Open main menu

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

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

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

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

Scope of this request page:

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



See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
  • Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFV failed or RFV passed (emboldened), indicating what action was taken. This makes automatic archiving possible. Some editors strike out the discussion header at this time.

In some cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply "RFV failed" or "RFV passed" (for example, two senses may have been nominated, of which only one was cited).

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request may be archived to the entry's talk-page. This consists of removing the discussion from this page, and copying it to the entry's talk-page (using {{archive-top|rfv}} + {{archive-bottom}}). Historically, it could also include simply commenting on the talk page with a link to the diff of the edit that removed the discussion from this page. Examples of discussions archived at talk pages: Talk:non-lemma, Talk:accident-blackspot.

Oldest tagged RFVs


April 2018Edit


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

Looks like it might be used in – what do you call them – flow diagrams? — SGconlaw (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
FWIW drafts on the Unicode site note that "this is unequivocally the question mark in the diamond, whereas FFFD could have any representation".​—msh210 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


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

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

June 2018Edit

do someone a frightenEdit

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

July 2018Edit


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

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


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

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

Parker squareEdit

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

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

August 2018Edit


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

Apparently John Broderick was a well-publicized NY City police detective known for giving beatings to perps. This work on slang has some citations, but some look like mentions. I can't find use in books of fiction, where I would expect it. DCDuring (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
See w:Johnny Broderick, which mentions broderick as a verb. DCDuring (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The form “brodericked” gets a few use hits.  --Lambiam 17:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Neither verb nor noun appears in DARE. DCDuring (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The verb has passed (two cites on page and one on citations page). The noun still needs one more citation. Kiwima (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


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

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


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

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

October 2018Edit


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

November 2018Edit


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

Here are a few instances of the given sense:

Discover Magazine

CTV News

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


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

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

December 2018Edit


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

sporae dispersaeEdit

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

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


stevven, steavenEdit

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

This might be of interest. It's a mention of the verb stevven, and explains how it was used mid-last century (c.1947). The text reads: If the stowering <i.e. the drifting of snow> was driven along by a very strong wind or gale, it was known as stevvening; when the wind howled, it was said to stevven. Stevven indicated something loud, like a howl, but it could also mean someone shouting. A fierce blizzard was described as “Snaw that was stevvening and stowering.” If a person lost his or her temper and began to shout and wave their arms about, they were also described as stevvening, while a snowstorm being driven by a strong wind was often known as a snaw-stower or snaw-stoor. [[1]].


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

black pillEdit

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

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

January 2019Edit


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

I added two uses to the citations page. I found a third quote, but it was too mention-y. Kiwima (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
This can be found on issuu:
  • 2016 May 15, "Old English words that should make a comeback: 17. Rawgabbit", The Express Tribune "hi five!", page 6.
    We all know a few rawgabbits. A rawgabbit is a person who likes to gossip confidentially about matters that they know nothing about.
Which is, considering the article, quite borderline. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


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

ledish in its current sense can be moved to Middle English. There is a ledish2 which is an obsolete spelling of leadish Leasnam (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I've moved the "Pertaining to people" sense to Middle English, and left ledish as an obsolete form of leadish. The tag remains, but is may no longer be needed. Leasnam (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


Searching for "thamnium" / "the thamnium" / "a thamnium" doesn't return anything promising. DTLHS (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I found 2 candidate citations at Google Scholar. They strike me as low-quality because the authors are probably not native speakers (based on name and publication in Russia). They also are not clearly consistent with the definition. I don't have searchable access to descriptions of lichen or the scholarly lichenology literature generally. My review of BHL was not fruitful. DCDuring (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


An obsolete transcription borrowed from French, which I only seem to see in one encyclopaedia and derivatives or plagiarised forms of it. Created by @Geographyinitiative. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is the source I used to create that entry: [22]. It is written as 'Hoang-tcheou-fou' and is in the extreme northeast of Hou Koang (which is bordered in Green). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
'Hoang-tcheou-fou' also appears on this map: [23] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019Edit


Another Frenchism. DTLHS (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


Doesn't look like an adjective, probably should be capitalized. DTLHS (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

With GBS I get to see only a few snippets, but they strongly suggest that in collocations like “Muscuty plains” we have the attributive use of a noun. Almost all uses in these snippet views capitalize the word, but that may be due to dated conventions; I also see the common word buffalo being capitalized.  --Lambiam 12:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


Not certain this is legit, at least in sense given. Equinox 16:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I improved the definition (the dateliner does not write just the dateline, but also the article that follows), but could only find one supporting citation. I did add and cite another meaning (the article itself). I also added two cites to the citations page for a third meaning (an investor who buys and sells based on the daily stock market reports), but did not add it because I could not find a third. Kiwima (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


I suspect this is obsolete if it still exists at all. The English Dialect Dictionary has pointers to some citations we could use, except that many are actually Scots, or use a different spelling. - -sche (discuss) 23:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I added a few cites. The 1896 work is written in English, but two of the characters in the story (Corp and Tommy) speak in Scottish dialect. Leasnam (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


I previously challenged LOL for "lots of love": I am personally deeply convinced that LOL never meant "lots of love" and this is similar to a backronym, where people thought it must have meant that. Let's look at the four citations: they are awful and inadequate:

  • 2007: "what do you think LOL means?" (says the modern kid), "lots of love" (says the ignorant father, getting it wrong).
  • 2010: "lol, dad, miscommunication", it says that the lol (laughter) was misunderstood as love instead of laughter.
  • 2011: possibly acceptable but it is almost a mention rather than a usage.
  • 2014: specifically (and a humorous example of) the misunderstanding of love as laughter, but the presentation suggests it's unusual and we have no proof that this cute anecdote ever happened in the real world.

