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.

Go here to edit this header

Scope of this request page:

  • In-scope: terms to be attested by providing quotations of their use
  • Out-of-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “brown leaf”



See also:

Overview: This page is for disputing the existence of terms or senses. It is for requests for attestation of a term or a sense, leading to deletion of the term or a sense unless an editor proves that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in Criteria for inclusion, usually by providing citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic or "sum of parts" should be posted to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. Requests to confirm that a certain etymology is correct should go in the Etymology scriptorium, and requests to confirm pronunciation is correct should go in the Tea Room.

Adding a request: To add a request for verification (attestation), add the template {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new section here. Those who would seek attestation after the term or sense is nominated will appreciate your doing at least a cursory check for such attestation before nominating it: Google Books is a good place to check, others are listed here (WT:SEA).

Answering a request by providing an attestation: To attest a disputed term, i.e. prove that the term is actually used and satisfies the requirement of attestation as specified in inclusion criteria, do one of the following:

  • Assert that the term is in clearly widespread use. (If this assertion is not obviously correct, or is challenged by multiple editors, it will likely be ignored, necessitating the following step.)
  • Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year. (Many languages are subject to other requirements; see WT:CFI.)

In any case, advise on this page that you have placed the citations on the entry page.

Closing a request: After a discussion has sat for more than a month without being "cited", or after a discussion has been "cited" for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed. Closing a discussion normally consists of the following actions:

  • Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
  • Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFV failed or RFV passed (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)

Shem HaMephorashEdit

I don't believe this is English. The plural looks wrong. The proper noun definition is plural - should be singular if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

You nominated an entire page for deletion because you think the plural tense is wrong?
why don't you just fix the plural tense? 20:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Moved to RFV. DTLHS (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Quote from entry that doesn't attest this capitalization or spelling:
  1. 2012, Egil Asprem, Arguing with Angels: Enochian Magic and Modern Occulture, page 33:
    In a rectangular box by the side are mentioned some of the "Shem-hamphorash", or seventy-two secret names of God, which according to Kabbalistic traditions can be extracted from Exodus 14:19–21
    DTLHS (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
If it's attestable, this shouldn't be a plural. It is a singular. The quote above is misusing it, or using it awkwardly. --WikiTiki89 20:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89 Should we keep the two distinct senses? DTLHS (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not familiar enough with the kabbalistic sense to be able to judge at the moment. I need to look at more examples. --WikiTiki89 17:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Isn't there also a problem with using an English definite article, since the Hebrew phrase already has one? On the other hand, occultists tend to be abysmally ignorant of linguistics, and often think that being able to find a dictionary entry by reverse-transliterating foreign expressions means they've mastered the language in question. I've seen some appallingly ignorant errors in published books, which editors have tried to cite as proof that those forms exist in the other language. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I think this normally is used with the English definite article. --WikiTiki89 17:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I have added three cites to the Proper Name. For the noun, I usually find a different casing (Initial caps only or all lower case). With this casing,I have always found it italicized, which could be taken to mean that it is not English. Kiwima (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


Used on a few websites. Nothing on Google Books or the Usenet part of Google Groups. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The entry also needs a tiny bit of cleanup, but I should say that the sites provided are probably good for the entry to be kept. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be anything durably archived there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Does count as durably archived? Here are 5 links from 5 different sources archived on
The word also appears in print in at least one book, possibly more:
It's derivative "consanguinamorous" has also appeared on news sites, for example:
-- Loveislove89 (talk) 1:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Might as well face it, you're addicted to love! I mean: might as well keep it. But I don't think it's durably archived. Wow, you know things are bad when even stick-up-the-arse Equinox is starting to trust Internet sources. Equinox 04:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC) is not considered durably archived. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Unstriking. Is there even one durably archived quotation? is not durably archived. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
From [Criteria for inclusion] : Where possible, it is better to cite sources that are likely to remain easily accessible over time, so that someone referring to Wiktionary years from now is likely to be able to find the original source. As Wiktionary is an online dictionary, this naturally favors media such as Usenet groups, which are durably archived by Google. Print media such as books and magazines will also do, particularly if their contents are indexed online. I take this to mean that just because the sources are not permanently archived, they still count if they are the only sources possible. is not permanently archived, but it does make it possible to check sources over time, which is the intent of the rule. Kiwima (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
That's not correct. The key word in the passage you've quoted is "easily accessible" (i.e., online in a semi-permanent form, like Google Groups or Project Gutenberg). Being easily accessible is just something desirable, but being durably archived is a requirement, as you can see from the sentence immediately before the passage you quoted. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

