Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English


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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

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

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


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

Scope of this request page:

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

Templates:

Shortcut:

See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


May 2020Edit

murbieEdit

(It's short for "market urbanist".) I've found tweets ([1], [2], [3], [4]), but nothing in more permanent places. Note that it's apparently not that intuitive, as you can frequently see people asking "what's a murbie?" in the replies. grendel|khan 22:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

August 2020Edit

AnitwitterEdit

DTLHS (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Because of the nature of the term, "Anitwitter" is not used much in news articles or books. Googling "anitwitter" (quotes included) brings up over 75,000 results. Searching the term on Twitter (Can't link) under latest Tweets shows it has "clearly widespread use". Is this valid evidence? If so, can I just remove the request for verification or do I need to put something on the page? AntisocialRyan (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
It does seem to be a thing people say on or about Twitter. Related to the RFV of the crab emoji, how much does something have to be said on Twitter before we waive the durable citation rule? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

philatelianaEdit

I could find two uses (Citations:philateliana), but even a Google search doesn't return any other results. @SemperBlottoEinstein2 (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

No other results. I wonder how many more words have been added that are not attested but were not added to RFV (also considering that it is an administrator who created it, thus perhaps should know better than to add unattested words and rely on other users to check if they are actually attested). J3133 (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto J3133 (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I know that SemperBlotto creates many entries but that would not be an excuse for creating entries for unattested terms. Should I post somewhere regarding administrators creating them? I do not know. Either way, it seems that SemperBlotto is avoiding to take responsibility. J3133 (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
@Einstein2 You added this entry to RFV; I would like to hear your thoughts regarding my reply. J3133 (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
@J3133 I don't know much about this matter, but if it is part of a larger pattern of adding unattested entries, it certainly is a problem – given that we don't have the capacity to search for attestation for every new entry. – Einstein2 (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

October 2020Edit

adrenokineticEdit

DTLHS (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I see several mentions (in other dictionaries) but not uses. I also checked Google Scholar and Issuu. - -sche (discuss) 18:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

adrenokinesisEdit

DTLHS (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

bromopneanEdit

I could find a single cite. – Einstein2 (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I found a 2nd, which I added.
It also gets a G-hit with Mrs. Byrne's Dictionary of Unusual, Obscure, and Preposterous Words from 1974, but there's no preview to verify. Of course, the latter doesn't qualify in itself, unless it has a quote, but it suggests she found it somewhere prior to the date of either of our sources. kwami (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

disemelevatorEdit

Get out of an elevator. I think this has only ever been used in the single text cited. Equinox 05:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  • If so, the quote could be moved to illustrate disen- (which would need to be created). Ƿidsiþ 12:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Except that the "m" wouldn't be there if it were "disen-". Without looking at the context, it seems like a playful reference to disembark, with an elevator being compared to a ship. Using the phonologically correct form would make that less obvious. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Given the otherwise odd m, I think this can indeed just as well be considered either a blend with disembark or (as our etymology currently considers it) dis- + em-. On the other hand, R. M. W Dixon, Making New Words: Morphological Derivation in English (2014), page 101, in the process of discussing the addition of dis- to en- ~ em- words "to indicate reversal", as in dis-em-bark, dis-en-throne and dis-en-tangle, adds that "There are some, rather uncommon, derivations with disen- ~ disem- where no verb with just en- ~ em- occurs; for example disem-burden." He is wrong there (I can find emburden), but it's possible disen- ~ disem- does exist on other words. This makes me think of Talk:-icity, because here too it could be argued that cases of disem- where no em- is attested are just happenstance and em- nonetheless could exist and shouldn't impede analysis as dis- + em-. (We do seem to have lately started avoiding "unnecessary" compound affixes; compare Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#-aise,_-aises.) - -sche (discuss) 16:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I managed to find a second and independent quote. There is also a use here, and another here, although I don't think those are durably archived, so we still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

crayonEdit

Rfv-sense (rail transport) An informal map of a proposed rail route.