If anyone can find a LOL that is unambiguously love and not laughter and isn't in some kind of humorous misunderstanding context, I will buy them a beer (or whatever cheap thing they like) on PayPal. I think this is an urban myth. Prove me wrong, bitches. Equinox 05:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I personally am SURE that LOL meant "lots of love" because I personally remember it doing so, and know plenty of other old fogies like myself who also remember it doing so. It feels like a violation to be told my past and my memories are bogus. I doubt we will ever find evidence on Google to support this meaning, and even if I can find a bunch of old letters to support it, how do I bring them in as evidence on Wictionary? Kiwima (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm, no offence meant, and even if you aren't "CFI-compliant" your memories matter because this stuff will go to the talk page, and may be proven by future, better people than ourselves. I still really want to see proof of this. If you actually have letters with LOL used that way that would be really important and interesting even if we can only stick 'em on the Talk or Citations page, and I'm sure you can cut out any part that would be too personal. Thanks for your help. Equinox 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
There is no question that some people have THOUGHT that LOL meant "lots of love", and even used it thus. Famously former British Prime Minister David Cameron did so (see e.g [24]). By the way, I see no need for you to call us "bitches". It is unpleasant. 02:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I, too, recollect LoL/LOL as being part of the handwritten closing I put on greeting cards. I guess it's obsolete now because the other use is so dominant. DCDuring (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Acronym Finder and AbbreviationZ both include "lots of love" and "little old lady" among their definitions. DCDuring (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
In most of the stuff you get on Google Books for "LOL" + "lots of love" this usage is framed as a misunderstanding. [25] [26] Usenet seems more promising, though. [27] ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
If you ask anyone over 60 what LOL meant at the end of a letter, they will tell you it was a common abbreviation for "lots of love". It has been totally eclipsed now by laugh out loud, and doesn't really make it into permanently archived sources, but I still think this one was common enough to get in by common usage. Kiwima (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Definitely generational. Certainly was "lots of love" when I was sending greeting cards to relatives. If three of us find some old greeting cards with LOL and upload the images to Commons, would that be good attestation? DCDuring (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't have any old letters to prove this (got rid of them when I emigrated), but it was such COMMON USAGE!!!!! DCDuring clearly remembers it as well. Part of the reason I feel so strongly that this one should be included is because of all the current reactions to older people who interpret this as lots of love. They are not finding a completely unfamiliar acronym and making a wild (incorrect) guess rather than trying to find out what it means, they are being misled by their own past experience because it used to mean lots of love, which is a much more reasonable mistake. Kiwima (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
If we could establish a likely period for usage there are publications which include many personal correspondences (e.g. soldiers writing home). I agree that this will be a hard one to track down, but perhaps not impossible. - TheDaveRoss 13:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I have no doubt that LOL was commonly used for "lots of love" at the end of a letter, similar to how XOXOXO is used today (that is not at all to say that "XOXOXO" is some recent invention), because, although that was a bit before my time, I have a large family, and they (a large number of them under sixty [although I would note that there is a saying {albeit one that has begun to no longer been true ever since the advent of the blasted social media age that we now unfortunately live in} in my state that means in a nutshell "that which begins in California/out West, and is not readily apparent {in other words, not a common trend or fad}, takes roughly ten years before it comes to {MY STATE}", which I suppose makes perfect sense considering that California is on the polar side of the country from where I live--even the northernmost parts of California are notably below where my area is on a map. In any case, I bring this up because the saying in question also indicates a broader point, I feel, that much of that which begins and much of that which fizzles out in another part of the country {outside of the Northeast} has historically taken much longer to begin or to fizzle out where I live]) recall and have told me in the past (many years ago) precisely what User:DCDuring and User:Kiwima recollect. Was this, perhaps, less common in the United Kingdom than it was in North America (I'm not suggesting that it was specific to a particular area or anything like that, I'm just wondering if it was more common in one than in the other)? Because I have a pretty strong feeling that if I were to go at this very moment and ask the kind elderly woman who lives right next door to me if there was another way of indicating what "XOXOXO" indicates at the end of a letter, she would tell me that "LOL" or "lots of love" has served that purpose. Even if I do end up taking the time to find clear evidence of that fact, though, I would decline Equinox's (probably unserious) offer, as I am a staunch teetotaller-- always have been and always will be. Tharthan (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I've tried search Google Books, restricting the title to include "letters" or "correspondence", with time period 1800-2000. No joy. DCDuring (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
That's the problem really. On the one hand I can imagine the frustration of Kiwi et al (as though I had to defend a word like autofire after the accidental burning of all 1980s video game magazines); on the other hand I don't think we should ever make exceptions to attestation rules just because we like our editors and they're probably right. What if it's a massive hoax that only comes to light 50 years later? boo. Equinox 02:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the cites in the entry, I'd dismiss the first (2002), but the others seem to meet our standards. The fact that there is difference between what older users and younger users mean and understand by LoL warrants a dated label. I fail to understand how evidence of misunderstanding isn't relevant attestation. I agree that it is mentiony, but it is substantive, in-the-wild mentioning that we are seeing. I think we should be happy to find some attestation for such a common misunderstanding, especially involving intra-familial communications, often involving children. It would be interesting to determine whether the "lots of love" meaning predated widespread use of greeting cards. I think not, but I'm not sure how we could find out. DCDuring (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I suspect the association with greeting cards is just from your particular experience. In my experience, it was commonly used in thank you letters. Kiwima (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

lesbian dance theoryEdit

DTLHS (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Found and added one book citation and one from Usenet; the latter is a repost of an article originally published on the Web but I don't know that that would invalidate it...? If no third is found, please move to Citations space. Equinox 15:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


Appears in 1 paper. DTLHS (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


Looks more like Latin. DTLHS (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

From what I can see, it looks like English, but all I can find are mentions. Kiwima (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Most of what I find are mentions (It appears in a lot of dictionaries). I did manage to find two quotes, which I added to the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


Appears in 1 paper. "Axonotrophic" is much more common. DTLHS (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I found a second. The two quotes are on the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I have added three cites to the citations page, although only the 2014 cite seems to completely match the supplied definition. I also found many references to one of these places in Vancouver which is named "The Cuddlery". Kiwima (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
The wording is needlessly confusing. These is a "business establishment that sells cuddles". DCDuring (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019Edit


DTLHS (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

In addition to the cite in the entry: "49-year-old creepshotter", "rulings in favor of creepshotters", "would-be creepshotters" (page 105). No idea whether they are all durable — Bustle probably isn't. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Apart from the cite from Elle (assuming that the magazine in the video was actually printed) they don't look durably archived. I'd think usenet would be a good source. DCDuring (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the Elle cite looks good (Issuu digitizes magazines so we can find them, while libraries archive copies of them so they're "durable"). For the IBT we would need to see if it appeared in print. As an aside, I wonder if creepshooter is ever used in this sense. - -sche (discuss) 00:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


Used in 1 paper. DTLHS (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I have added two cites but we still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I have added two cites, but could not find a third. Kiwima (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "Wine revived by new fermentation, resulting from the admixture of must." The sense has one quotation under it, but that quotation has a footnote saying it doesn't support the sense and that the sense is an error in the old dictionary we appear to have copied it from! The sense could be a plausible extension of the "must" sense; OTOH, it is contranymic to the "new wine used to revive old wine" sense. The presence of both other senses may make it difficult to find clear citations. M-W doesn't have it, neither does the EDD although it has some other interesting senses. "Revive the stum", "revived stum", "revived stum" turn up nothing. I also looked for mentions of people putting new wine into stum, but only found some other old dictionaries. - -sche (discuss) 07:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It appears in the OED Online, though the entry has not been updated since 1919. The current quotation is given, together with one from Henry Fielding (which to me is not clear at all) – True Patriot (1775): “We drank nine bottles a piece of stum.” — SGconlaw (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


Only scannos where the two words have run together. Equinox 07:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Google scholar has a number of hits that are hidden behind the paywall, so they are impossible for me to verify. However, this hyphenates the term at a line break, meaning it is either polarpolymer or polar-polymer. Kiwima (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


Found 1 use. DTLHS (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


Nothing in books or onelook, I do see some on Twitter and maybe blogs? Can we cite this per CFI? - TheDaveRoss 13:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Everything I can find is not CFI-compliant. Kiwima (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "(Internet slang, derogatory) A self-important or obnoxious pseudointellectual."

I've tried to find attestation on Google groups (UseNet portion), but it is hard to exclude all the hits for the Fedora software. I don't know what positive collocations would generate hits for the sense above. (OTOH, neckbeard looks attestable in more-or-less the sense in the entry.) DCDuring (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I tried searching for it on Groups and Books together with other words like "neckbeard(s)", "MRA(s)", "angry", "misogynistic", "gross", and "m'lady". I only found a few books which, although clearly using it to refer to hats worn by such people, were still using it to mean the hats, not the people. - -sche (discuss) 18:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Sigehelmus as the adder, perhaps they know of some usage. Wouldn't shock me if this was used as a meronym, but I have never seen such. - TheDaveRoss 18:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I have seen this, just not anywhere durable: search twitter for "of fedoras who" for some examples. (That phrase nets nothing on Google Groups or Books, sadly, and "fedoras who" nets only chaff.) - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't doubt that it is used, given that at least three veteran contributors have fairly specific views on its meaning, but terms not in other dictionaries really need some attestation. We can't just favor terms from whatever subcultures we may be part of. DCDuring (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
All I've been able to find: page 6. page 10 (mention). I don't think the definition is quite right though, in my experience a "fedora" is an obnoxious, typically misogynist, male new atheist, brony or MRA (maybe a PUA or incel). Being a pseudointellectual would be relatively accidental to that, some don't seem to wear it to look intellectual but simply to look like a manly movie star. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


