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”

Templates:

Shortcut:

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


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)

September 2017Edit

carneyEdit

Rfv-sense of the horse disease. The definition is taken from old dictionaries (17th c. etc.), but it's not very easy to attest because of the surname. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems like it might be a dictionary-only term. OED only has one quotation (which is a mention anyway, not a usage, so no good for us) from Phillips' The New World of English Words (1678), and then mentions Bailey's An Universal Etymological English Dictionary (1721) and the 1753 supplement to Chambers' Cyclopædia but they will again just be definitions rather than uses. BigDom 06:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I found one citation in books. One needs to add a lot of additional terms to exclude at least some of the hits for the name "Carney". I tried "tongue", "furred|coated", "horse|equine" "disease|pathology" in various combinations at Books, Scholar, Groups, and News. I also tried volume 1 of Frederic G. Cassidy, Dictionary of American Regional English, Volume I, A-C. Harvard University Press, 1985. →ISBN.. Perhaps DARE's 6th volume or the online version would have it. DCDuring (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Good find! I had another look but couldn't find anything more than the one you have. BigDom 08:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I wonder whether there is some Latin, Spanish, or French from which this is derived in a Hobson-Jobson way. DCDuring (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
There's also one appearance in this strange, self-published book that probably doesn't qualify. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if this is an alternate form of Carney syndrome? From what I am reading, it can occur in horses as well as humans, and one dictionary describing the horse disease says it is due to a type of tumor. Kiwima (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

J. Aidan Carney would have to be a time traveler. He was born in 1934, whereas the horse definition is quoted from 1678. Khemehekis (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

October 2017Edit

tharfEdit

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

xennagramEdit

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

wheelbenchEdit

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)

audioEdit

I am not certain that this is an adjective, I suspect it is a noun modifier, unlike the prefix audio- which is quite legitimate. DonnanZ (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  • It functions as a noun adjunct (therefore still classified as an adjective in cases such as "audio recording"). See here. Ozelot911 (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but you could rephrase that as a "recording of audio". DonnanZ (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Right. We don't include ===Adjective=== headers for nouns used attributively. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I have added a number of cites that look adjectival in their use. I am calling this cited Kiwima (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

You can try your hardest with the quotes, but it still doesn't make it an adjective. I think you misread some of them. DonnanZ (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I do not agree with classifying the attributive use of nouns (adjunct nouns) as nouns-proper; I do find that they should be classified as adjectives due to their usage/sense as such. The actual sense in which a word is used alters its word-class entirely, in this case Noun → Adjective. However, the Wiktionary appendix entry on Attributive Nouns in English (see my above comment), defines that 1.) most nouns can, in fact, take an attributive position. This would mean that if we include an Adjective section for this word we would need to include such an Adjective sense on a vast number of Noun entries, which I would argue against due to the subjective nature of the matter. And 2.) that, bureaucratically speaking, such Nouns being used attributively are still classified as Nouns (at least as a matter of proxy-policy on-Wiki), therefore as mentioned prior, the most suitable option would be to systematically incorporate the Adjective definitions into the Noun sense definitions in some way. I don't agree that they remain nouns when used attributively, but quasi-policy states otherwise, so unless that is altered to reflect that opinion, the policial definition that they are still classified as noun must be adhered to. Ozelot911 (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the quotes do not all support their senses. "I'm very audio, so I hear words." is clearly not supporting the sense given — it is for a different adjectival sense, something like "preferring or thinking in terms of sound". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
On the general point raised by Ozelot911, I am very strongly opposed to creating separate adjective definitions for all of the vast numbers of nouns that can be used attributively. Mihia (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Have you looked at the quotes? The question here is not about attributive use of the noun, but whether there is a true adjectival use here. Nobody here is suggesting we keep attributive uses of nouns. "I'm very audio" is NOT an attributive use of a noun. Kiwima (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Have you even read what I wrote? Mihia (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes. You said you are strongly opposed to creating separate adjective definitions for attributive nouns. So am I. I am trying to determine if there is something more than that going on in this case, so your saying that here seems like a non sequitor at best. Kiwima (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I believe I was clear in saying that I was responding to Ozelot911's general point, i.e. "I do not agree with classifying the attributive use of nouns (adjunct nouns) as nouns-proper; I do find that they should be classified as adjectives due to their usage/sense as such.", etc. I understood this as suggesting that because, for example, the word "school" can be used attributively in a phrase like "school uniform" or whatever, we should have a separate adjectival entry for "school" reading something like "of or pertaining to a school", and similarly for thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of other nouns. This is what I disagree with. Mihia (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

December 2017Edit

sonimodEdit

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

UTAEdit

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/70.52.11.217 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. -- 70.52.11.217 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. -- 70.52.11.217 07:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

-- 70.52.11.217 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)

KITEdit

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. -- 70.52.11.217 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)
HAM–KIT–7:30 PM

-- 70.52.11.217 07:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018Edit

al-Edit

ac-Edit

ag-Edit

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)

tootEdit

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, opendemocracy.net and southerfriedscience.com 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)

yammaEdit

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)

araphorosticEdit

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

American quotationEdit

The entry is, as pointed out on RFC, encyclopedically long, spillover from Wikipedia's Quotation Wars. It also isn't obviously attested as an idiomatic string (as opposed to "'four score and seven years ago' is an American quotation" or "American quotation marks"). Most of the coordinate terms have the same issues, although "logical quotation" is somewhat easier to find citations of. Citations would probably help us decide if there really need to be three (so long) definitions. I tried searching for phrases like "(in|use|using|employ|employing) American quotation". - -sche (discuss) 02:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

British quotationEdit

As with American quotation (above). - -sche (discuss) 02:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Oxford quotationEdit