August 2017Edit


Dubious contributor, not in OneLook. - TheDaveRoss 19:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually - the first of the three supplied cites (from Forbes, The Chorus Lady) is an error. The text actually runs: "Moind yir own business, Patrick," she ordered, with her old-time domineering manner. "It's the ex-[page break] coitable man ye are careerin' all over town an' us waitin' supper for ye. Run out an' rush the growler, if it ain't too late." So it is excoitable, an Irish eye-dialect pronunciation of excitable. So if that reduces the cites to 2, it fails verification. But, maybe there are other cites. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

gob upEdit

British slang for "shut up". Gob is slang for mouth but I only know it as a noun. Equinox 16:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I found two cites, but we still need a third. While looking, I found a number of other meanings for gob up, and added them. Kiwima (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


Wyang (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I've found one hit on Google books. Do the plurals of easily verified singles still need three hits? SemperBlotto (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
    • The regular plural is leukaphereses, which is easily cited. I think three cites should be needed for this irregular plural of leukapheresises, to rule out the possibility of grammatical errors from one or two isolated authors. Wyang (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
If we called leukapheresis a Translingual term (aka Scientific or Medical Latin, ISV) we would have three cites of this irregular plural. DCDuring (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

September 2017Edit


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 0674205111.. 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)


Fictional currency in Sims games (also its alt form Simoleon; hey, can't Maxis spell their own game currency?). These are all the same game franchise, therefore I don't consider it analogous to e.g. zorkmid, which broke out of the Zork universe and can be found in NetHack. I think it needs to pass WT:FICTION or something... Equinox 23:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the area to judge, but I certainly see it uncapitalized a lot:

  • 2002, Greg Kramer, The Sims Online: Prima's Official Strategy Guide, ISBN 0761540024:
    Advertise all your willingness to pay "top simolean" for used objects.
  • 2003, The Philosophers' Magazine - Issues 21-28, page 8:
    And they also raise questions about what makes something real. For example, the currency of Alphaville, the simolean, is actually exchangeable with the dollar, through the dealing site eBay.
  • 2007, Peter Ludlow & ‎Mark Wallace, The Second Life Herald: The Virtual Tabloid that Witnessed the Dawn of the Metaverse, ISBN 0262122944:
    That's only 0.00149 cents per simolean, or about $15 for a million simoleans. (The simolean has undergone a serious devaluation since Uri's days in Alphaville.)

Seeing as the uncapitalized version is slang for a dollar, what would a version of this outside the Sims universe look like anyway? Kiwima (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Does being uncapitalized grant weight to the genericity of a word under WT:FICTION? I know it helps establish that a trademark has become generic, but I don't see anything in WT:FICTION on this. Khemehekis (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
There's also use of an uncapitalised version that refers to neither the in-game currency nor to a real one.
  • 2011, Mel Wayne, Octilogy: Eight Great Treasures, Balboa Press, pages 60 & 61.
    “Out~friggin~rageous!” Bolthorr shouted. “I demand two moolahs an’ four simoleans fer each o’ them fine gliders! Not a frugle less!”
  • 2011, Mel Wayne, Octilogy: Eight Great Treasures, Balboa Press, page 61.
    He mumbled, “Them tharrr green moolah coins be a hundred points apiece, an’ them tharrr black simolean coins be fifty points. That tharrr be 400 points. Arr, waaay too much.”
But it could just be a play on the slang for dollar. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I think you are finding spelling mistakes for simoleon. Equinox 20:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Good point! Or possibly -ean is a rare alternative spelling. Anyway, it seems like the capitalized and Sims-specific term fails, but possibly the uncapitalized form can be kept as some kind of variant form of simoleon. - -sche (discuss) 05:18, 16 January 2018 (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)