I've seen it used in comments on Alon Levy's writings ([5],[6]) and on Twitter ([7], [8], [9], [10]); it may be a clipping of "crayon map", which we don't have an entry for yet. Seems hard to attest, as it's pretty slangy. See also a one-off coining of "crayonista" ([11]) by a writer playing off the tendency to draw fanciful maps. (See also [12], [13], [14].) grendel|khan 17:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

What are the odds that this is limited to rail transport? DCDuring (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, isn't this covered by def. 3 "A crayon drawing."? DCDuring (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@DCDuring: It's not literally a crayon drawing, though; this, for example, is obviously not a crayon drawing, but it is a crayon in the sense of an informally-drawn rail map. (There may well be non-rail uses, but I haven't found any.) grendel|khan 19:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
@Grendelkhan: it sounds like a revival of the figurative sense "[a] work not carried out in detail, a 'sketch'", marked as obsolete by the OED in an entry last updated in 1893. — SGconlaw (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

tetartosphereEdit

Not many ghits. Some are mentions, not uses. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I added two solid citations to the citations page, plus one reference to a twitter thread (which is probably not durably archived). Kiwima (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Not cited. Twitter doesn't count, and I am not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt when the two uses are from authors probably not writing in their native language (or even language family). Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

November 2020Edit

norminalEdit

I believe we need a formal and durably-archived attestation conveying the meaning of the term norminal. It appears the word was added by an IP editor about two weeks ago.

As a deeply involved editor on the English Wikipedia as part of the Spaceflight WikiProject, and a follower of spaceflight technology, I can offer that I have heard the word used for some time now, but that's mere original research and does not count for a set of durably-archived attestations that demonstrate the word meets the Wiktionary criteria for inclusion. The word was used once today on the NASA livecast where the SpaceX Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon Resilence capsule is carrying four astronauts to the International Space Station over the next 27 hours via a NASA paid-for transport contract, so I would expect we may see some media repetition of the word in the next day or so which will likely support the Nov 2020 use of the term. So probably will just need attestation of older uses from a few years ago. N2e (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Plenty of Google Book Hits for "norminal", but I would imagine that most if not all all are typos/scannos/blunders for "nominal". Intentional use will be hard to prove, I think. Mihia (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
As an aerospace engineer, I can confirm the word norminal is in common usage within the field. Retired U.S. Air Force colonel John Insprucker first used the term during a recorded SpaceX launch narration of the Intelsat 35e launch streamed live on Jul 5, 2017. The Webcast was captured on video, and the use of term occurred at timestamp 11:37. Since then, the term has become an injoke within the aerospace community. There is a reasonable discussion of the term on StackExchange. It has become commonplace to see hats and t-shirts with the word, as promulgated by Tim Dodd, and others. There is a "norminal" tag on Instagram. You will see the term in the comments from Military.com's article on a SpaceX launch on May 25, 2020. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Prototypo (talkcontribs) at 23:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC).
Did it originate as a mistake for nominal or a blend of normal and nominal? DCDuring (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed. Although it is used within a subculture, it looks as if it is more an in-joke than an actual word. Kiwima (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

cuntboy, sense 2Edit

"A young man who has a vagina; a female-to-male transgender who has not had bottom surgery, or a character in speculative fiction." This is actually three senses for some reason listed as one; the first is oxymoronic, second and third are both cryptic (may also involve WT:FICTION). Are any attested? Ya hemos pasao (talk) 08:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The first is not oxymoronic at all, and the second, which is not cryptic and doesn't involve WT:FICTION, is a specific instance of the first. But whether the word is attested with that meaning is of course the crucial question. Sense 1 is the only sense I'm familiar with myself. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I have added two cites but we still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020Edit