Who used it and when did they use it? DTLHS (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The OED defines it as "(obsolete) anyone else". (although the example they give uses "elsewhom") SemperBlotto (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Etymonline and what I can see of the OED entry date "elsewho" to the 1540s / 1542, but the only citations I can find are modern nonce-y ones on Usenet: Citations:elsewho. There's a remarkable paucity of mention even in other dictionaries (old or modern), let alone other books. Century. which sometimes has usexes that can help with finding citations, has elsewhat, elsewhen, elsewhere, elsewhither and elsewise, but not this; Etymonline adds elsehow ("1660s"), elsewhence ("c. 1600") and elsewards ("1882"). I also spotted uses of "elsewhom". - -sche (discuss) 07:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
What citations does the OED have from the 1540s? DTLHS (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
"c1542 Udall in H. Ellis Orig. Lett. Eng. Hist. (1843) 4 I cannot persuad myself that your maistershipp hateth in me or elswhom any thyng excepte vices." SemperBlotto (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, this is probably cited now (two of the citations are good, two seem to be missing or slightly misusing a word), as is elsewhom. - -sche (discuss) 04:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I see two good citations, I don't like the other two. DTLHS (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


RFV-sense "(neologism, slang) A neologism formed by grammatical rules." It would help to have examples of the kind of word this is intended to describe.
Searching for the plural, and excluding scannos and typos of "grammarians" and instances of "bad grammarisms" which are properly parsed as "[bad grammar]-isms", I think there are enough hits to suggest there is some countable meaning like "a form consistent with the grammar (or even spelling?) of a language or dialect" (one book refers to "such terms as Baryte, colour, mollusc and other typical British 'grammarisms'"), but not this. - -sche (discuss) 06:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The American author of the quoted passage, taken from a book review of the book Rocks, Minerals & Fossils of the World, confuses spelling with grammar. Notwithstanding the scare quotes, I think this too should be parsed like “[British grammar]-isms”.  --Lambiam 17:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Found only 2 cites. Not even sure they are independent (may be by same author). DCDuring (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)



1 (transitive, obsolete) To lose entirely or completely.
2 (transitive, obsolete) To destroy, kill.
4 (transitive, obsolete) To bereave, deprive.

Are these attestable in modern English, even EME? If not, they might do better as Middle English. It wouldn't hurt to have three citations for the unchallenged 3rd definition "abandon". DCDuring (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I've found a few possible cites, though some of these could be considered English uses of the Norwegian word, given their context: 12345678 --Hazarasp (talk · contributions) 13:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


Geometry suffix. The claimed derived terms, triangle and quadrangle, were not in fact formed this way in English. So what was? Equinox 19:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I've added more of them, but even the ones that were formed anew in English can IMHO be analysed sufficiently as (Latinate numeric prefix) + angle. --Hazarasp (talk · contributions) 22:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

armilustrum Edit

DTLHS (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not properly cited, all uses are italicized. ChignonПучок 12:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019Edit


To recommend (informal). Cites given are reccing and recced, so might easily be for rec (a more intuitive spelling to me). Equinox 17:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


Neither of the alleged senses exist.2600:1000:B124:E4FF:1CD3:5F75:E5C:757B 22:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, they do. But not on durably archived media as far as I can tell. Kiwima (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

ninja copEdit

All the Google Books results are for literal cops that are ninjas 23:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Can be found on the Web though, e.g. [28]. Equinox 17:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


"(preceded by "to feel") Ashamed; acutely aware of one's own offensive qualities." I don't think this is a correctly thought-out sense. If you feel obnoxious (despicable) in sense 1, then you are ashamed. It doesn't mean that "obnoxious" itself means "ashamed" in any sense. Equinox 18:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this definition seems misconceived, but I wonder if some people do use it this way:
But once I felt so obnoxious in college, when a teacher whom most of the girls hated (you know what I mean) with a wicked laugh asked me about who named me so, my mom or my dad? [29]
I’m still iffy on the size as it was too large for my jeans pocket, where I usually keep my phone. I had to keep it in my purse which isn’t always convenient when chasing my three year old. I felt a little obnoxious pulling the phone out at the park or the bus stop. [30]
Would you actually feel "obnoxious" in the true sense in these situations? On the other hand, perhaps we could consider these merely as misuses -- people not understanding what the word means. Mihia (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
If we agree that these uses attest another sense, then surely that sense is “embarrased”, much weaker than “acutely aware of one's own offensive qualities”. But – unless this is more common than I think it is – I go with these uses being embarassing misuses.  --Lambiam 00:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, these are (apparently) at the ashamed/embarrassed end of that definition, which is the part mainly being questioned. Mihia (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Interesting cites, but I'm not sure we're seeing another sense of obnoxious. Couldn't a reading of the second cite above, for example, be "I felt I was (being) a little obnoxious pulling the phone out [] ."? It could be self-awareness without shame, certainly. I don't know how to read the first one with any of the current or proposed definitions. DCDuring (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the second cite, it seems too extreme to me that she would feel "obnoxious", in the true sense, about displaying her mobile phone. My feeling is that she means to say that she feels ashamed of it or embarrassed about it. Mihia (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
A perhaps more entertaining example of the 'self-awareness' reading is:
  • 1895, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit: Sermons[31]:
    You are in a good way, my dear friend, when you begin to feel obnoxious to yourself, even as your sin has made you to be obnoxious to God. Self-loathing is one of the early stages of helpful spiritual life.
DCDuring (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Self-loathing may also be the final stage of spiritual life. That aside, is this not simply a transparent use of obnoxious? Otherwise we also may need a new sense for ugly: (preceded by "to feel") Ashamed; acutely aware of one's own lack of beauty. ([32], [33], [34].)  --Lambiam 07:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the "I felt a little obnoxious" and "feel obnoxious to yourself" citations still seem like the usual sense to me. (The "felt so obnoxious in college" could also be the usual sense.) I tend to agree this seems to have been misconcieved. - -sche (discuss) 16:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

secrete Edit

"(transitive, with away) To steal. The royal jewels were secreted away in the middle of the night, sub rosa." My understanding is that to secrete away is to hide — a different existing sense. A thief might secrete stolen goods in a bag etc. but secrete does not mean "steal". Equinox 20:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The meaning is definitely not “to steal” in this passage: “Jeanne's body, secreted away, was only later reburied next to his, in Père Lachaise.“[35]  --Lambiam 06:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I wonder whether "The royal jewels were secreted away in the middle of the night" could be a confusion with "spirited away". Mihia (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
The addition “sub rosa” suggests indeed that the intended meaning of the verb is not “to steal”: people stealing the royal jewels would obviously attempt to maintain secrecy, so then the addition becomes pleonastic to an asinine degree. In the context, spirit away makes perfect sense. The use of “secrete away” here is used by to support the definition “To conceal in a hiding place; cache”. Given sense 1 of Etymology 3, this is soppy.  --Lambiam 20:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@Lambiam To 'steal away' can be used to mean to 'hide away' or 'run away' usually quickly. Deonyi (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
If the definition given now as “to steal” is supposed to mean “to steal away”, then it is presented in an utterly misleading way. Also, secrete away is transitive, but our current definition of steal away is strictly intransitive, and dictionaries that list this combination agree.  --Lambiam 21:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


Any takers? Might be dictionary-only word. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

This is obviously an error for "cryptoscopophilia", since there is absolutely no Greek or Latin morpheme that could end up as "cryto-", while "crypto-" is a good fit for the definition given. I find it amusing that a simple typo has been has been faithfully and uncritically copied by so many purveyors of "interesting facts". There are, indeed, a few hits for "cryptoscopophilia", but they're not that much better than the misspelled ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
All I find, both for crytoscopophilia and cryptoscopophilia, are musings on the word itself or occurrences in lists of perverse propensities. It does not appear to meet our CFI.  --Lambiam 09:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

pinkadoodle Edit

Not convinced this meets CFI. No hits on Groups, 3 hits on BGC for unrelated uses (2 of which are talking about "pinkadoodle pie"). — surjection?〉 19:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

kha Edit

The Cyrillic letter Х, х. DTLHS (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
First one has nothing to do with Cyrillic; it's about Devanagari.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, how about this table? Kiwima (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The last citation is also not used with the meaning of Х; it's not listing individual Cyrillic letters but rather giving a reconstructed transcription of a Buddhist text based on a Cyrillic attestation. (Om, rag, rang, khi, etc. are not names of Cyrillic letters either.) — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 16:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The one remaining cite in the entry (1956) is very marginal; in context it seems to be referring to the Russian word, because it contrasts different words in Slavic languages that refer to that letter. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

shit distributer Edit

Good luck --I learned some phrases (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Note we also have shit distributor (better spelling!). Equinox 09:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