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)


"Possibly also the creation of a view using scientific results by separating and combining of new research." Yep that's how it's defined! Can't trust that. Equinox 03:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I have added two cites (very weird stuff). Still need a third. If this passes, the definition needs cleanup. For instance, I would be more inclined to say technological rather than scientific. Kiwima (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


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


And another. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, claims Samuel Beckett but is apparently James Joyce; again a nonce, not includable. Equinox 07:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Also, misspelled. Joyce wrote "smilesmirked" (with an i), and I can find other quotes spelled with the i, but only one other one is durably archived. (It is also easy to find quotes for smile-smirk as a noun) Kiwima (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I've added 2 verb uses, and 4 noun uses. They are nearly all under smile-smirk, so I've moved the entry to that title. Leasnam (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Can confirm it is real (search for "uwu culture") but I doubt it will meet CFI. Equinox 04:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. All I can find is in non-durably archived sources. Also, the definition seems wrong. It is the equivalent of the smiley face emoticon.... Kiwima (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I can find at least one durably archived hit for it, used as an emoticon, but a warning: it is on an adult group. Khemehekis (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


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)

electric Edit

Sense 4:

Drawing electricity from an external source; not battery-operated; corded.
Is that a rechargeable vacuum? No, it's electric.

Does this really exist, other than as a mistake, i.e. someone not understanding that a rechargeable device is also "electric"? Mihia (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I think mistakes are a major cause of language change. In addition, I think it is very difficult to call any particular usage a mistake if the mistake is a narrowing or broadening of an establish meaning or an extension outside the previous realms of usage. An narrowed definition for a word like electric seems like a challenge to cite. DCDuring (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
This is not support for the definition under challenge, but it does illustrate a distinction between electric and "truly electric":
  • 2007, Car and Driver[1], volume 52, page 26:
    It's the battery, stupid. Hybrids are not electric cars. This distinction is critical to understanding. Hybrids are conventional cars to which a system has been added to recapture the energy normally wasted by braking. This energy is stored briefly until it can be returned to the system as an assist to propulsion. Hybrids are feasible in a day when electric cars are not because hybrids are fuel-burning cars assisted only mildly by a very small battery.
DCDuring (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • 2003, NAWCC Bulletin[2], volume 45, page 811:
    The dial displays the words "Hamilton Electronic," but the watch is not electric. The analog movement is battery-operated, with a pulsed balance, and I believe is diode switched with 7 jewels. It contains a #702 unadjusted battery, #344. I know the movement design is previous to quartz digital or analog and is probably the second design of a battery-operated mechanical watch
  • 1964, Montgomery Ward, Catalogue[3], page 765:
    $6.73 Battery Model. Same as (F) but NOT electric. Order batteries below. 67 B 3366- Wt. 1 lb. .$4.24 "C" Batteries. Wt. 6 oz. 67 B 3217 2 for 30c ©Table Viewer. Changes slides automatically. For all 2-in. cardboard-mounted slides: 35mm, 828, 126 and 127. Insert up to 20 slides in right-hand well. Push-pull action positions slide under 214 x 214-ln. screen; deposits slides In left-hand well. Plastic housing. 67 B 3362— Wt. 3 lbs. Now $9.95 Battery Model. Same as (G), but not electric.
Thanks for finding the quotes. Personally, I think the two above are simply nonsense, in terms of their use of the word "electric". I don't necessarily think we should record every misuse of a word in the dictionary. Mihia (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The quotes are interesting, but do not support the supplied definition. Neither the electric car or electric watch referred to uses a power cord during operation. These quotes seem to indicate, rather, that we might want to add entries for electric car and for electric watch, because they are more specific than sum-of-parts. Kiwima (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