squiryEdit

Not convinced La más guay (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  • It's a Middle English word that survived into the 16th century and we can keep it because there are about 8 uses if you combine the two eras. The quote you were looking to date appears in OED as "1525 Ld. Berners Froiss II clxxi. 505. It was nedefull for them within to make good defence, for against them was the floure of chyvalry and squyry." Vox Sciurorum (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Cited with a single modern English quotation as a continuation of its ancestor Middle English squierie. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
not cited. We still only have two cites in Modern English. Kiwima (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021Edit

autonowashingEdit

Another hot word with few attestations. Few of the web results seem durable and I also doubt that they are independent. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The word, a piece of argot, was coined in the autonomous technology literature, which is a rapidly growing area of research. What "results" fail independence and durability?
Here is the Google Scholar citation profile for the initial article: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=11683217585197084451 QRep2020 (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Added attestations. QRep2020 (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The Google Scholar citation is fine, but the others are not permanently archived. Can we find anything else? Kiwima (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I have different attestations to add in that case. Does this one not work though? https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93856 I would think so since it has a DOI and is said to be saved in all kinds of databases: https://www.intechopen.com/how-open-access-publishing-with-intechopen-works. QRep2020 (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I added some different attestations. How is it looking now? QRep2020 (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

buzzsawEdit

"(slang) The MG 42 general-purpose machine gun." I see a few references (mentions, not uses) to "Hitler's buzzsaw", but not "buzzsaw" alone. Equinox 12:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not durably archived, but on MG 42 and MG 34 — Battlefield Forums I found "Otherwise, the game would quickly devolve into packs of players roaming around with 100-150 round buzzsaws just chewing anything that moves to pieces.", but otherwise, like Equinox, I mostly find "Hitler's buzzsaw". I did manage to find a single durably archived cite. Kiwima (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
In addition, the game "Call of Duty" uses the term "Buzzsaw" to refer to the MG 42. Kiwima (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

February 2021Edit

grawlicesEdit

I have sought but I cannot find. This, that and the other (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Koavf We do not accept arbitrary websites for the purposes of verification, as they are not considered "permanently recorded media". Please see WT:CFI#Attestation. This, that and the other (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry I got distracted while editing. I thought that I had a durable attestation in a comic but I can't seem to find it. Evidently, the Honeycutt article is reproduced in →ISBN and there is another mention in →ISBN (but it's a mention, not a proper use). —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the plural of grawlix. Generally, we do not require three examples of an inflected form, especially when it is a standard inflection, which this is. Kiwima (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kiwima Since this is not a direct Latin borrowing, the standard plural grawlixes would be expected (see for instance, crucifixcrucifixes, not *crucifices). The word grawlix, itself a fanciful coinage, lends itself well to whimsical wordplay - it's completely understandable that someone should have invented an equally fanciful pseudo-Latin plural grawlices. But it seems to me that this form has not caught on and only survives in mentions. This, that and the other (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

hermeologyEdit

@Pizza0614 This cannot be found in durably archived sources either. — surjection??⟩ 10:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I have added one citation to the citations page. This looks like a real word, it's just that it is hard to locate the relevant texts. Kiwima (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Golden TriangleEdit

Rfv-sense. The Yangtze River Delta sense was added by an IP in 2020: [15] I am vaguely familiar with it in Mandarin, but I don't think it applies in English. It would be universally misinterpreted as the drug trafficking area. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I added a large number of citations to the citations page, but I am not familiar enough with the geography of these areas to know which uses refer to what areas. Would someone more knowledgeable than myself please look through these quotes and sort them into groups of what locations they refer to. Kiwima (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021Edit

rhaphanidosis Edit

DTLHS (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I have added a number of quotes to the citations page. All but one of the italicize the word. The question is, is this English, or just a transliteration of a Greek word. If we decide to keep it, the definition should be changed to include the fact that this is a punishment, not a sexual practice. Kiwima (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

fordwineEdit

Doesn't seem to have survived past Middle English. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 01:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I could only find one quote (on citations page), and that is someone who is self-consciously using obsolete words. Kiwima (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I've added one from Sir Torrent of Portingale, whose date of publication is uncertain, but is included in Poetry from 1505 here [[16]]. Leasnam (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

backward (2)Edit

Adv. sense:

Toward or into the past; ago.