As with American quotation (above). - -sche (discuss) 02:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

typesetters' quotationEdit

Compare American quotation (above). I spot only a few uses of this string in Google Books and every one is of the longer phrase "typesetters' quotation marks", which might or might not be idiomatic. I spotted nothing on Scholar and didn't check Issuu or other databases. - -sche (discuss) 02:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

enbianEdit

Adjective and Noun Leasnam (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

All I find on Usenet is two Spanish posts. Khemehekis (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I paged through the Google Books and Scholar hits, which were all irrelevant. The only Usenet hits are irrelevant (a different word in a different language), as Khemehekis says. And there's nothing on Issuu. In fact, when I search for this term + "gender", I see fewer than a hundred raw Google web hits when I page through to the end. This looks like a candidate for WT:LOP. Someone should add the Spanish word, though. - -sche (discuss) 04:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
It seems too commonly used to be a protologism. The word is like sonimod above: lots of hits on the Internet, but apparently none in durably archived sources. Khemehekis (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

ʾiʿrāb Edit

Please provide citations showing this spelling is normalized English, or change the spelling.

It certainly appears often enough in English texts and articles. However, everything I have found puts it in italics (or hides it behind a paywall). Kiwima (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

skugry Edit

Tagged (for RFD) but not listed. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

On the citations page, you can see the cite of a poem by Robert Henryson (1568). That's right on the border between middle English and modern English. Would we consider this middle English? Kiwima (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
WT:AENM defines Middle English as ending in 1500, which would make 1568 Early Modern English. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and while some editors have pushed for a different cutoff, it's generally been an earlier one (1476). 1568 is definitely Early Modern English. I don't see anything in the Middle English Dictionary like this spelling, either, as far as attesting it as a Middle English term. It might, however, be attestable as Scots if we can't find two more English citations. - -sche (discuss) 21:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I have searched in vain for any other citations than the one I have given. (Two dictionaries that I have no access to and that can possibly—though very unlikely—record the two or more required examples of real usage are The Third Edition of the OED and The Merriam-Webster's Unabridged.) As there is obviously no sense relation to either skuggery or scuggery (unlike what the entry suggests), the entry can be deleted. (For Scots, the same criteria, i.e. at least three quotations, apply as for English, in other words, it should be deleted anyway.) (Sorry for not having put the entry into the “Requests for deletion” list at first.) Jiří Bezděka (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

poly theistic Edit

Alt form of polytheistic. Not sure how a space belongs after what is definitely a prefix. I am not sure about the hyphenated poly-theistic either. Equinox 01:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It is possible that a construction like this could occur. I've seen things like this happen before in English. It's definitely nonstandard and annoying, though. If anything, the label should be "rare, nonstandard". PseudoSkull (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The hyphenated form is easily cited. Most of the hits in Google books that are not hyphenated turn out to be scannos, but I have found and added four cites for that form as well (although the Al-fikr quote is possibly just an extreme case of bad kerning). Kiwima (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

That is good detective work but it makes me feel that we need more of a sharp line between rare errors and normal usage. Equinox 02:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree. I am not sure how we would codify it into a set of criteria, but some errors are common enough to meet our attestation criteria but so rare that they would not be included as a "misspelling of". Kiwima (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed, but I have moved it to RFD as an error. Kiwima (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

slutcunt Edit

Sigh. Ƿidsiþ 10:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

In Google groups, I found two uses, one for each definition, but only one was on a durably archived newsgroup. I put it on the Citations page. Kiwima (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

cuntslut Edit

…oh, also this. Ƿidsiþ 10:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This one is much easier to cite, but for a slightly different definition. It refers to the woman, not her anatomy. Kiwima (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
RFV-resolved Kiwima (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

chakavianism Edit

"Chakavian dialect element, feature or word". Nothing in GBooks; I would expect a capital C too. Equinox 15:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Three occurrences: one for Cakavianism, one for Čakavianism, one for čakavianism (but between quote marks, so it's not terrible). [2] --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
One hit] on Google scholar with this casing and spelling. Kiwima (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

it'sn't Edit

Non-standard "it isn't/hasn't". Rather hard to search for. I didn't have much luck. Equinox 19:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

All the results seem to be either scanos or typos. --WikiTiki89 19:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I have cited the "it isn't" meaning, still haven't found anything for "it hasn't". Kiwima (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
The sense "it isn't" has passed. "It hasn't" is still waiting for cites. Kiwima (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-resolved. "it isn't" passes, "it hasn't" fails. Kiwima (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

thornbut Edit

Just appears in obsolete dictionaries (which, one day, WT will be, BTW) --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed, moved to Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. Kiwima (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

LNYHBT Edit

TBNL (tagged but not listed). Actually, tagged for RFD, by Wonderfool, but not listed (TFRFDBWFBNL?). Anyway, almost all the Usenet hits are chaff so it's not clear that it's attested. - -sche (discuss) 00:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

From Google Books, this appears to be a hashtag. Khemehekis (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Bibhorr formulaEdit

Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The first three books at Google Books look promising. Khemehekis (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed

Please see Talk:Bibhorr formula. This might be a spammy hoax. Does the formula exist, written down? What does it state? Equinox 21:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the formula does exist, written down, found in several of the books, but using symbols I don't know how to typeset. I have my doubts about its validity, but I figured there was a sufficient number of different authors for all those books. Kiwima (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
What I find in google books:"Bibhorr formula" are publications that I fear are not independent. The first four items have titles starting with "BIBHORR FORMULA:", which I find suspect. They also seem to use similar bragging style. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
As for what it states, there is W:File:Bibhorr-formula.png showing the formula, I guess; it may eventually get deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Looks as if someone's been gaming the system. Khemehekis (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps, perhaps not. Personally, I would rather get rid of this one under RFD than RFV, but whatever. Kiwima (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Invoking the RFV-relevant requirement of independence, I assess the quotations to be not independent, and therefore support deletion. While voting "Delete" is unusual in RFV, here it is my assessment supporting a particular RFV outcome. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

gustardEdit

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)

patten Edit

Rfv-sense: a stilt. A quotation from Halliwell was requested, but I can't see anything. Ƿidsiþ 08:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I have not yet found anything that is unambiguously a stilt, but there are any number of different wooden items worn on the feet to elevate the wearer, not just the two described in the other definitions. I even found something worn by horses:
  • 1795, D. Walker, General View of the Agriculture of the County of Hertford, page 42:
    At and in the neighbourhood of North Meoks, near Ormskirk in Lancashire, there is a whole country of peat, and how deep this soil is God only knows, for the horses which plough thereon wear pattens to keep them from sinking to the bellies: here I was not long ago deluded, by my ignorance of the country and a team in pattens, to attempt riding over ploughed ground to inquire my way.
Kiwima (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
cited Kiwima (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Great quotes, but I'm afraid I disagree that any of them verify the sense under question. They all seem to belong to different senses. Ƿidsiþ 05:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Part of what we seem to be up against is what is meant by "stilt". At least one of the quotes you moved, on the same page as the quote, referred to the pattens as "short stilts". Perhaps it might be better to create a more general definition for definition number 2, as some of the quotes I found seem to refer to something similar but where the ring is not metal, and the "stilts" are again quite similar. Kiwima (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
In my reading, the reference to stilts that your search pulled up is clearly a jokey exaggeration – "they're so high they're practically stilts!". I'll keep looking though. Ƿidsiþ 13:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-resolved. The second definition was broadened to allow the stilt-like cases to be included, and the definition as a synonym for stilt was removed. Kiwima (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

O4C Edit

I am having trouble finding durably archived sources for these definitions. Created by new user @Steven Justin. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Looks like creative invention to me. I would have deleted it on sight. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Indo-AsiaEdit

Rfv-sense: "The smallest landmass on Earth, consisting of subcontinent and Asia proper; sometimes also including neighbouring islands of the tropics". This is technically "cited", with four cites, but I don't believe that the cites actually support this definition. They simply show that the word exists, and don't really shed any light on its meaning (so in that respect they are quite poor cites). Can we verify that this is actually a meaning of Indo-Asia?

See the following Tea Room discussion:

What do you suppose this means? The first cite would suggest it is a synonym for Asia, which matches the part of the definition that says "consisting of [the Indian] subcontinent and Asia proper", but that is irreconcilable with the beginning of that sentence, since Asia is not "the smallest landmass on Earth". Other cites seem to be using the sense to refer to part of Asia. The "Hyponyms" section of the entry just adds to the confusion. This, that and the other (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
It might relate to the Indian subcontinent and the rest of the continent Asia and could be "The smallest a landmass on Earth, consisting of the Indian subcontinent and Asia proper", i.e. it could be what others simply call Asia. The reason for using Indo-Asia instead of simply Asia could be geological history, moving of landmasses, tectonic plates, etc. Maybe biggest and smallest were confused? Hyponym Europe however wouldn't fit to this. -84.161.36.153 17:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to send this to RFV, even though it's cited, as I remain entirely unconvinced that the cites support the definition. This, that and the other (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

This, that and the other (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

What other definition do they support??? They clearly refer to a landmass and not a geopolitical entity. If you are looking for cites that define the term, they would be inadmissible because they would be mentions rather than uses. Kiwima (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
The 2012 cite doesn't fit, IMO; "Ongoing controversies on the timing and kinematics of the Indo-Asia collision" is talking about the collision of India (the Indian continental plate) and Asia, not one thing called Indo-Asia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

RuscismEdit

"The political ideology and social practice of the Russian ruling regime at the beginning of the 21st century." Equinox 20:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

This (by a Ukrainian writer) is the only hit from a mainstream news site and I don't believe it is durably archived. Nothing on Usenet or BGC. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

bloncketEdit

I can't find any use outside Spenser. It's supposedly also spelled blonket / blunket, but a search for blonket turns up mostly scannos or respellings of blanket, and I didn't see anything except a few mentions of blunket. - -sche (discuss) 00:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I stole a couple more from the OED. It should probably be moved to blunket, which seems the more common form. Ƿidsiþ 09:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Aha, I've been able to find enough others that I've created blunket. I made plunket an alt form, and centralized both senses (color and cloth) on blunket, but the cloth sense may actually be more common as plunket. (It's apparently not entirely clear which spelling came first or that either or both have the same origin as blanket, either, see the James Robinson Planché citation at Citations:blunket.) Aside from those most common spellings, other spellings mentioned or used in various sources include blanket (blaunket, blancketh, blanked), blancket, blenket, bloncket, blonket, blunkette, ploncket, and plonkete, plonkeut, and plaunket. Some are Middle English. - -sche (discuss) 18:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

possimismEdit

"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)

AmerindishEdit

Is discussed in a tiny handful of texts as a hypothetical word that might be useful. Not sure that it has usage. Equinox 23:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The only use I can find (Citations:Amerindish) uses it to mean the hypothetical language family Amerind, and typos "its" as "ist" along the way. I didn't spot anything on Google Scholar or Issuu. - -sche (discuss) 15:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Certainly nowhere near as common as Amerindian, which I think is the most common of this little family of blends. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 11:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Two distinct results appear on Usenet. We still need a third cite. Khemehekis (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I just found a third cite here. It's from a 1936 issue of the New Yorker. Khemehekis (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

cited Looks like this one barely squeaks by. Kiwima (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

goruEdit

Does not seem to be attested in English (a very small number of books mention it in italics as the Dogon name, but because Dogon is not a single language, I can't simply re-header it). - -sche (discuss) 21:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

thildEdit

Seems to be Middle English only, per Wiktionary:Tea room/2018/March#thild. - -sche (discuss) 19:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

tamanoirEdit

Rfv-sense:

  1. aardvark

Everything on Google Books refers to this as the giant anteater, as does our French entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I can find this in some old dictionaries, and one old text that talks about some scholar mistakenly using this term for the aardvark, but no uses of the term to mean aardvark. Kiwima (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

blood and tommyEdit

Nowt in GBooks. Equinox 15:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

There's a few Google hits, like this one, but I have never heard the expression. DonnanZ (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Even if it exists, it's one of a gazillion interjection entries created by that contributor with exactly the same definition. I would want confirmation of the definition. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

hyophyllousEdit

Is this a common enough misspelling to be entryworthy? My bgc in Germany finds only 10 misspellings to 26,500 correct spellings, which doesn't strike me as a common misspeling at all. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 15:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Three citations added - I think that's all we need. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Did you get a look at the originals? 'Cause I feel like something mentioning "ampbigenous babits" is probably full of scannos. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 15:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I've replaced that citation with another from a similar era. More available if you want them. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

At some point someone told me that for misspellings, the three cites rule does not apply - for misspelling entries, it has to do with a misspelling occurring often enough as a percentage of total uses.... But I am not sure how we go about deciding these things. Kiwima (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

It looks like typos more than misspellings, so it's even less useful. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

nymphophiliacEdit

Looks like another PaM entry. Might be one or two cites; enough to pass with sense given? Equinox 02:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I found one use and one mention. (only added the use). Plus, some people on Usenet who use the word as a sobriquet for themselves, but I don't think that counts either. Kiwima (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Yech! E=Reading their contributions feels like stepping in something- has to be PaM. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Marilyn MonroeEdit

The current quotes aren't a good proof of usage. All are examples of attributive use, and in my view they refer to the real person. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I've added three citations for the plural. I'm pretty sure there was only one of the real person. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm still not convinced... I think we're going to disagree all along on how to interpret these cites, and thus I don't know if it's an RFV or RFD matter. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
      Why would attributive use of a noun disqualify the cite? Is that in WT:CFI or WT:ATTEST? DCDuring (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
      I think the point is that they could also be attributive use of the proper noun Marilyn Monroe instead. But I think SemperBlotto's new cites are good and support the definition. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
      To DCDuring: No it's not, but methinks it should (as well as notes on the fact that words used in italics or between quote marks are somewhat mention-y).
      To Lingo Bingo Dingo and DCDuring: Yes. The attributive position has a tendency to erase certain distinctions (cf. the frequent mistaking of nouns in attributive position for adjectives).
      I'm not saying all cites displaying an attributive use should necessarily be disqualified, but that we shouldn't have only that type of cites (or it means that something's up). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
      How about the ones on Citations:Marilyn Monroe? DCDuring (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
      @Per utramque cavernam That sounds like a proposal for a policy overhaul. I'm somewhat sympathetic to your point, but I would not support a change like that. It's worth noting that "conveying meaning" could be used in weeding out the ambiguous cases. Anyway, I have added a few more cites, of which one falls outside the current definition. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
      @Lingo Bingo Dingo: Yes, you're right that the "conveying meaning" part makes all the difference; a quote like this one thus seems fundamentally valid. I guess what I'd argue for would be the compulsory use of labels like "rare" or "nonstandard", or the addition of some usage notes, when all or most of the quotes are of that type.
      What I'm really bothered with are cases such as this one; I don't see anything in our policy that forbids us from creating a French ager entry (which in fact exists), but it's imo very wrong (which is why I've RFV'ed that entry). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • No particular preference on the entry itself, but I do agree that the current quotes are bad, and obviously all refer to the actual Marilyn Monroe. Ƿidsiþ 06:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I have rearranged the quotes, moving in some from the citations page that look more generic to me, and moving the ones that seem to refer to the actual Marilyn Monroe back to the citations page. At this point it looks cited to me. Kiwima (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Why have we upped the ugliness score of this entry by having the silly "References" to what is perfectly obvious? DCDuring (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

kaalgatEdit

Rfv-sense of "bare-arse, as for a spanking", delivered to you by you-know-who. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

luck dragonEdit

Restored and cited. Moved to spaced version due to citations. DAVilla 02:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

retinoidEdit

Rfv-sense: pertaining to the retina. Sounds plausible, but I don't see it in dictionaries. Ƿidsiþ 07:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see it anywhere else, either. Kiwima (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I found several uses, but they are all from 19th-century ophtalmologist Jabez Hogg: [3], [4] etc. – Einstein2 (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
It seems like there's another sense. DTLHS (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

hashEdit

Relocated from RFD. Word appears to be an attributive noun rather than a true adjective.

Adjective: "Hashed, chopped into small pieces"; sole citation:

  • 1855, William Makepeace Thackeray, The Newcomes
    The Colonel, himself, was great at making hash mutton, hot-pot, curry, and pillau.