ultrarefined Edit

"Having a purity of 99% or greater." Needs to be verified in this specific sense, as distinct from just "very refined". Equinox 18:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I am finding percentage cutoffs everywhere from 99.9% to 60% for the use of the term "ultrarefined", depending on what the text is talking about. Even if we do find three that are talking about 99%, I think the definition would be misleading, because it implies something more universal - if we wanted to go down that route, it would involve giving the cutoffs for different substances, and I don't think we want to be that encyclopedic. Kiwima (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
This is clearly a case where, at best, ordinal ranking of the various brackets of purity would be fit for a more or less universal definition (eg, pure > ultra-refined > ? > ? > raw/crude). It seems to me that a usage note might be the best we can do, if we even have facts to support such a note. A search for “*refined” at OneLook Dictionary Search doesn't generate any such terms, using refined other than ultra-refined, refined, and unrefined. DCDuring (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


Any modern English usage? DTLHS (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

All I can find is Middle English and dictionaries of Middle English. Kiwima (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


I am finding some science fiction and Middle English uses on b.g.c, but it's hard to pin down anything. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 15:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I googled it, and the only hits that we didn't already have were word lists and word salad. Khemehekis (talk) 07:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


Ungoliant (falai) 15:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you requesting verification of the verb or the noun? Typically, verb forms do not need to be separately attested from the main verb, so that challenge really belongs in the CTC entry. Kiwima (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
The noun. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


"(euphemistic) An excuse, apologetic justification not based on enough evidence." Current usage example (apart from being politically inflammatory) puts the word in scare quotes, suggesting this isn't a separate sense but just sarcasm/sneer. Equinox 12:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


"(uncountable) Something that is not part of any perceived universe phenomena, having no motion, no particle, and no wavelength." Equinox 15:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Looks like tosh. I would have just deleted it. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


"(informal) A video game console." Note: distinct from something like an aircraft training simulator (or even one of those arcade games with the moving seats etc.). A console is a home gaming unit like a PlayStation etc. Equinox 19:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


Hot word older than a year. DTLHS (talk) 19:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I assume, then, that this request for verification does not apply to the Etymology 2 section (the obsolete verb)? For the Etymology I section, I have cited the dance, and have added three cites for the exclamation, although they are spread over multiple definitions. We could probably consolidate those meanings.... Kiwima (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


Hot word older than a year. DTLHS (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Google,, and aren't turning up any real use of the word. It doesn't seem very hot.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that one seems to have been a flash in the pan. Kiwima (talk) 10:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


"To perform certain types of female circumcision": as distinct from sense 1 "cut out, remove". Equinox 03:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

down with his apple-cartEdit

Tagged but not listed.

It appears in lots of old dictionaries of slang, some of which indicate that it is cockney or from the north of England, and appears to be related to upset someone's applecart, but I can find no actual usages. I suspect it is not so much a set phrase as a metaphoric meaning for apple-cart (applecart?).Kiwima (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

smoking catEdit

"(Asia) A tattletale teenager who tells on his friends after they have all tried smoking for the first time"

Reference not linked, not found via google or ddg, but may be reasonable. - Amgine/ t·e 01:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't tell: Is the Usenet use here a use of this meaning of the term? Khemehekis (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

scissor kickEdit

The sexual act, which has been there since 2009. I did a little searching on Google Books but saw nothing relevant. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 04:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Nothing on Google groups either. Kiwima (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018Edit


Tagged but not listed. Kiwima (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. Existing cites do not meet WI:Brand. Kiwima (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

in one's armourEdit

Previous tagged, not listed here. - Amgine/ t·e 18:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

fight in armourEdit

Previously tagged, not listed here. NB: sense condom use not supported by reference. - Amgine/ t·e 18:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


