eye dialect for "lonesome". 2011 might work, but it's in a poem, where the context is unclear and the word may well be a nonce. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 11:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


Noun sense, "a gatekeeper". This is plausible, in line with barkeep, but I can't find evidence of it. - -sche (discuss) 20:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Cited. DTLHS (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Sorry for not searching long enough to find those myself. I did check through a couple pages of the singular and plural with "a" and "the", but only spotted the verb and line-broken instances of "gatekeep- er" (and a text about Hittite rules for when bodyguards need to go pee). I'm losing my RFV skills! 😳 - -sche (discuss) 21:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


Can't find enough quotes, and I amn't sure I understand the one I've put there. Per utramque cavernam 13:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)



The entry ‘womansplaining’ cites no attestations. It seems to have been added out of a perceived need for there to be a counterpart to ‘mansplaining’, but I can’t find any evidence that the word is actually used anywhere. Sephistication (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Is the bug where show/hide buttons don't display happening again? Because the entry has quotations (although the ones sourced to e.g. the Mail Online are of dubious "durability"), visible if you click the "[quotations ▼]" button. - -sche (discuss) 18:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems to have five quotations, but they only cover two years - we need another from outside that time frame. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Or do you mean to RFV "womansplain" (I've added a subheader for that entry, and links to both, especially to help with the eventual aWa-archiving on this section), which indeed has no citations in the entry? (It has two, of unclear "durability", on its Citations: page.) Incidentally, its definition should possibly be brought more into line with the noun's. - -sche (discuss) 18:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Womansplain is cited (I found a cite for the past participle on Usenet). Still need a later cite for womansplaining. Khemehekis (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

vintage carEdit

"A motor car that was built between the years 1919 and 1930." Extremely specific definition, what evidence is there for it? DTLHS (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems at least somewhat established as a definition. These aren't durably cited, but they're related. [10] [11], [12]. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
That's my understanding of the term. If I can find time, I'll look for verification. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
It may be more of a British definition than an American one. Added one ref. DonnanZ (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


An anon thinks that this is "not a real word". It is not in the OED. Could someone provide evidence? SemperBlotto (talk) 09:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

At least one of the senses is heavily cited. Is that not evidence enough ? Leasnam (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd actually even argue that the citation given under sense 2 belongs under sense 1: "where such hell-whisperers shrithe in their wanderings" seems to me to talk about them wandering in a sneaking and creeping way. Otherwise, it would essentially be "where such hell-whisperers wander in their wanderings", which doesn't make sense. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
So is this an RFV on sense 2 only? It's possible that the quotation currently under that sense could be an instance of sense 1, but on the other hand if you rephrase the last part as "where such hell-whisperers roam about in their wanderings" it seems to make perfect sense. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
As Leasnam pointed out, the citations for sense one are clear--the second sense is the one to question. The line from Beowolf originally is "hwyder helrúnan hwyrftum scríþað". I was looking at other renderings of this line into modern English, and so far I've found this word rendered as "slink", "wander and ramble", "roam", and "follow"--so your point is well-made. But the word itself in OE is ambiguous, and at this point so is the ModE descendant used in this manner. The question at this point is whether there are clear attestations for the ModE word being used in sense 2 in addition to this ambiguous citation. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Possibly, but *strīdaną meant more than simply "to fight" also meant "to be stiff, strut, step up to" Leasnam (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

gold bridgeEdit

"An escape route". Equinox 19:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


"The picture or animation that a website features centrally on its front page." This is only Google's "Google Doodle", isn't it, not a generic Internet term? Equinox 20:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


Chuck Entz (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "(slang, vulgar, of a female) To stimulate one's clitoris.". I find:

  • 2017, Gemma Stone, The Sessions, Pink Flamingo Media (→ISBN)
    ... he asked me to masturbate while he watched. (...) “Did he let you come when you clitted off?”
  • 2010, Nicholson Baker, Room Temperature, Grove/Atlantic, Inc. (→ISBN)
    ... and then fell back on the bed and clitted her yum-stump to a box-spring-deep pelvis-lifter of what Patty called an “organasm”?

Google Search-ing "clitted her" gives two websites, where clit occurs transitively (taking the clitoris (either subject's or other's) as object): [13], [14].__Gamren (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

gender ideologyEdit

  1. (pejorative) gender identity
  2. (pejorative) Pejorative term for gender mainstreaming , gender studies and other beliefs that recognise personal gender identity.

gender ideology is a offensive term which is used by transphobic people. I think second definition is more accurate. But User:Metaknowledge argued that it seems politically charged --Sharouser (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we should second definition with some modification --Sharouser (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the expansion was a move in the right direction, to the extent the term is idiomatic at all, but I'm not convinced it is [idiomatic]. There's a spectrum of use, a lot of which is clearly just "any ideology relating to gender", as in the books Victorian Gender Ideology and Literature and Revealing Reveiling: Islamist Gender Ideology in Contemporary Egypt, and the 2006 Handbook of Gender in Archaeology speaking of "second-wave structuralist construction of household spaces as universally conforming to the elite gender ideology of fixed mutually exclusive male versus female"; the latter especially refer to an ideology that usually doesn't recognize gender identity. Is Western "conservative" use of it to refer to a "liberal" view (which actually a rather traditional view in several societies...) of gender not just the same term, "ideology relating the gender"? (I'm sceptical that a sense "gender identity" could be attested in a way that couldn't just be the broader / more SOP sense.) Pejorativeness seems to derive from users' attitudes to the referent concept and their claim it is an "ideology", compare e.g. "racial ideology" (similarly often used by people who take a negative view, but seemingly WT:SOP). - -sche (discuss) 14:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Pallet TownEdit

Equinox 17:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Nothing on Google Books. When I search "the Pallet Town of" (which is the alleged use of the term) on Google Search, only instances that specifically apply to Pokemon games or Pokemon Go come up. Things like "town X is the Pallet Town of New York", with reference to playing Pokemon Go, which don't meet WT:FICTION. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Speedied. Added by a known vandal who likes to play mind games with patrollers- including bogus content. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 20:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)