This does not seem to behave as an adjective. The citation and the derived terms in the Adjective PoS section seem to me to illustrate, without exception, attributive use of the noun. DCDuring (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it a matter of WT:RFVE to find better citations? -84.161.6.246 00:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree it's an RFV question. Equinox 03:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Just move the quote – which does not support the adjectival sense – to the citation page and delete. This is too hard to verify. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 20:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
That's an alt form of mutton hash AFAIK. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 12:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Move to RFV. - -sche (discuss) 23:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Moved to RFV. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

oligandryEdit

Rfv-sense - A society with fewer men than women SemperBlotto (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I can find no support for this sense, but I did find a couple of cites for something other than the state of being oligandrous, which I added to the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

oligogynyEdit

Rfv-sense - A society with fewer women than men. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

swoodEdit

Added by an untrustworthy user. --WikiTiki89 18:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

thenEdit

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)

cardridgeEdit

Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It appears quite a lot (and not just the name), but in every case I looked at, it was a misspelling of cartridge, often with the correct spelling elsewhere in the same work. I notice that the editor who introduced the term is prone to adding protoneologisms. Kiwima (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
That's sort of what I thought. However, Google image search has some things that look like card. Don't know what they are. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I googled "cardridge + cartridge + card" and the first page of Google matches were all obvious misspellings (bear in mind that US pronunciation sometimes suggests this spelling, as in pardner). Just kill it as an error. We don't have to keep everyone's misspelling. If language is going to be completely made up by errors then why would you have a dictionary? Our role is as an authority; we needn't be rigidly prescriptive but we need to separate good texts from random typos, and I am increasingly concerned about how we take three typos to mean "valid alternate form" just because it technically meets CFI. Equinox 02:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
You have a point there. And I am probably one of the worst offenders when it comes to finding citations for such words. When words are RFV'd, It seems like there is a presumption that the word is invalid, and I get caught up in the search for evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, with RFD, it is the opposite - the word is presumed valid unless there is sufficient consensus that it is not. So when we look at what is essentially a spelling error, RFV can fail us, because we find enough cites to meet CFI, but if it really is an error, I think it is not too hard to get consensus that that is what is going on by challenging at RFD.
In this particular case, the supplied definition does not seem to even meet RFV. I have added a separate "misspelling of" definition, which is what most of the quotes seem to be - and personally, I think it looks like a common enough misspelling that such an entry is useful. Kiwima (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Heh, I think you have been a bit guilty, but I hesitate to accuse probably the project's best citer (and my remarks weren't specifically aimed at you). I do think that if you're scraping the barrel when you find the cites then they would better belong on the Citations page, as marginal; but who knows... Regarding misspelling entries, I'll raise a vote about that some day, but I'm an awful ball of inertia and it might take years. Equinox 08:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I think it is OK now. I think I have figured out what the original editor meant but could not put into words. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

insignitorEdit

The forefinger. At some stage a bunch of dubious words for the various fingers were added; this is one. Equinox 17:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

understitialEdit

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)

sootball Edit

A type of Japanese spirit. Apparently occurs in the anime Spirited Away (is it written as one word in the script, though?); searching finds mainly scannos for football. Equinox 20:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Good job! And apparently you found another meaning as well. Khemehekis (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

saccharilla Edit

In a lot of word lists. DTLHS (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

All I find on Usenet is word salad crapflooding, someone's email address, and two posts on alt.fan.hanson that include a whole lot of sacchar- words. Khemehekis (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
cited Kiwima (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

forespeakerEdit

Rfv-sense: One who speaks first. DTLHS (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