It shows on Google Books, but it seems they are just Poul Anderson's writing copied over again by Allen Sture and something called Snippet View. It does look like there is one from 2015 in Delphi Complete Works of Lucretius (Illustrated). Looking at the copied Poul Anderson articles, there would also be all the other -stuffs and coined terms in those ones too. How are we going to go about these? Anglish4699 (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

sourstuff just squeaked by with sufficient cites by other authors. I assume similar criteria get applied here: Have other SF authors adopted the term? Kiwima (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Don't know... Google Books Page 2 and so on doesn't show much else. Anglish4699 (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
waterstuff belongs to the same set. Equinox 03:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

ark ruffianEdit

Previously tagged, not listed here. Exact quote from reference source. - Amgine/ t·e 18:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a dictionary-only word, although I did find one use (on citations page). Kiwima (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Heh, someone else using the dictionary for "mood". I wonder if it appears in Times of London? - Amgine/ t·e 19:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

all nationsEdit

Previously tagged, not listed here. Exact quote from reference source. - Amgine/ t·e 19:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


Previously tagged, not listed here. - Amgine/ t·e 19:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I can find many references to the satire "Aminadab, or the Quaker's vision", but not much else. Kiwima (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
This seems valid:
1836 April 1, The Gentleman's Magazine[4], page 395:
[] finally, who married the very prim, starch, and conscientious young daughter of the Aminadabs; as for him, we shall close our observations with the last scene of his history.
I'm not sure what these mean:
1859, Benjamin Weiss, The Song of Songs Unveiled[5]:
From this expression it is evident that there must have been once an Aminadab, whose chariots contained and carried for a time the Ark of God, but which were afterwards bereaved of that holy treasure, and remained empty as was now her inner sanctuary.
2004, Kevin Hart, The Dark Gaze: Maurice Blanchot and the Sacred, page 166:
Or we learn of an Aminadab who is a chthonic servant in one of Nathaniel Hawthorne's stories.
DTLHS (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The 1836 quote looks good, but the two others do not look to me like they are referring to Quakers. Aminadab is a biblical name, which is probably what the 1859 quote refers to, and the 2004 is referring to a character named Aminadab. Kiwima (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense blackbanded darter

Tagged but not listed Kiwima (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Added by me from Webster 1913: their taxonomic designation was Hadropterus nigrofasciatus but somebody has modernised it. Equinox 06:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't find crabeater or crab-eater collocated with either Hadropterus or Percina at Google Books, Google Scholar, or Google News. On the web, I find us and those who copy from us. DCDuring (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Hadropterus is now a subgenus of Percina, so the "modernization" is correct. DCDuring (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that "modernised" wasn't a sneer; I was just pointing out the edit in case it would help in verifying this. I know nothing about the actual fish. Equinox 20:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Given that a common name in at least one source is the alphabetically-close crawl-a-bottom, I wonder if there was some kind of crossover in the original book or in the Project Gutenberg version that was the source of the online texts. There's no logical reason to call Percina nigrofasciata a "crabeater", since it's too small to eat a crab even if it were to find one in its freshwater habitat. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Fishbase, which has a lot of common names, only ascribes crabeater to Rachycentron canadum (cobia) and has no fish with the name crawl-a-bottom. DARE has crawl-a-bottom ascribed to Hypentelium nigricans (northern hogsucker) and the synonymous Catostomus nigricans and crabeater only to cobia.
I find vernacular names are maddening, because so many are not attestable in all the senses reported in sources like Fishbase. DCDuring (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I also find it annoying that there are apparently no scans of Webster 1913 available online. A work as huge as the Gutenberg version is bound to have at least a few typos and other human errors in it, but there's no way to check against the original unless you have access to a dead-tree copy. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I think there is a salutary lesson to be learned from Chuck considering whether the "crab-eater" is big enough to eat a crab. For me the words are quite often divorced from reality (that's why I spend my entire life on Wiktionary). Let us appreciate our biologists. Equinox 23:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I take it you've never encountered crabs, ie, the crab louse or pubic louse (Pthirus pubis), which is certainly small enough for P. nigricans. There are a lot of small decapods. One that was an inch long would be small enough to be subdued and eaten by the fish and large enough to be noticed by humans. DCDuring (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Those aren't known to frequent the habitats of Percina nigrofasciata (AFAIK), though the lice can be found in the text of unabridged dictionaries- even in those more straight-laced times. I did find a sense for Percina nigrofasciata under crabeater in the 1907 edition, with crawl-a-bottom nowhere on the same page, so we'll have to discard that theory. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
LOL, I'm glad to admit I haven't encountered the pubic louse. Equinox 00:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I spend some time trying to get images that help associate organisms with the vernacular or taxonomic names. Today it was dodecandrian/Dodecandria. DCDuring (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think Chuck's consideration of size is conclusive, given that the crabeater seal is called crabeater because it eats krill. Kiwima (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