RFV "ago" only, which to me seems out of place. While "ago" does of course have a flavour of "into the past", I feel that we need more than that, such as a substitutable example, to justify mentioning it. Mihia (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Not finding anything searching Google Books for "{months,years,hours} backward". This looked like it might be substitutable for "ago", but on further consideration, I think the author is probably saying the dry season is two months behind (i.e. it's happening two or more months later than it should), not two months ago. Here's another example with the "behind" sense. This usage, qualified with a quantity of time, should probably get a usex and/or quotation, and probably even a separate sense. Since if we say a baby is 4 months backward (behind) in walking, we mean that its walking is occurring forward in time (relative to the expected moment) which is sort of the opposite of "Toward or into the past". Colin M (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
To me, "backward" in e.g. "the dry season is two months backward" and "a baby is 4 months backward in walking" seems like an adjective. We already have an adjective definition "Late or behindhand", with example "a backward season". Mihia (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Oops, yes, you're absolutely right. Though it currently lacks a usex/quote showing a quantity of time modifier, so I'll add that. Colin M (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

steeplehouse Edit

An IP user persistently contests the current definition, "building in which Quakers meet for worship", and that determination appears to be justified as it seems to have been mostly used as a polemical term for the churches used by non-Quakers. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  • The OED has " Used by the early Quakers (and, before them, sometimes by other scrupulous persons) instead of ‘church’, on the ground that that word ought not to be applied to a building." SemperBlotto (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I have cited the meaning as "church". I think it highly unlikely that this means the "building in which Quakers meet for worship" - that is a meetinghouse. One of the cites is from the Journal of George Fox (founder of the Quaker faith), and it clearly refers to a non-Quaker church building. Kiwima (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

dodecad Edit

RFV of the sense "(now historical) trillion (short scale), billion (long scale), million million, myriad octad; 1,000,000,000,000 = 1012 [from 16th c.]" Added in diff. Pointed out as dubious in the Tea Room. I didn't spot anything when I searched for it + billion, trillion, or power+ten. - -sche (discuss) 01:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

abangaEdit

Mentions and copies of the same text abound on Google Books, but independent uses are rare. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

probabilisityEdit

surjection??⟩ 00:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I put two cites on the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

These citations make perfect sense if the word probabilisity is replaced by probability; for example, a transition probability density function[17] is obviously the probability density function of a transition probability. On the other hand, the given definitions for the two alleged senses of probabilisity do not appear to be applicable in the cited sentences. So I think these cites are typos.  --Lambiam 14:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Or errors by non-native speakers. Kiwima (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand the definitions. A "probabilistic state" I would assume is one of the states (micro or macro) that a stochastic system can be in. "Chance variation" isn't a term I've encountered in any stat courses. The first ddg result gives a weird, contradictory definition (it's the difference between the predicted and true value of a variable, but it's also only the part that's attributable to random chance? they say that it will approach zero for large sample sizes, which is definitely not the case for the first definition).__Gamren (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Slavaboo, slavabooEdit

No results on BGC. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

browdenEdit

Seemingly not attested in Modern English. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

(This also goes for the following feld, storve, storven, & corven) You may see many Middle English verb tenses showing as English but marked as obsolete. This is because in the past we did not show Middle English separate from Modern English (there were no Middle English entries, or very few of them; and Middle English was not distinguished from Modern English at all). It was common practice to show Middle English as "obsolete" Modern English. This does not mean that the following should not still be checked for use in Modern times (post 1500), as some may still be dialectal in use. Leasnam (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I have added a number of citations in Modern English (although some are arguably Scotts) to the citations page. I am not convinced that they support the supplied definition, however. Kiwima (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Most of those do seem to be Scots; I've separated out those which I believe to be Scots; additionally, I've changed it to a adjective since it is better treated as one than a p.p. (except maybe in Middle Scots). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