pulchrismEdit

pulchrism, pulchrist, pulchrists and pulchristic. All neologisms/protologisms invented and extensively promoted by the artist Jesse Waugh. Not used in any academic works, mentioned in any news or books sources. Only used by Jesse Waugh.104.163.158.37 04:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I did find at least one old use here. Other than that, it's a campaign as far as I can see.104.163.158.37 04:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree: can't find anything meeting CFI in this sense except one book by Waugh himself, about himself, which uses it in the title and claims to be published by "Carpophage Press", about which I can find nothing. Equinox 18:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Carpophage press is a vanity press run by Waugh. 104.163.158.37 02:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
There are other valid sources: The John Barton Journals, Thomas Darnell bio, as well as a third artist who identifies her work as being Pulchrist: Annabel Cisternino (see photo on that post or on Waugh’s site), and also Augustiniana Volume 53. 213.4.185.197 15:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Wharton is a wiki. Facebook is not a good source. Darnell is a student of Jesse Waugh. The last is for pulchristic, not pulchrism the art manifesto.104.163.158.37 02:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
It’s Waugh who studied under Darnell. And although the Cisternino photo was posted on Facebook, it still demonstrates that three artists identify as pulchrists. And you’re splitting hairs by attempting to separate ‘pulchristic’ from ‘pulchrism’ or ‘pulchrist’. That leaves us with no less than three very reliable sources for notability: The Athenaeum - an important 19th century London periodical, The John Barton Journals - which are reliable historical documents, and the Augustinian - a theological publication which is held in high regard. With these references, ‘Pulchrism’ simply cannot be regarded as a neologism or a protologism. 88.22.181.68 08:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The Aethenaeum seems like a pretty good usage to me, as well as the ones noted above. 2607:FB90:A25A:150B:734:51D6:87CA:6D98 00:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah, cue the army of Jesse Waugh Pulchrism supporters. It's preyty hilarious. I am fairly sure that photos taken by your pals and put on Facebook do not constitute durable sources. The only thing that goes here is actual published reliable sources, which obviously do not exist.104.163.158.37 10:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
There are three “published reliable sources” cited above, which you’re ignoring for some reason. Are you of the opinion that they are unreliable sources? 83.43.108.237 12:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
It's amazing how two anonymous accounts came out of nowhere to support this!104.163.158.37 02:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Aren’t you an anonymous account? 88.22.181.68 08:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but you're using three different IPs (so far) to give the false impression that you're more than one person. I've blocked all three of you. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • For the experienced types here, you may want to be aware of the extensive efforts to keep articles on Jesse Waugh and his theories on Wikipedia, supported by dubious accounts or IPs. The short story is that two or three people have worked together to promote this theory and the 'artist' behind it, and I really strongly have to emphasize the single quotes there. I have been doing artist AfDs for a while at Wikipedia, and I have never seen such an orchestrated vanity effort. It is almost industrial. I was disgusted enough by those practices over at WP to come here and nominate this product of personal vanity. See Jesse Waugh first nomination at AfD and also Jesse Waugh second AfD, and Jesse R Waugh. At this point Jesse Waugh, Jesse R. Waugh and Jesse Waugh (artist) are all salted so that only admins can create them. Oh and there is the "pulchrist manifesto" that is frequently added and then deleted to Wikipedia: art manifestos. And deleted from the page again. It's just truth vandalism, this "pulchrism". 104.163.158.37 02:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Sounds like the "Bibhorr formula" fiasco we had recently. Equinox 02:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
yes, that looks like a similar technique. the method for pulchrism has been to a) publish a manifesto of one's own design, b) post that to as many places as possible (e.g. wikisource, archive.org), c) round up some friends or possible **puppets to keep an eye on things and pipe up as required (above). They're relentless, although I am not sure why, as no one seems to care about the pulchrism theory-- it's 100% self-promoted amateur theory. If you look at Wordnik, they now now have a pulchrism entry, with notes by Cinesis, a former Wikipedia sock, whose avatar is also of Waugh. It's all (and I am sorry to invoke this phrase) fake news.104.163.158.37 03:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Just for reference, here’s Waugh’s page on the etymology of ‘Pulchrism’: ETYMOLOGY. He states that he created the word on his own, then later discovered it in old literature - the references for which are included on the page. 213.4.185.197 08:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Good job on the IP hopping. Words created by one person (pulchrism) and not used in any reliable sources are words to be deleted. Puchrhristic might have a place here, but nothing to do with pulchrism or Jesse Waugh does, as it's just a word some guy invented and nobody uses. 104.163.158.37 10:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
You brag about deleting many artists from Wikipedia, and then ignore the three solid historical references listed above that cite the word Pulchrism, as well as its variants. The John Barton letters contain usage of both forms of the word, for example - ‘Pulchrism’ and ‘Pulchristic’ (both capitalized). The Athenaeum has ‘Pulchrism’, and the Augustinian ‘pulchristic’. How are these not reliable sources? 83.43.108.237 12:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Please read our Criteria for inclusion. We go by usage, rather than reliable sources, and we're a dictionary, so differences in spelling count. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Or put another way, usage is a reliable source. This isn't a prescriptive reference work, so a few durable citations in different contexts across years is enough. It's fine to mark it rare but it's not fine to delete it from the dictionary—if a word gets sufficient attestation from use, it's permanently a part of the corpus of words. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
This seems similar to how we set the bar for fictional terms, at Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Fictional_universes. If someone is bound and determined to push a certain neologism, are we (Wiktionary) happy with any three cites? Or do we need three cites, which are independent of the initial neologism-pushers? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Independent DTLHS (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

ossifragantEdit

Only in word lists? (And not many of those either.) Equinox 06:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit

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)

ABCEdit

Rfv-senses: "African Basketball Confederation", "American Book Center" and "Aural brevity code". I cleaned up the list of initialisms but these do not seem to be attested. – Einstein2 (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

American Book Center is cited. While I could not find "African Basketball Confederation", I COULD find "Asian Basketball Confederation". I only found one source using ABC for "Aural brevity code", and it was not in English. Kiwima (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Aside from the alpjabet definitions, the only ones here I've heard of are American Broafcasting Corporation; American-born Chinese; already been chewed; and atomic, biological and chemical. I'm also familiar with a use that isn't in Wiktionary: ABC chart (antecedent-behavior-consequence). Khemehekis (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

KFYLEdit

I could not find any uses. --Einstein2 (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

  • And doesn't seem to make any sense. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
    "OK, fine, (it's) your loss" makes sense to me. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I tried Usenet, but gave up after 100 posts or so after every single post was just someone hitting random keys on the keyboard (gjtitgrte vdigidj sfjiifej qaojf wsjmd wsddcwidwj type stuff). Khemehekis (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

GhopEdit

Even a quick Google Books search for google books:"Ghop" Bangladesh does not seem to bring up any relevant results on the first few pages. --WikiTiki89 13:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I managed to find two cites, but not a third. It is a bit hard to search for, as the more common use in conjunction with Bangladesh is a word meaning a low-lying wetlands (and also because it is apparently a very small village). Kiwima (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

loastEdit

Cool, hip. I think this is just from Urban Dictionary. Equinox 17:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto created this. Did you not check whether it met CFI before creating it? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Aside from some misspellings for lost (a def we don't have), Usenet brings up some references to the "Loast Coast" and an album by a band called the Loast Boys, Roast Toast Loast Coast. It may mean cool/hip in these contexts. Khemehekis (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

bite meEdit

Rfv-sense "call/contact me". An anon tried to remove it as vandalism; I see that the anon who added it may have misunderstood, because they referenced a quote that actually attests to sense #1. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

non-kinksterEdit

DTLHS (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

PassAMethod? Khemehekis (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

bummyEdit

"(US slang) disappointing; unpleasant; of poor quality; failing one's expectations." Not the common sense of "befitting a bum/tramp/hobo". Equinox 18:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

curry feverEdit

Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Nothing on Books or Usenet in this sense. It might originate from a controversial "interracial dating guide" mentioned in some news media, but it doesn't seem to be used anywhere else. [5] [6] [7] Normal people only seem to use it for "taste/craving for curry" or as names for restaurants. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