firgun Edit

Doesn't seem like it has really entered into English. DTLHS (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

While it is true that it is usually either in italics or scare quotes, I found a number of quotes where it is used without either. This is cited Kiwima (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


None of the supposed derived terms (peninsula, penultimate, penumbra, peneplain) actually are. Any words that are actually formed with this prefix? DTLHS (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Delete that shit. (But: "By Tre Pol and Pen / Shall ye know all Cornishmen.") Equinox 02:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
If you delete this, remember to take out pene- as well. Kiwima (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
What about penannular? Can anyone find a Latin predecessor? DCDuring (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

spread out Edit

Rfv-sense: "Far apart, not close to each other"

Tagged but not listed (and now cited) Kiwima (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

A silly RFV, clearly attestable. Could be RFDed but I think we are doing our foreign learners a service with this kind of thing. (What's the difference between "come out" and "go out", or "come out" and "come through"? Difficult.) Equinox 02:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


"Lots of love". Kiwima closed this before it was adequately cited. We now have 5 purported citations: 2007 is a mention ("what do you think LOL means?"); 2010 looks good; 2011 is a mention; 2014 is very possibly the other LOL ("laugh out loud"), which as I mentioned before is often used as informal punctuation in Internet contexts; 2014 Texas Colt Gibson ditto, probably laughing not love; 2014 Stuart Heritage is a mention. This has not passed RFV and I understand Kiwima's frustration but IMO she was wrong to close it. We need adequate unambiguous citing. Equinox 10:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Unambiguous citations can be hard to find, especially for finely distinguished definitions. Rewording or combining definitions is sometimes the best way to close out an RfV rather than deletion or reliance on ambiguous citations. Mentions are often useful to show how others perceive meanings in use. DCDuring (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you could reword or combine in this case. And, as I said the requisite week before I closed this one, I believe this one falls under the "common usage"" criterion. Admittedly, it is informal, but everybody I have asked "what would LOL at the end of a written letter mean?" who is over the age of sixty (about half a dozen people) has immediately responded "lots of love". Nobody had any doubts or hesitation. Kiwima (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
That makes me feel so young. DCDuring (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Former British Prime Minister David Cameron famously believed that "LOL" meant "Lots of Love". See this. He's now 51; at the time, he would have been in his 40s, I believe. I originally thought that "LOL" meant "Lots of Love" too. (Me and Dave ... what are we like?! LOL) Mihia (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
The first use of "LOL" 2007 citation seems like a use, as does the use in the 2014 "Stuart Heritage" citation, which seems to be a quotation of (someone else's) use, such that we could (if anyone wanted to be picky) present just the part inside the quotation marks, sourced like "anonymous British mother, quoted by Stuart Heritage, in...". If we agree the 2010 citation is acceptable, I think we have enough just barely support for this, and the circumstantial evidence that this is what some (older) people intend provides important additional support, for keeping it with a "rare, dated" label. Perhaps there is a repository of old letters or telegrams, e.g. from WWI or WWII, which could be searched for additional citations. - -sche (discuss) 02:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