No BGC or GGC hits, neither quote reliably archived. — surjection?〉 17:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

bix noodEdit

Seems to be part of a meme, but is this a word? - TheDaveRoss 01:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it is two words ; ). cited Kiwima (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kiwima: 2017 looks like it attests a different sense (maybe "incomprehensible speech"?). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


RFV-adjective sense. The first quotation useþ it as a verb. I’m not sure the second can be counted as referring to packed food. Also, I’ve created tapao, and I’m sure one of the verbs being described as an altform of the other is in order as they seem to be used in the same way. —⁠Desaccointier 13:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I have converted the definition of the verb to an alt form of tapao, as that spelling seems more common. I am not sure what to do about the adjective, which might just be an attributive noun. Kiwima (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

evancalous Edit

DTLHS (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

neothauma Edit

All cites I can see are capitalised. --I learned some phrases (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


All cites I see are crap --I learned some phrases (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I did a search on my personal collection of RPG pdfs, and found no cites.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

CRT Edit

The request concerns the sense “(role-playing games) Initialism of criticality point/rate.” In examining a Tea room question concerning this sense and trying to understand the intended meaning, it seemed that all occurrences of “criticality point/rate” circled back to our Wiktionary entry. I found one explanation stating that “CRT” simply stands for “critical” (as in “critical damage”, not “critical acclaim”). However, I think that abbreviation also fails our CFI.  --Lambiam 09:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

pediatron Edit

Slang for "pediatrician". No GBooks hits for "a pediatron": hits without the article suggest it might be the brand name of a machine or something (?) but probably not the given sense. Equinox 00:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

zodarion Edit

DTLHS (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


RFV for both purported verb senses: "to move quickly", "to throw an object a long distance or with a sudden or forceful motion". Seems like if it is actually used a verb, it's a nonce word with an ambiguous meaning. Also needs appropriate labels if it can be verified. — surjection?〉 18:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

For second sense:
2018 September 13, Stacey Ritzen, “What does ‘yeet’ mean—and how did it become a meme?”, in The Daily Dot[36]:
Yeet can take on any number of uses as a noun or a verb, typically as a way to express a sudden or forceful motion, such as throwing an object long distance.
2019 August 26, Allie Lembo, “13 slang words everyone is using and what they really mean”, in Insider Inc.[37]:
Finally, it's also used as a verb for "[discarding] an item at a high velocity," such as throwing an empty can into the trash. "Yeeting" something may be accompanied by the exclamation of the word.
2019 May 1, John McWhorter, “Why Grown-Ups Keep Talking Like Little Kids”, in The Atlantic[38]:
One now speaks of “yeeting” an empty can into the trash, and the word has even developed an irregular past-tense form, yote.
93 (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Those are all mentions or at the very least mention-y. — surjection?〉 16:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Probably) cited. The Princetonian quote is a bit iffy. Julia 20:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

boot board Edit

Rfv-sense "The part of a snowboard that the boot of the rider is attached to." Is this referring to the binding? The stomp pad? There are boot boards in ski boots (and alpine snowboard boots), I added that sense, but I have never heard of this as a part of a snowboard. Regional maybe? - TheDaveRoss 19:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


I have seen "birb", but I would be somewhat surprised if that had enough currency to be attested. Never heard of "borb". - TheDaveRoss 19:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

sink inEdit

1. (idiomatic) To become clear in one's mind; to come to accept something.

RFV sense "to come to accept something". It could be just a misconstructed definition, but I'm listing it here in case I am missing something. Mihia (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I think "to come to realise something/become a realisation to" might be what they were aiming for (?) Leasnam (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Two distinct definitions are presented as if one definition. The first is the only way I know this phrasal verb. In that definition, a person is not the subject of the verb. It is the object of understanding/realization that is the subject:
That he was not ever going to get promoted finally sank in.
The second definition should fit something like:
*John sank in that he was not going to get promoted.
The latter makes no sense to me. DCDuring (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
You can make it make sense by adjusting the definition likewise to: “To become accepted in one's mind”. However, I too don’t believe the idiom means that. If the subject happens to be some tragic event (“The loss of his wife had not really sunk in at that point”), the realization of its harsh reality needs settling in order to become accepted, so it may sometimes appear to have that sense, leading to this misunderstanding.  --Lambiam 09:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


The current "cites" provide little evidence for the definition given, can we get reasonable ones? - TheDaveRoss 14:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "a wild or out-of-control person" I have never seen this used as a noun. - TheDaveRoss 14:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "Abbreviation of bratwurst." I have only seen brat, and quick searches were un-fruitful. - TheDaveRoss 14:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


"A button (of a joypad, joystick or similar device) that causes a video game character to kick." Another of the silly "button named after a verb" entries. Will we ever find a plural cite? Equinox 17:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. I weakly support "Play", "Rewind" etc., subject to capitalisation clarification, but this is too much. Mihia (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


A Lychrel number. DTLHS (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I see a few uses (also as if an adjective), but all are in blogs or such, not durably archived sources.  --Lambiam 08:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


As @SemperBlotto would say: Any takers? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

[39] (between scare quotes), [40], [41], [42].  --Lambiam 08:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I was honestly afraid that this would be a term that meant "picture taken of oneself after committing murder" or that it had some snuff-film-esque connotations. Glad to see that it is just hyperbole. Tharthan (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the cites, I wouldn’t call it “just hyperbole”. I am sure Freud would have recognized an unconscious death wish on the part of the selfiers.  --Lambiam 22:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Point taken, although that could be said of many daredevils as well, and they aren't called *suiciders. Tharthan (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


One use on Usenet but derived from different words on there. — surjection?〉 09:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a hoax or joke to me, particularly the part about it being used during festive occasions. Someone (presumably the same anonymous editor) also inserted the term into PEBCAK, which was reverted. — Cheers, JackLee talk 11:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Brezhnev RepublicanEdit

Preliminary search is not promising. - TheDaveRoss 13:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

brodown showdownEdit

This does rhyme, but the definition doesn't make any sense. Can we find some usage demonstrating meaning and then write a corresponding definition? - TheDaveRoss 13:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if the term is real (I didn't even know of the term "brodown" until I was looking for interesting Germanic-friendly terms on here some months back), but I do actually understand the definition, although it is definitely worded lousily and is phrased in a subcultural fashion (which is not helpful). I think that it is referring to a gathering of men (who may potentially be friends) that is meant to be fun and cordial, but also has elements of competition. For instance, a multiplayer video game tournament where people also chat and have some food might count as this if both genders are not invited or something. Tharthan (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
There is an annual [Highland Mountain brodown showdown], but that does not make it a generic term. Kiwima (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete. It's mainly used as names of competitive events, internet articles, podcasts, TV episodes etc. I did find a couple usages, but none from durably archived sources: [43], [44], [45]. Julia 18:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

a well-slept child is a well-kept childEdit

When I try to look this up, I only find entries to Japanese dictionaries that translate a Japanese proverb this way. — surjection?〉 07:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