mom’n’emEdit

As above. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I can find mentions, but no uses. Kiwima (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
This is SoP. mom + 'n' + 'em. Speedy it or Rfd it. DCDuring (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
It is written as a single word and therefore I don't think SOP applies. Wiktionary typically keeps compound words no matter how SOP they might seem. As far as I know, everything written as one word that has been sent to RFD for being SOP in the past has been kept. RightGot (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
It's three words. Omitting a space between these three words doesn't make it one word, it just makes it bad typography. Equinox 03:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
What about icemaker? Is that two words too? Does not including a space between ice and maker not make it one word? Should icemaker be sent to RFD for being SOP? As far as I know everything with no spaces in it that has ever been sent to RFD for being SOP has been kept. RightGot (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Icemaker is one word because it's formed purely of letters. Are you saying "fish'n'chips" is one word? Are you some kind of bad troll? "Everything that did X was kept" is no kind of argument either; that's like an artificial-intelligence system saying "every film with Hedy Lamarr in it got five stars, therefore all Lamarr films must be five stars"; it's a stupid circle. Equinox 03:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
As a counterargument, これは長い日本語の文章で出鱈目な内容とは言えども例文にしては受け入れられるかもしれないけれどどうでしょう has no spaces in it, and definitely does not warrant inclusion as an entry. Likewise, I believe other no-spaces candidate entries in the Latin script have also been rejected as SOP, such as Fussbodenschleifmaschinenverleih (floorboard sanding machine rental). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I might remind everyone that this is a request for verification, not a request for deletion. The spaces/SOP argument is beside the point if we can not find attesting quotes. Kiwima (talk) 03:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

homebrewedEdit

Rfv-sense: drink brewed at home

Tagged but not listed --- and now cited. Kiwima (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

regmacarpEdit

Only in dictionaries (and weirdly a book about sexual harassment). DTLHS (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I found another use, so we have two (on citations page). I can find other quotes (as opposed to dictionary entries), but they are too mention-y. Kiwima (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I found what I think is the first occurrence of the entry, from Nature. It is slightly mention-y, but I think it might just pass. I've added it to the entry, together with an etymology. I'm rather unsure about the sexual harassment quote, though; I can't see what the term is supposed to mean in that context. (Maybe a scientist got harassed during a search for regmacarps??) — SGconlaw (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Found another citation, which makes it three. I added a "dated" label, as it doesn't seem like the term appears in modern works. Perhaps it should even be labelled "archaic" or "obsolete". — SGconlaw (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The sexual harassment quote is from a case where the newbie on the team is sent to "get the regmacarps" and was too shy to admit she didn't know what the word meant. The 1871 quote looks like a mention to me, but it looks like we just managed to squeak through on this one. Kiwima (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC).
Passed! — SGconlaw (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

epalpebrateEdit

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)

demegoricEdit

I can see lots of mentions, but are there any real usages? SemperBlotto (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

explaterateEdit

As above. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

extispexEdit

English term. Latin term seems to be real, but is missing. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

police dogEdit

Sense 2: German shepherd. Some police dogs (not all) are German shepherds, but is the term used for German shepherds that have never worked for the police? Equinox 18:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Possibly. There's this exchange from a book by James Thurber, but it isn't 100% clear that the dog has never worked for the police. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 19:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
This 1930 article states German shepherd is "commonly known as a police dog", as well as this one. I don't know how to search for appropriate uses, though. Einstein2 (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Given the dates of those quotes as well as the Thurber story, it may be {{lb|en|dated}} by now. It's interesting that in the first link Einstein2 gave it says that German shepherds have been called police dogs "since the war" (i.e. World War I), so it may have been a "freedom fries"/"liberty cabbage" phenomenon where words associated with an enemy become taboo. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 19:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This is cited. In addition, I recall the use of "police dog" to mean German Shepherd when I was a young child, although I haven't heard it used that way since the 1960s. Kiwima (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

avenueEdit

Rfv-sense: "(urban toponymy) A street, the streets that run perpendicular to those called "streets"."

Am I the only confused one here? --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Robbie SWE: It's specific to New-York, apparently. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Be that as it may, but for a non-New Yorker, I just don't understand the current sense. It needs to be reworded and more importantly, it needs quotes (Kiwima, work your magic!). --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Is this a request for verification (which I think is unnecessary based on common usage) or a request for cleanup? The use of grid patterns where "street"s go one way and "avenue"s the other is not unique to New York. Kiwima (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

thrinkEdit

Hmm, good luck finding sources for this. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 10:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it isn't eye dialect since /θɹɪŋk/ is nowhere a standard pronunciation of drink. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 11:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
cited - And yes, it is eye dialect, apparently for either an Irish or French accent. (And not just for alcohol - the last quote is the verb). Kiwima (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't think about the possibility of th standing for [d̪]. And while there isn't a "standard" French pronunciation of English, [d̪ɹɪŋk] is the standard pronunciation in Ireland. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 12:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
We have many such "Irish-accent" entries: dhrunk, dhrop, dhrink, intherest... Equinox 13:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm confused by this. Is it because the affrication of /d/ (and /t/?) in front of /ɹ/ is near-ubiquitous? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Most English "dental" consonants are really alveolar, but those represented by th are dental, so most English speakers will hear true dental stops as th. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
In Hiberno-English, the dental sounds /θ ð/ that are fricatives in other varieties of English are very often realized as dental stops [t̪ d̪]. Thus Irish English distinguishes tin and thin by place of articulation only, not manner of articulation: [tɪn] vs. [t̪ɪn]; likewise den and then are distinguished as [dɛn] vs. [d̪ɛn]. However, the contrast is lost before /ɹ/ and /ɚ/, where only dentals surface, so in Irish English tree and three are homophones as [t̪ɹiː], and udder and other are homophones as [ˈʌd̪ɚ]. And by the same rule, drink is [d̪ɹɪŋk], starting with the same consonant as this and that and then. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