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)
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)


Rfv-sense: "Items that are produced daily". --Other dictionaries do not support this sense. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

While I can find evidence for this definition, I cannot find any evidence that is clearly distinct from "plural of daily". Kiwima (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, this seems almost by-definition redundant to "plural of daily". I would remove it and move the translations thither, singularizing them if possible or else {{qualifier}}-ing them as "plural". - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "A system of belief containing the concept that the person's existence continues after their death."

Can we find evidence for this that is distinct from "A particular system of faith and worship. " Kiwima (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Would evidence be of the form "X isn't a (real) religion", where either X actually does not hold for life beyond the mortal coil or where the speaker says/believes that X does not? DCDuring (talk)
I suppose, although I was expecting more an example where "religion" was used to refer to a belief in life after death that did not include any concept of faith and worship. Kiwima (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I am sceptical that such a sense is attested and also sceptical that usage such as the two of you describe would actually attest it as a distinct sense, as opposed to either suggesting that we should consider expanding the definition, or being already covered as belief in something supernatural. - -sche (discuss) 01:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


Proper citations please? This word is almost always italicised. There's this, but it's not terribly convincing either. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "Abbreviation of Kitchener. "

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


Rfv-sense: A hole into which one defecates. Tagged but not listed. DTLHS (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


Does anyone Luafy things except for us? DTLHS (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

A google group (openresty-en) uses it three times, but is not a Usenet group, contra our citation. I didn't find it in books. DCDuring (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull, the creator, should know better. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge Before I created the entry, I looked on Google Groups not just for the main lemma, but for its non-lemma forms too (i.e. "Luafies", "Luafied", and "Luafying"). At that time I do recall being able to find at least 3 examples of its usage, and several mentions. Please criticize the entry and not the user, as this is more constructive. Editors tend to make mistakes for at least valid reasons (that is, if this ends up failing RFV, then it was a mistake). Perhaps I should start creating entries by citing them first to avoid this issue, though it is not required, so people can see the thought process behind it. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
It's good to look for all the forms. But Google groups includes both Usenet groups and groups that are Google specific. You can often tell from the structure of the group name in which type the group in which the citation appears. If you can't tell from the name, click on the name and then on "About". If it's a usenet group, "Usenet" will appear the page next to "Access". DCDuring (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

shithole countryEdit

This may be a Donald Trump special. DonnanZ (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete for nominator's reason. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedied. Created by a single-purpose account with a definition not made in good faith to further political aims. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Usenet suggests it could be added as a hotword. Someone (probably a regular) could write a proper definition without political bias, and if it's still being used a year from now, we could keep it. Khemehekis (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • We already have shithole and country. Even a year from now it will be SOP. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 17:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Khemehekis Why do you think it's not SOP? People can also, by the way, say "this shithole of a country" or "this country is a shithole". This should stay deleted. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I did not submit this to RFV because it's SoP. I am usually tolerant towards SoP terms. DonnanZ (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull Frankly, I wasn't even considering the SoP aspect of this term. It was submitted to RfV rather than RfD, after all, and the reason Donnanz gave was "This may be a Donald Trump special". Khemehekis (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


Looks like Middle English. DTLHS (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed - I can find quotes in Chaucer, and there is Piers Plowman, but of modern English works, all I have found is one strange piece from 1908. Kiwima (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: To still; to assuage; to calm; to soothe, as one in pain.