Most of the sources in the entry do not look to be durably archived. - -sche (discuss) 02:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding definition 1, "A word used in a tweet by Donald Trump, the meaning of which was subject to speculation." ...and this is worthy of inclusion, why exactly? Is every single thing that this president does (including making a terrible typo) worthy of noting, especially in a serious (at least I try take it seriously, anyway, as do most Wiktionarians I think) dictionary? Between his toadies/admirers and those of the people that detest him that are constantly foaming at the mouth, things seem to be a circus these days.
...*ahem* "Definition 2, if actually attestable, may actually have a legitimate leg to stand on. Tharthan (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I have moved the cites on non-durably archived sources to the citations page. There still seem to be enough for the "coffee" sense to consider this cited. The first definition belongs more appropriately in the etymology section, indicating where the word came from. Kiwima (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kiwima Is the pronunciation for the coffee sense consistent so to speak? I personally recall hearing /koʊˈfɛfeɪ/, /koʊvˈfɛfeɪ/, /koʊˈfɛfi/ and even /koʊˈfifi/ over the course of the whole thing (that I remember). If the pronunciation given (which was not for this seemingly attestable sense) is the only pronunciation that we can find that is citable, how can we now justify its usage? Tharthan (talk) 05:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
The second and third "coffee" sense cites are puns, not using the word to mean coffee. Also it is clearly not uncountable, since the fourth cite uses it in the poorly-constructed plural covfefe's. Does the New York Post have an editorial staff, or do they just spend all their money on headline writers? - TheDaveRoss 12:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
There's also a COVFEFE Act. Equinox 22:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Is the usage independent? This reminds me of the endless mentions of an erroneously typeset word in some early edition of one of Shakespeare's plays. Is even the coffee "definition" attestable in durably archived sources? DCDuring (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
How does one find out whether a given article has been archived on, say, Wayback, or another web archiver that might turn out to be durable? All the cites could use such evidence of being durably archived, at least if we are willing to stipulate that such archiving is sufficiently durable. DCDuring (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
"does it have an OCLC", is my personal view that probably isn't supported by others. DTLHS (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I didn't realize that it is so straightforward to get the archiveurl, which I found for all the relevant cites. But 3 of the four for the first definition look like mentions to me. For the "coffee" definition, the book can be found on Amazon, but not in the Library of Congress Catalog nor in WorldCat. I think we will have to count the Wayback archive as making the cites durable, but I don't think we've agreed to that. DCDuring (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

It is obviously an eye-dialect spelling of regional British slang creps, a shortening of crepe-soled shoes. Don’t know if it can be attested in this spelling.  --Lambiam 19:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


"Cuisine." No examples given; is it uncountable? obsolete? Equinox 00:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it has this sense only when preceded by a demographic (or similar) attribute, as seen e.g. here: “the Mexican kitchen”. In this use, we need a determiner like “the”; you can say “tortillas are a cornerstone of Mexican cuisine” or “tortillas are a cornerstone of the Mexican kitchen”, but not ✶“tortillas are a cornerstone of Mexican kitchen”. Of course, in most uses of the collocation “the Mexican kitchen” the sense is not that of the food and its preparation, but of the physical room with its pots and pans and other kitchenware.  --Lambiam 10:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Akin to "what's new on the Parisian catwalk", meaning the fashion industry; we do have such a sense for that. Equinox 19:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
The way this got into the entry is interesting: kitchen was added as a synonym to cuisine in 2006 by someone whose native language is not English. I'm guessing that they were unaware of the second sense for cuisine (added to our entry many years later) referring to an actual kitchen, and just repeated it from some other source. This led to the contested sense being added to kitchen (by someone whose native language is also not English) in 2008 with the edit summary "cuisine said this is a synonym, so...". Lapses in judgement by two good editors (coincidentally both Swedish) two years apart combined to add nonsense to an entry that has survived unnoticed for over a decade. This should serve as a lesson that minor details you miss in languages you don't know can cause problems that aren't discovered for a decade or more. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Ebunu ebunuEdit

Probably not capitailzed, possibly not English and I can't find much in either BGC or Usenet. — surjection?〉 14:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Most of what I find is on websites that I am not sure are durably archived. Kiwima (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "(slang, Atlanta) friend", original edit stated it was popularized by some rapper. — surjection?〉 16:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "(invariable) A written account of history." A written account from antiquity might be an antiquity, but I have never heard antiquities used to describe a written account of history. Is it an antiquities, or is it uncountable we know about life then from antiquities? - TheDaveRoss 18:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

When the entry was created, this was the only sense, and it was labelled (uncountable). Perhaps there is some confusion with accounts of history referred to by the shortened title Antiquities, such as seen e.g. here, where it refers to Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, and here, where it refers to Varro’s Antiquitates rerum humanarum et divinarum.  --Lambiam 15:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this was coined by Alex Morris in "It's a Theyby! Is it possible to raise your child entirely without gender from birth? Some parents are trying” but not generally adopted. Kiwima (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I found five independent Usenet cites, but this appears to be a hotword. All the other Usenet hits were "they + by" or misspellings of thereby . . . plus one use of the gender-neutral baby meaning in German. Khemehekis (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I have also heard this a number of times (it is pretty standard in my faith community to be against this kind of childrearing philosophy). I have also heard it on the radio and on podcasts. I don't, however, care enough about the word to bother looking up citations. Tharthan (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019Edit


DTLHS (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

[46], [47], [48] (paywall). (The occurrence in a reported title “Verdinized epithelial cell line with waltered cellular function” is an artefact – the result of some strange OCR (?) mishap gluing half lines together.)  --Lambiam 09:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Not verbs. DTLHS (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
In these uses it is a verb form, specifically a past participle, used adjectivally. In this PhD thesis (pdf) it is indisputably a verb form, although of the different spelling verdinise, used here to form the passive voice (in the perfect aspect): “Many fresh looking skeletals on the outer shelf and slope have not been verdinised.”  --Lambiam 16:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


A remarkably specific word from @Sigehelmus. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Well there's 3 attestations, I'm honestly in a bit of a physical pain today and totally exhausted so if you could help cleanup the article in general I would really appreciate it.--Sigehelmus (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
All three are mentioning the word, not using it. Equinox 13:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, they do not genuinely attest the very specific meaning. It might as well mean “a gaunt, red-haired inhabitant of Kirkcudbrightshire”, or simply “an attendant” – how could one tell?  --Lambiam 16:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge, @Equinox, @Lambiam just saw this again sorry, I honestly just copied the definition from Cumbric language. I don't know anything further beyond that.--Sigehelmus (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Also see these two links: [49] [50] The second claims gossock is a synonym of "Creenie"; the definition is unclear but seems to refer to immigrants from a part of Ulster facing Galloway. I have no idea what to think.--Sigehelmus (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
There are attestations in the plural, but they're capitalized. It also can be found as gossok in the Scottish National Dictionary. I'm wondering whether we're dealing with mentions in English of an obsolete Scots word. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
And according to the entry in the Scottish National Dictionary it is a slur, like for instance boonga and coonass. At the very least, that should be noted.  --Lambiam 20:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Nice find! Hmm, this is perplexing. I am looking further, I wonder if there are any people alive in the area who still use or at least know of the term. And considering the cultural context I would be very surprised if it was used in any way but tongue-in-cheek. Edit: @Lambiam I double down on my last sentence considering that. But is this an insult that has been used sincerely in the past century? --Sigehelmus (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz this dialect dictionary attests "gossok" as possibly obsolete, applied "in derision" to an "old type" of inhabitant of Galloway: [51] and this book attests the term was "still current" in 19th century and synonymous with capitalized Kreenie/Creenie: [52] --Sigehelmus (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
If you look at the Scottish National Dictionary, you'll notice that it cites the same dialect dictionary as its source. I don't think Wright considered Scots as distinct from English. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Ahh the old debate. Should it be relisted as Scots only or both languages? And what should be the proper definition(s)? --Sigehelmus (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


"(US, racial slur, neologism) A black person who disagrees with left-wing politics." Equinox 22:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Poked around on Reddit a bit and it seems that this may be used specifically by black people to criticise other black people. If so, might need a usage note. Equinox 22:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I guess this relates to this verb sense of coon: “(African American Vernacular, of an African American) To play the dated stereotype of a black fool for an audience, particularly including Caucasians”. The person doing this is “playing the coon”, and I bet the noun “coon” in this sense is used in the black community to refer to black people who are seen to be playing the coon. The supposed neologism is likely an obvious extension to black people lending support to what is perceived as dominant white policies that objectively oppress black people. I think “racial slur” is a mislabelling – as is “African American Vernacular English” in the label for the verb sense.  --Lambiam 10:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
So a sort of synonym for Uncle Tom? Equinox 13:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Kinda, but more nasty, like calling someone a “sellout” is more nasty than accusing them of “playing along”. At least, that is my guess; I’m far from an authority on the use of the term.  --Lambiam 14:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
My uninformed impression is similar. DCDuring (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: “(derogatory) Former U.S. president George W. Bush”. --2001:16A2:4DF6:1000:918:D979:FA37:288E 15:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Bush 43 was represented by a large asterisk in the Doonesbury comic strip, first under a hat, later under a Roman helmet (see this panel). I don’t think this counts as lexical, but theoretically Doonesbury fans could have used this representation textually. If so, I’m not aware of it.  --Lambiam 20:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I've occasionally seen this usage on the Internet. I could find it on (mentioned, not used) on this page and this page. The thing is, it's very hard to search for a character like an asterisk as a search term on sites like Google or Usenet. Khemehekis (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

scorpion spiderEdit

Definition: Synonym of pseudoscorpion.