feldEdit

Doesn't seem to be attested in ModE either. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

storvenEdit

I don't think this survives into ModE either; the Early Modern form is starven. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Most of what I found was Middle English (a lot of Chaucer), but I did find a poem by Chatterton (18th century). On the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Chatterton claimed that his works were written by Thomas Rowley, a (fictional) 14th century poet, so he tried to imitate the trappings of late ME as best as he could. Therefore it's questionable that his works should count as ModE. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 01:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

storveEdit

I'd be very surprised if this survived into ModE. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Your assessment seems correct based on what I'm seeing here in archive.org "storve"&sin=TXT&and%5B%5D=languageSorter%3A"English" --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

corvenEdit

I'm skeptical as to whether this is ModE either, aside from the one pseudo-archaistic use present. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 04:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

foreEdit

Another one (etymology 2 of course). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 04:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

forthEdit

Rfv-sense: Thoroughly; from beginning to end. WT Citation 'Tis given as Shakespeare/Howe'er mine Googling searche 'twas uncleare Oxlade2000 (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

shoadEdit

All senses except for the ones related to mining don't seem to have survived past Middle English. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 08:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Even though this doesn't count as verification in RFV (this is just an fyi), these meanings were brought in from Century here [[18]]. shode is an alternative form of shoad. Leasnam (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

iatrocideEdit

surjection??⟩ 00:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I can cite the word, but not with either of the supplied definitions. In English, this seems to only be used for iatrogenic killing, rather than the killing of a doctor. Kiwima (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, that's not the usual sense of -cide.__Gamren (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The Australian Morning Mail is not durably archived, as it is an online blog-type site, not a newspaper. I know it's a fussy thing to bring up... This, that and the other (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

men'sEdit

Adjective: "intended for use by men"

A simple possessive form. Fails the test to be an adjective. Might be better placed under the noun PoS section. DCDuring (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

women'sEdit

Adjective: "intended for use by women"

A possessive form is not an adjective. Fails tests of adjectivity. Might be better placed under the noun PoS section. DCDuring (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

ladiesEdit

Adjective: "Intended for use by women"

Fails to meet the adjectivity test. Simple attributive use of the noun. DCDuring (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

mounEdit

Seems to be absent from ModE; I couldn't find anything. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Most of what I found was Middle English. I did find one piece of dialect (on citations page). There may be more, but there are a lot of false positives to sift through. Kiwima (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The English Dialect Dictionary considers maun the main spelling (saying the spelling moun is from northwest Yorkshire), and provides enough citations that maun would pass (Citations:maun). If moun isn't attested, the entry/content should be moved. In that case the definition and etymology should also be tweaked, the immediate etymon [of maun] is presumably the form Middle English mau(e)n of mowen. - -sche (discuss) 00:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I've created an entry at maun using the citations I found. I copied over the etymology, modified as I suggested; in the even moun actually passes and is not deleted, one of the entries should just point to the other to reduce duplication. - -sche (discuss) 01:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

wictEdit

surjection??⟩ 00:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

This looks like an alternative spelling of wight, but it isn't listed among the dozens of alternative forms in OED. This, that and the other (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

no-see-umEdit

Rfv-sense "Any biting bug or insect that is normally too small to see unaided." This was the original vague definition from 2006 (!), which I think likely derives from ignorance. In my experience, and in all the BGC quotes where the context is sufficient to make a determination, a specific kind of midge is described with this term. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I find the term also used for the genera Culicoides,[19] Phlebotomus and Lutzomyia.[20] I think, though, that the senses should be unified to something like “A biting fly that is so small that it is difficult to see; the term is used in particular for biting midges (family Ceratopogonidae), but is also used for other flies, such as the species Leptoconops torrens and flies in the genera Culicoides, Phlebotomus and Lutzomyia.”  --Lambiam 13:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

monobromizeEdit

I can find no forms except monobromized, which may just be an adjective. Equinox 15:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