cited. A difficult one to search for, because of all the false positives. I eventually found a bunch by a search on "dill down", or "dills down" or "dilled down" or "dilling down" - so all my cites are followed by "down". I cannot say whether the verb should be "dill down", rather than "dill", it could just be an artifact of my search technique. Kiwima (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
"dill the pain" produces a couple of relevant hits in Google Search and a mention in a dialect dictionary in GBS. Some of the mentions seem to suggest it is Yorkshire (England) dialect. Mihia (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
... it occurred to me, also, that that one would need to be confident that examples are not typos for "dull", especially since "i" and "u" are adjacent on the keyboard. Mihia (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh yes. In searching, I found scannos for "still" and for "lull", as well as words with very different meanings. The "dill the pain" references are, unfortunately, mentions rather than uses, but do indicate that the definition belongs at "dill" and not at "dill down". Kiwima (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


I can see plenty of scannos for righteousness. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Which does make it hard to verify on the spot. I suspect the creator @Skyflier0652 made this word up, though. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
It's here (if you can see the snippet view), but it clearly means "frightfulness", not the stated meaning. Everything else looks like scannos. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


Any takers? --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

cited. It is used regularly on [6]. Kiwima (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
That is just one single community though. Are there more quotes from other places? —suzukaze (tc) 00:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "Any substance or device used to ignite a fire, (especially) any priming wire, blasting cap, or other device used to ignite gunpowder or other explosive."

A modern cartridge consists of the following:
1. the bullet, as the projectile;
2. the case, which holds all parts together;
3. the propellant, for example gunpowder or cordite;
4. the rim, which provides the extractor on the firearm a place to grip the casing to remove it from the chamber once fired;
5. the primer, which ignites the propellant.

I believe this is inaccurate. Looking at other dictionaries and usage in the web, it seems to me that "primer" is seldom if ever used of a substance or device that is used to light a fire, such as campfire or fire in an oven. Am I right? Should it rather read like this, for example:

  1. Any substance or device, such as a priming wire or blasting cap, used to ignite a main explosive.

--Hekaheka (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


A messy entry in general, but an anon tried to remove the last sense (a slur against immigrants), claiming it is nonexistent, and indeed the two "cites" are not cites at all. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course they are cites, they are simply cites that are not on durably archived sources. I did find one on Usenet, which I added, but frankly, I suspect none of these things really mean immigrant - I think they are just more of the use of "jabroni" as a general term of abuse. It's just that the second definition is overly-specific. Kiwima (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


I just heard this word for the first time last night in TV show from a year or so ago with a clip of Jeremy Corbyn and I wondered if it's a new or just a regional variant of jam-packed.

He used it in mid-2016 and the Wiktionary page was created in mid-2016 with a formulaic uninformative etymology. Google Ngrams has zero uses recorded with hyphen, space, or as a single word.

I'm not the only one to notice. Here's some articles I've found on the topic:

So let's see if it meets our CFI, if it was a nonce slip of the tongue, or if it has an interesting history we can elucidate via expanding the etymology section and adding citations.

Specifically, was it already in use pre-Corbyn pre-2016, when does it trace back to, and did his usage popularize it, causing it to be begin being widely used? — hippietrail (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I can find uses dating back as far as 1941 - although those are more SOP - meaning packed with a ram. For this more figurative meaning, the earliest I have found so far is 1953. Clearly it was not coined by Corbyn in 2016 - and from the SOP citations, my guess is that it grew out of that, rather than a blend of ram-jam and jam-packed. Also, on the Citations page I added a quote that uses it as an adverb. Kiwima (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. One of the best sounding theories I read in the links I provided was that this has long been a regularly used term in Jamaica and that Corbyn spent time in Jamaica when he was younger. It would be interesting to investigate that angle. — hippietrail (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Google Books has one match for "to tender kiss": "When tender friends, to tender kiss, / Run up with open arms"; however, it would be wrong to analyse that as a compound verb. Equinox 22:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I found one use of the past tense, "tender-kissed", albeit without the hyphen, in A Crimson Frost by Marcia Lynn McClure: "He tender kissed her lips once more and then took her hand and started toward the village." Khemehekis (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
As above I'd say "tender" feels like a (poetic) adverb there. Equinox 23:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)