Everywhere I look, I see this as a synonym of sun spider, which is another type of scorpion-like arachnid. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I found it on several different blogs, so it would seem to be an informal name for pseudoscorpion. NBC News also called it such [53], though with a hyphen, unlike the blogs.
The Phrynus genus, Amblypygi order (whip spiders), and Pedipalpida order (false spiders) also seems to be called scorpion-spider. (which are also not Solifugae order (sun spiders))
-- 22:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I got my wires crossed on the sun spider part, I probably should have said whip spider. By the way, the correct way to refer to taxonomic names and ranks is rank first, then name: "The genus Phrynus, in the order Amblypygi" (not Pedipalpida, which is obsolete, and overlaps with Amblypygi). As for blogs, those mean absolutely nothing when it comes to our Criteria for inclusion. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Though, on further examination of the Google Books searches I was looking at originally, there are a number of references to Galeodes, which is in the Solifugae, and even some true spiders, such as Platyoides in the family Trochanteriidae. All of which is beside the point: there are zero references to Pseudoscorpions as "scorpion spiders". If you had done any kind of search, you would have had to wade through pages and pages of references to other orders of arachnids as scorpion spiders without seeing anything using "scorpion spider" as a name for pseudoscorpions. I still haven't found one after going through an unrestricted Google search that should have pulled in all of your blogs. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


I think this alt spelling is a scanno/error. Equinox 20:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete. When the hyphenated form piecewise-linear (common in attributive uses) gets split across lines, Google Books OCR takes it for an inserted hyphen (like here; elsewhere in the book you can see it is a hyphenated term, like here).  --Lambiam 22:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't find any hits that fit the definition searching for "a tumbarumba" or "tumbarumbas" on Books, News, Scholar, and Groups. DCDuring (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Here are some citations (which are sadly more "mention" than "use") that hopefully help to verify that the term does indeed exist. -Stelio (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  • 2010, Bill Casselman, Where a Dobdob Meets a Dikdik: A Word Lover's Guide to the Weirdest, Wackiest, and Wonkiest Lexical Gems, Adams Media, chapter 5:
    In Australia, tmesis is popularly called tumbarumba. Tmetic infixation is common in Australian street talk.
  • 2012, Ethan Ham, Net Works: Case Studies in Web Art and Design, page 113, "Tumbarumba":
    The poem, in turn, popularized tumbarumba as a synonym for tmesis—the inserting of one word in the midst of another word or phrase.
  • 2017, Mario Brdar, Metonymy and Word-Formation: Their Interactions and Complementation, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, page 18:
    In addition to these two types, there is a similar phenomenon invariably called tumbarumba or expletive infixation, illustrated in: ¶ (11) a. kanga-bloody-roo ¶ b. abso-blooming-lutely ¶ c. abso-bloody-lutely ¶ d. guaran-damn-tee


Harry Potter drink. The three citations do not appear to be "independent of reference to that universe", since they mention Hogwarts and wands. Equinox 22:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You probably only say that because you're a muggle!
In all seriousness, though, isn't quidditch played in real life? I thought that I heard about that becoming popular years ago.
I'm pretty sure that there are recipes for quote unquote "butterbeer" out there that have been adopted. I wouldn't be surprised if there is even a "licensed" recipe out there.
With all of that said, I do agree that this needs to be RfVed.Tharthan (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
If the term refers to an object that has come to be used in the real world, then it meets WT:FICTION. Look at bat'leth as a precedent. The question is, is butterbeer another bat'leth?Khemehekis (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
WT:FICTION doesn't exactly say that. More importantly, I can tell you what a bat'leth is without reference to Star Trek; to crop our definition, "A double-ended curved blade weapon with spiked protrusions, controlled by grips along its back". (The illustration helps.) I'm not sure there is such a thing as butterbeer in absence of Harry Potter; there's just a bunch of drinks with minimal similarity that use the name from Harry Potter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Judgung from what you said, butterbeer doesn't sound like another bat'leth. Are all the real butterbeers made of the same recipe? If we find three different references to the same recipe from three different sources and authors spanning over a year, I'd say butterbeer is another bat'leth. But from what it sounds like, each person making something called "butterbeer" has a difference recipe. (Fun fact: I remember going to a science class and making real-life oobleck. Khemehekis (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

vile-vial mergerEdit

DTLHS (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

pane-pain mergerEdit

DTLHS (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

toe-tow mergerEdit

DTLHS (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

fern-fir-fur mergerEdit

DTLHS (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

prince-prints mergerEdit

DTLHS (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

tory-torrent mergerEdit

DTLHS (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

sari-sorry mergerEdit

DTLHS (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

flower-flour mergerEdit

DTLHS (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hindu (RFV-sense)Edit

Rfv-sense of "An origin of many religions including Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism." I think the classification as a proper noun arose as a mistake, as the regular noun was early on miscategorised as a proper noun (diff). Before that a POV-pushing IP added this definition (diff) along with an even crappier one. If this is attestable, it would be desirable to improve the definition so that users can tell whether this is actually synonymous with Hinduism, etc. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


Not to be meaningfully found in a Google Web search. Equinox 10:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed - All I can find is taphonomised, which we already have as an adjective. Kiwima (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


"(trading card games) To search one's deck for one or more other cards." Other than what? If this proves to be real, the etymology would be good to have. Equinox 12:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Equinox Apparently a card other than the card that one plays in order to 'tutor'. [54] [55] Tutor cards are, so it seems, a class of spell/support cards in Magic the Gathering. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
The original Magic: The Gathering set had Demonic Tutor as a card, and they continued the theme with further tutors. That's the etymology.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I doubt the verb form is citable, looking at Google Books and Google Groups. I've added a cite to the noun form, which would pass.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


To flow around, etc. Google Books finds a lot of scannos for bestow (with the long s). Equinox 12:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I have found two possible cites, but they are a bit dubious. Another version of the 1949 has corrected the line to read "below", although the one I got this from clearly wrote "beflow". It is possibly a typo, although the "f" key is not close enough to the "e" or "l" for it to be a convincing fat finger error. Kiwima (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


Kiwima found three cites to make this a hot word, however it looks like all three are referring to a job title at a single store. I do not see any evidence of broader adoption, thus I don't think this even counts as a hot word. - TheDaveRoss 13:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, a single chain of stores (whose name is not always gotten correct). Kiwima (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
The problem I see is with the "independent" criterium of WT:CFI. —Rua (mew) 19:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
A possible counter-example might be tweet, which presumably applies only to Twitter. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
How does that fit into CFI then? They uses are not independent because they are all as a result of the Twitter company inventing and promoting it. —Rua (mew) 09:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
This is a bit of a grey area, but IMO if there are people who are independent of each other and they use the term tweet, those uses are independent. Otherwise... well, how is it different from other coined words (e.g. in academia for particular species like the olinguito) that have subsequently caught on?
Other words to consider: Cablinasian, which apparently only refers to Tiger Woods (and for a quite limited window of time, too!), Windy City where various users are all referring to Chicago, and RPattz (kept at RFD) always referring to a specific person... - -sche (discuss) 07:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I can't believe they went with this when "cannabarista" was right there... - -sche (discuss) 07:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I added two cites to the citations page, but we still need a third. Adverbs are so hard to cite! Kiwima (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

gray man Edit

DTLHS (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Those are unacceptable sources. See WT:CFI. DTLHS (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Why is Ballistic Magazine an unacceptable source? It is a print magazine. -- 23:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Why was the synonymous form deleted instead of being included here in this RFV? -- 04:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Cite 4 is not unambiguously the same usage as the definition. Cites 3 & 5 ARE archived at the Wayback Machine. That would give us 4 cites. DCDuring (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Ballistic Magazine (ISSN 2573-0290) is a dead tree publication. Anyone can subscribe to it for delivery of the dead tree edition to their doorstep [60]. This particular issue can be bought from Amazon [61] and is listed as 11 x 9 x 0.4 inches and 1.1 pounds, so clearly a dead tree item. Why would waybackmachine be required for such a citation? -- 05:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Mostly because it may shorten this discussion. Some print publications also have ephemeral blogs whose online footprint is indistinguishable from that of the print content. That seems like a very weighty periodical. DCDuring (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for all of the following:

  • The hypothesis or theory of the Bicameral Mind, proposed by Julian Jaynes in 1976, to account for all the cultural and archaeological evidence that the earliest civilizations world-wide were built by and for humans without introspective consciousness.
  • The hypothetical functional relationship between the hemispheres of the brain along with the underlying neurological structures and processes needed to produce the Bicameral Mind of an ancient human.
  • The bicameral psychological processes of the right hemisphere “commanding” and the left hemisphere “obeying” that enabled ancient humans to make decisions and take action without introspective consciousness.
  • The cultural, especially religious, products of ancient bicameral individuals and societies as expressed in their beliefs, activities and artefacts created without introspective consciousness.

surjection?〉 13:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Note also that the entry format has now changed or that bicameral and bicamerally now have similar content added by the same editor. — surjection?〉 10:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
And bicameralism as well, in addition to a bunch of "Further reading" on the RFV'd page in question... — surjection?〉 10:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Such single-minded devotion to a PoV! DCDuring (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. - TheDaveRoss 17:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Cited. Khemehekis (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Definition is unclear too: is it a picture taken in the bathroom? of a toilet? of a turd? Equinox 19:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
[62], not the sense in our entry. DTLHS (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

printer's apostropheEdit

  1. A straight apostrophe ( ' ), used often in computer graphics interchangeably with the ordinary "curly" apostrophe ( ’ ).

In fact, all the references I've found to the term "printer's apostrophe" that specify which one is meant say that it means the curly apostrophe, the exact opposite of our definition. E.g. [63], [64], [65]. The reference to computer graphics is also a bit weird. Mihia (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

stadium sailingEdit

DTLHS (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

strangling angel of childrenEdit

A lot of modern mentions. Need original uses. DTLHS (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting that there are no 19thC cites on Google Books ... so perhaps, contra modern books on the subject, it was not in fact called "the strangling angel of children", or at least, not commonly. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

double-stop and variations thereuponEdit

A series of pages recently created by Equinox, none of which I can find much rationale for, and even then, are best left as alternative or nonstandard form formats of double stop. The pages are as follows:

. -/ut͡ʃxʎørnɛja / (탁ᷞ, кон-, ឯឌឹត្ស, 𐎛𐎓𐎄𐎛𐎚𐎒). 21:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC).

I don't understand why you deleted the verb. If you are challenging the verb, don't just delete it and then come to RFV! Please put it back. Equinox 21:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Equinox: Because I left it as I think it should relate to double stop? And I'm not just questioning the verbage, but also the term itself. -/ut͡ʃxʎørnɛja / (탁ᷞ, кон-, ឯឌឹត្ស, 𐎛𐎓𐎄𐎛𐎚𐎒). 21:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC).
It doesn't matter how you think it should be- wait for the rfv to complete before wholesale removal of content. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I have cited the verb. Note that it's very common (formerly almost required) that for a spaced noun "X Y" the verb is hyphenated "X-Y", so I'm not sure why Учхљёная finds it so strange. Equinox 11:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Equinox: Because you included the nominal definition as well, where it's typically not used. -/ut͡ʃxʎørnɛja / (탁ᷞ, кон-, ឯឌឹត្ស, 𐎛𐎓𐎄𐎛𐎚𐎒). 12:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC).

The hyphenated form is amply found on Google Books. I don't understand why this was rfv'd.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

For a second there, I thought you were rfving the Latin. Aside from the fact that it looks like a translingual term made from two Ancient Greek words, this is the first time I've ever seen -stomus translated as "-nosed". Chuck Entz (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
The meaning of the New Latin word, mimicking a loan of Ancient Greek *ῥοδόστομος (*rhodóstomos), should of course be something like “rosy-mouthed”. Cf. Ancient Greek ἀθυρόστομος (athuróstomos) “blabbermouthed”.  --Lambiam 22:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


RFV sense (bold): "A political division of a federation retaining a notable degree of autonomy, as in the United States or Germany; (by extension, informal, US) any province." Julia 15:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Kiwima: I'm interpreting the "any province" sense as someone saying "the states of Switzerland" or "Ontario is the most populous state in Canada"; for me your cites don't really support this sense. Maybe the definition needs to be reworded. Julia 17:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, I certainly didn't find any evidence for that. I interpreted it to mean analogous to a province. Kiwima (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

cigar box guitarist Edit

DTLHS (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

revitalizant Edit

DTLHS (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


Heat sink and fan. There are 5 computing senses for HFS on Wikipedia, and this isn't one of them. Also, shouldn't it be HSF? 20:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this is an error, is it HSF (which I just added). - TheDaveRoss 21:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


Seems unattestable. 2600:1000:B12B:50FF:DCBE:7347:1306:8DD3 18:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

rhombus starEdit

Mitsubishi logo

Some kind of shape apparently? Equinox 03:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The meaning is unclear. The Mitsubishi logo features a shape composed of three rhombi that might be called a star. But is it a rhombus star? Otherwise, for any number of points larger than 4 – let’s call it N – you can take N copies of a rhombus with an acute angle of 360°/N, and arrange them around a given centre. I suspect this is what is meant; the latter kind is likely attestable. The most common case will be for N = 6; then you get the kind of stars seen on this picture of a quilt. You also get this if you flip the Misubishi logo vertically and combine it with the original, letting the centres coincide. The rhombus stars referred to here are also 6-ponted. This source shows a star composed of eight rhombi (Fig. 9 left at D5).  --Lambiam 16:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


The chosen one. Not, however, one who has been chosen to be included in most dictionaries. Equinox 04:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

That one is in OED (I don't have access to it anymore) but it can be seen here [[66]]. This should be moved to Middle English. Leasnam (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Middle English chosling Leasnam (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


Two citations given for this adjective: 1. "finally in the winsome endsome i am presented with a paper cup" (that's a noun, isn't it? does it mean anything?); 2. citation is sufficient gibberish that I can't be sure about the meaning; other opinions welcome. Equinox 04:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete. The References section links to OneLook and Century show that other dicts don't include the word. I could not locate any other cites. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I've Deleted the References section. Leasnam (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


"I want to feel your hands movely I m moaning". Is that an adjectival citation? Also can we confirm movelier and moveliest existing outside of an editor's head? Equinox 04:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you assume too much. This term does not exists in my're wrong there too. This entry should not exist. Let's canc it ! Leasnam (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to any of you who might have wanted to verify, but this was a non-starter from my less-than-stellar past. It's now gone. R.I.P. Leasnam (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


Note this nonword isn't marked as nonstandard or even rare. What are we teaching people?! And look at the citation. LOL. Equinox 04:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

You're teaching people plenty ! LOL. So why didn't you label it ? Leasnam (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Likeful this quotation is.  --Lambiam 10:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