torEdit

Rfv-sense: A tower; a turret. - supposedly a John Ray quote, but I couldn't find it, so RFV'd instead FTW Yellow is the colour (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

roman fontEdit

Rfv-sense "a font supporting (often exclusively) Western European languages (often capitalized Roman)".__Gamren (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kiwima No, all of those cites are for the sense "font of Roman characters", which is arguably SOP.__Gamren (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Which are the characters used by Western European languages. Kiwima (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
... As well as a large part of the languages of the whole world, including Latin. You know, the language of Rome? As in "Roman"? Besides, what about Yiddisch, or extinct languages like Primitive Irish and Old Norse, are they Western European?__Gamren (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
To start, the proper typographical terminology is “roman typeface”; a font means, traditionally, the characters of a typeface in a specific point size and weight. I don’t know what we should do about this. As far as I can make out the intended meanings of senses 3 and 4, I think they are the same. The term “Roman characters” used in the definition of sense 4 is IMO an awkwardly ambiguous formulation for “characters of the Latin alphabet” (also known as “the Roman alphabet”), used for the Germanic languages including English and German, and the Romance languages such as French, Italian and Spanish. After fixing sense 4, the (inadequately formulated) sense 3 is superfluous.
Additionally the following – not directly germane to the issue of verification. According to the Wikipedia article Serif, some typography sources refer to serif typefaces as “roman”. The Wikipedia article Roman type makes a distinction between “Roman” as referring to letters dating from classical antiquity, and “roman” for typefaces developed from the Italian typefaces of the Renaissance period. It states, “Popular roman typefaces include Bembo, Baskerville, Caslon, Jenson, Times New Roman and Garamond.” All are old-style serif typefaces. This also holds very much for the 15th-century typefaces designed by Aldus Manutius,[21] so as a quotation supporting the rather recent sense 1 this is a less felicitous choice. I think it is better to move this to sense 2. Also, the first known use of a sans-serif full-fledged typeface (with both majuscules and minuscules) for a running text is from 1900. They were initially not considered a roman typeface; this indiscriminate designation for all upright typefaces originated with digital typefaces, also misnamed “fonts”, and is not common among typographers. Therefore I’d swap senses 1 and 2.  --Lambiam 19:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

cheeserEdit

"(slang) An uncircumcised man." If removed, please remove the dickcheese allusion from the etymology too! Equinox 09:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

-yllionEdit

Part of a proposed numeric system. Not in actual use? Equinox 09:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

myllionEdit

Part of a proposed numeric system. Not in actual use? Equinox 09:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

ChinEdit

Rfv-sense. Chin is not listed on the Chen and Ching pages as an alternate form, yet one of the senses for Chin is as an alternate form of Chen and Ching. Chin should appear on those two pages if it is really an alternate form of those two. Based on the bewildering overlap of transliterations and personal usages, I believe Chen and Ching could be alternately written as Chin. However, I don't understand the logic behind such an alternate form, nor am I familiar with the principles of normal usage that could lead to Chin as an alternate form for Chen and Ching. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The Chen-Chin and Ching-Chin connections were asserted here: [22] by @LlywelynII. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

rascalatorEdit

"A machine that shapes fat rascals before they are baked." Mentioned in a small handful of joky press stories findable on the Web. Seems more like a one-off nickname for a specific machine than a common noun. (Also may be capitalised.) Very unlikely to meet CFI. Equinox 18:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

capitalist realismEdit

Sense: "(art) A satirical reference to pop." What does this mean? If it means that the word is a satirical way to refer to pop culture (pop music etc.) then the def should not say "a satirical reference", in the same way that we don't define tree as "a word for a plant". Anyway: any proof? Equinox 18:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Ping @Goldenrowley who added this back in 2007 (and is still active, apparently). – Jberkel 19:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
We do sometimes write definitions using {{ngd}}, if it's necessary. E.g. bless you.__Gamren (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021Edit

bygones be bygones, and fair play for time to comeEdit

Seems to be a nonce form. The citation could also perhaps be read as saying that "bygones be bygones" is the proverb, with the "fair play" bit as a separate addition to the sentence, not part of the quoted proverb. Equinox 15:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

snickleEdit

Rfv-sense "(Internet, slang) A combination of a Snickers bar and a pickle, typically consisting of the former inside of the latter." Looks like characteristic UD cruft. — surjection??⟩ 09:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