shendshipEdit

Quotations are Middle English, furthermore they don't support this spelling. DTLHS (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I did manage to find one modern English quotation (1897), which is based on the Middle English works of Mallory but is clearly not Middle English. I mostly find quotes from Middle English works that have been edited by modern English editors, who regularize the spelling to shendship. I am not sure how we classify such works, are they modern English translations of a Middle English work (in which case, this is cited), or are they Middle English? Kiwima (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
If they're only regularizing the spelling of the Middle English works, I would say that is a mention and not a use. DTLHS (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
That does not make any sense to me. It is still a use (the word is used to convery meaning). Kiwima (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
You say that they only regularize the spelling, not the grammar. In that case it's not a translation at all, just a normalized text. But maybe you should post some examples here. DTLHS (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Look on the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how it can just be a normalisation. The Morte Darthur is a prose work, whereas this is clearly written as rhymed poetry. Ƿidsiþ 12:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
We are not talking about the 1897 quote on the main page, but rather, about the 1375 (quoted in 1801) and the 1402 (quoted in 1860) which appear on the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh yes, I see. Ƿidsiþ 07:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

pausaEdit

Is this a legitimate linguistic term in English? It's not even in the OED, and the only occurrence I could find in academic literature was [8]. The form in pausa, at least to a very little extent, appears to be in use as a Latin borrowing: [9][10][11] (notice the italics in the first source), but I can't find any occurrence of pausa as a standalone English noun. Nardog (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

totorveEdit

No ~ing, ~ed in Google Books. Should perhaps be OE or ME. Equinox 04:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Inverse Pythagorean TheoremEdit

Any takers? If OK, should it be "inverse Pythagorean theorem"? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Most uses I've found refer to something different, namely that if   then the angle between a and b is a right angle. Our current definition is that in a right triangle,  , where   is the altitude perpendicular to c. --WikiTiki89 18:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
This entry should be called "reciprocal Pythagorean theorem" —This unsigned comment was added by Eli355 (talkcontribs) at 19:20, 17 April 2018.
I have cited this, but the third cite includes vertical bars, so it does not format properly. I don't know how to escape those characters to make it work. Would someone please help? Kiwima (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@Kiwima: The first and third cites are actually of a different meaning. The first is what I said above, the third I don't completely understand, but it looks like something more like  . --WikiTiki89 02:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Right you are. I was so hung up on the formatting, I didn't read for meaning. My bad. So we only have two cites. Kiwima (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Only one actually (the one that was the second one). --WikiTiki89 02:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

trigintaduonionEdit

Gets very few results. --WikiTiki89 19:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

cited. Kiwima (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

kathisophobiaEdit

DTLHS (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

JBiebsEdit

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English.

I ask that this be restored. It was deleted via RFD now archived at Talk:RPattz. The only pro-deletion comment concerning JBiebs is "Cannot find any clause or section of CFI which might justify this entry." The term seems attested, and is governed by WT:NSE. Consistent with Talk:RPattz#RFD discussion: August 2017–March 2018 and the results of Talk:J-Lo, this should be kept. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggest collecting some citations on the citation page for verification first. — SGconlaw (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
What exactly are we supposed to be looking for here? Obviously there are lots of sources out there that use "JBiebs", but all of them that I see refer to a specific person (Justin Bieber). As I understand it, that does not meet WT:NSE. Kiwima (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
WT:NSE says "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic. For instance, Walter Elias Disney, the film producer and voice of Mickey Mouse, is not allowed a definition line at Walt Disney." It does not say anything about names of specific people like Cher and JBiebs, that do not include "both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic." I don't see anything about names of specific people, and the sentence I quoted implicitly approves of individual people being listed as senses on entries that don't include both a given name and a family name.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
While that meets the letter of the law, it goes against the spirit of the rule. Kiwima (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
No; if the spirit of the rule was that "no individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry", then there would be absolutely no reason to keep on going. In fact, the general interpretation of the spirit of rules like that is that you can do the things it doesn't specifically exclude; "no parking on Wednesday" means you can park on Tuesday.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Let's find two more citations like the one that's on the citations page (maybe Issuu has some? everything else on GBooks is mentiony), to demonstrate that it doesn't just fail the "three uses" part of CFI. After that, we can wrangle over whether NSE bans it (maybe not), mandates inclusion of it (apparently not), or leaves it to our discretion, and hence over whether or not we want to include it... - -sche (discuss) 01:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
No problem. It is cited Kiwima (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. OK, so please discuss whether it should be undeleted as satisfying WT:NSE. (Note that Biebs exists.) — SGconlaw (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Undelete: this has lots of precedent, with entries like J-Lo and A-Rod. Khemehekis (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Khemehekis: is this a vote to undelete? If so, please indicate that. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

emojiholicEdit

I believe this does not meet WT:CFI. —Suzukaze-c 03:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

robocoitusEdit

Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

eSwatiniEdit

Hot words must be overwhelmingly citable. They are only exempt from the "spanning at least a year" rule. --WikiTiki89 14:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if it should be marked as a hot word. I think this word should be kept, simply because it's now the official and the most current name of a country. If there are no CFI for this, there should be one. Besides, it's not a new word but it's new as a current name of the country. It also seems citable. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 15:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
If it's citeable, then cite it. --WikiTiki89 15:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Citable in the older sense, not in the new one, of course. [12], [13], [14], [15]. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 15:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The second and fourth of those are mentions. It's not clear to me what it means in the third. --WikiTiki89 18:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Atitarev Where did you get the pronunciation? DTLHS (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Kimberley death adderEdit

Hot word older than a year. DTLHS (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

LunaticgateEdit

Hot word older than a year. DTLHS (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)