Verb. From the same fertile imagination as the three words listed above. Here we have two citations: one says "the swinging downcomes" (sounds like a noun, if not pure gibberish; hard to tell); the other says "Everthing [sic? UNSURE] downcame today Anne the world's spinning out and I spec we finally all going to be riding raw". Citations in actual English might be fun and original. Equinox 04:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The citation from Franklin Institute combined some text with a caption of a photo. At Page 270 of the cited work is another use of downcome that is also as a noun. I don't know whether either use is covered by our definitions. DCDuring (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


RFV of etymologies 1 and 2 ("person", "sex", "order, rank", "state, condition", and "to ordain, consecrate"). Etymology 3, the mining/slope-related senses, I have just cited. Btw "biological" is a weird context label. - -sche (discuss) 07:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

According to the header of RFV pages, requests to confirm that a certain etymology is correct should go in the Etymology scriptorium. We have a template {{rfv-etymology}} for this purpose.  --Lambiam 10:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Etymologies 1 & 2 should be Middle English or rather Scots, and obsolete. Leasnam (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the lack of clarity: I mean I am RFVing all the senses in the etymology 1 section, and all the senses in the etymology 2 section. - -sche (discuss) 06:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


Appears in some word lists. DTLHS (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Appears to just squeak in with 3 cites on Google Books. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
It is unclear whether "Robert Hartwell Fiske's Dictionary of Unendurable English" is quoting actual usage or making up examples. DTLHS (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, yes, they are probably made up (though they could be examples he took from somewhere), but they are still words used in context, so not mentions. Quotes from a novel are "made up" after all.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Definition should be split into two, apparently. Being huge (enormous) is not the same as enormity (terribleness of crime etc.): they are currently both written on the same sense line though. Equinox 21:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, possibly. But, actually in the cite "It was this crime which was several days old, but the enormacy of which seemed only to be just appreciated" it is ambiguous. It could mean enormity, or greatness. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, cited now. Deleted ambiguous cite, and changed def to suit.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hartwell states that this word is being misused for either enormousness or enormity, with usexes covering both senses. Shouldn’t we then also cover both senses?  --Lambiam 13:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I only found 2 cites for the "enormity" sense, unless we are content with quoting from Hartwell (which I think in okay, but DTLHS does not - see above), or someone can find a third.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Which ones did you find? If you add them to the Citations:enormacy, this may prevent duplication of effort.  --Lambiam 00:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


Scannos for "causations". DTLHS (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The example presently given ("I append notes of five cases ..." ) doesn't appear to be a scanno [67]. Another non-scanno is at [68]. Mihia (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The word appearing in the second link is not a scanno but a sloppo. The actual title of Dr. Polk’s magnum opus is Tuberculosis: Causations, Lesions and Therapeutics.  --Lambiam 11:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


"Panthalassic Ocean" exists, but does "panthalassic" (with a small "p") exist with the given meaning? — 05:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. DTLHS (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)



RFV of the "hide"- and "conceal"-related senses. I don't like to RFV things without making a more rigorous search than I had time to make in this case (sorry), but I did make a cursory search which turned up nothing, and Century calls hele "a Middle English form". For hele, the EDD suggests the usexes "it heles in well", "it heles in badly" (about corn/seeds that can be covered over well in a furrow, or can't), but these don't turn up any hits. "Holen" (listed as a past tense form) seems to only exist as a dialectal, eye dialectal or pronunciation-respelled form of "holdin'". The EDD might have enough citations to attest at least one sense at the spelling heal. - -sche (discuss) 06:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

A look at the Middle English Dictionary shows that helen₂ (to hide; conceal) was used right up to the end of the Middle English period, and it also shows some citations at and beyond 1500: 1500, Theyre gownys be sett with plytys fele, To schortt yt ys theyre kneys to hele.; 1500, Clothes of sylke ye shalle haue..Fayre townes and castelles to hell In your hede.; 1525, Þe yonger kynge henry..the lyddernysse that he hadde I-thoght to hys fadyr nold no lenger hellen. (though this looks much older, it is clearly given as 1525). Leasnam (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

One cite for the plural "didymi" (not sure of the meaning, though). Canonicalization (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
This looks like the Latinization (medical New Latin?) of Ancient Greek δίδυμος (dídumos), which as an adjective means “twofold”, and as a noun “twins”, and hence also “testicles” (aka “testes”), as these usually come as a pair. So, although the form is singular, the meaning is plural – or, one might say, dual. However, it is also found in the plural in Koine Greek in the Septuagint, Deuteronomy 25:11 – prudishly translated as “private parts”.  --Lambiam 23:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Another cite for the plural, explained by the context.  --Lambiam 23:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The same book, a medical dictionary, has an entry for the singular. (This is a mention, but the entry immediately above that contains a use.)  --Lambiam 23:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


Uses other than Shakespeare. DTLHS (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


RFV for the emotional, non-game sense. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


Before I bother trying to clean this up, is it even citable? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

See "The Origin of Pagan Idolatry" by Faber (1816), where it is spelled "astronomico-diluvian". Presumable a nonce word. DTLHS (talk) 06:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Doing an unrestricted Google web search for both "astronomico-diluvian" and "astronomicodiluvian", all I see are:
  1. Faber himself, in several places.
  2. Mentions that apparently come ultimately from us
  3. Mentions in discussions of Faber, which seem to ultimately come from Wikipedia
  4. Randomly generated nonsense sentences of the type used to defeat content filters
Chuck Entz (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I had a fruitless look. Seems to be a nonce word.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


Per the talk page — does anyone actually use this outside of the name of a particular group? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Added three citations, not all about politics. Equinox 17:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


Alternative form of forever. RightGot (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


All senses. DTLHS (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


All senses. DTLHS (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


Noun: "the act of inosculating". Weird that it's given as uncountable, too. How could it then be used? Equinox 17:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


Sense 2: "by extension, to harass with misleading hyperlinks of this kind." (Wikipedia doesn't seem to think so!) Equinox 17:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I don’t see a useful difference between the two given senses. It is as if we had two senses for the verb prank: (1) “To perform a practical joke on someone” and (2) “To annoy someone by performing a practical joke on them”. So IMO sense 2 can be deleted anyway without loss. I have never seen or heard the term used other than where following the link led to, specifically, a performance by Astley of the song “Never Gonna Give You Up”. Unless someone finds an evidently broader use, sense 1 should be narrowed.  --Lambiam 21:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


"To repeatedly tweak the format and text of a document or other file to little practical effect." This is one of the words from the old Hacker's Dictionary, quite a few of which are unattestable outside of that work. Equinox 18:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I can get to the cites later, but Google Groups shows what looks like three independent usages in that capitalization and a couple MacDinks.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


The given citation does not make much sense to me. I was not able to locate the work for further context. DTLHS (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It can be viewed (in part) here [[69]]. Leasnam (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
THere is another here [[70]], however this looks like a mistype for comly (i.e. comely) Leasnam (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
That in the sole citation it appears in quotes is highly suggestive that it is a nonce. DCDuring (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. Shall I speedy ? Leasnam (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

wine-whine mergersEdit

Tagged but not listed. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Plural of wine-whine merger. Does this have a plural form. Google results just show things like "the cot-caught and wine-whine mergers". No use of it as a plural form. RightGot (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

doll-dole mergerEdit

DTLHS (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

full-fool mergerEdit

DTLHS (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

hull-hole mergerEdit

DTLHS (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

fell-fail mergerEdit

DTLHS (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

fill-feel mergerEdit

DTLHS (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

pure-poor splitEdit

DTLHS (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

wholly-holy splitEdit

DTLHS (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


Eye dialect of "beer". Was originally added by Wonderfool as an entry in the language "Drunken English". Probably shouldn't have been taken seriously. Equinox 22:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The only time that I think that this could possibly be used, would be by someone in Boston trying to represent the local dialect. I could see that. Even then, it would probably be "beeya". Tharthan (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


Added by an artist to promote a term he made up. We need to see if anyone but him has ever actually used this. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


The current quote is from a television show, so I am not sure whether the spelling of the word can be attested -- is a published script available? There is a lot of noise to sift through for this one, and I imagine that if it is used it is far more often spoken, so good luck. - TheDaveRoss 12:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)