There are a number of news articles about the "Snickle dog" served at the Calgary stampede - which could count as one reference. Here is a sample:
*
2019 June 20, Moira Wyton, “Snickle dog, octo-lolly, beer-batter, oh my: K-Days releases new menu items”, in Edmonton Journal:
First off, the Snickle Dog, where a wiener, a Snickers bar and a dill pickle walked into a tortilla, that is all fried up and drizzled in chocolate.
Kiwima (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I think this may be speedied, the creator has been bragging about it, presumably because it is vandalism. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

rusty tromboneEdit

Google Books chiefly has mentions on offer. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

What about the ones that aren't mentions? DCDuring (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
None of those show up on Google Books for me, so perhaps you could keep the sarcasm to yourself. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

downEdit

(African-American Vernacular, slang) Accepted or respected, especially in the black or thug community.

I don't think even the usex is unambiguously for this sense. Hard to search for, sorry. Troll Control (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Could be keep the RfV tag for a while? Maybe somebody familiar with AAVE could confirm the citations and make sure that this sense (15) and sense 8 are/were distinct. DCDuring (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
down with the kids is interesting. Troll Control (talk) 08:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The usex is hard to distinguish from the "Comfortable with, accepting of" sense; I would remove it...although I notice it was copied from Urban Dictionary's 2002 definition of down as "To be 'down' means to be 'with it'. Respected in the thug community. What do you mean, no? I thought you was down." Another UD definition, from 2003, is "to be friends with someone or to spend time with them. 'Gettin Down' means to fuck them. [...] 'I'm pretty down with her.'"
The Concise New Patridge also asserts that in addition to "willing, [...] eager" (presumably our "comfortable with"), down can mean "excellent, loyal, fashionable" as well as "aware of the current social fashions and opinions; being or feeling a part of a general or specific social scene. A narrowing of the earlier UK C18 sense (wide-awake, suspicious, aware), modern use is mainly black or trendy US." (That semantic evolution, if right, is similar to woke.) The "aware of social fashions" sense is well-illustrated by the quote "You ain't down if you ain't heard of Method Man." from the 1995, Lois Stavsky et al. A2Z: The Book of Rap and Hip-Hop Slang, page 30. OTOH, our Coolio cite seems more likely to mean something corresponding to Patridge's "loyal", IMO, and for the "down for" cites, "loyal" seems at least as likely an interpretation as "respected, accepted". - -sche (discuss) 21:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I (subsequently) completely chanted the definition, though, based on the reference and analysis I gave above. We're also missing the "aware of social fashions; fashionable" sense illustrated by the "You ain't down if you ain't heard of Method Man" quote. It's conceivable that the "respected in the thug community" sense we and Urban Dictionary had is even an attempt at expressing that(?); I have seen Urban Dictionary take some pretty odd tacks as far as how to express what a word means. I don't think the citations provided support that sense, if it exists. - -sche (discuss) 02:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

usexEdit

J3133 (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

foryettenEdit

Only used in Chaucer, i.e. Middle English Yellow is the colour (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

dragon's skinEdit

I can only find this obsolete(?) mining term in dictionaries Yellow is the colour (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I managed to find and add one citation before Google kicked me out for "unusual traffic". I will try for more later. Kiwima (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Nope - that one is all I can find. The Stormonth citations that was requested turns out to be a dictionary entry. Kiwima (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

mishy-phenEdit

I suspect this was added as a joke. I certainly can't find three cites. Kiwima (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is a totally autological occurrence of the word mishy-phenated found in the wild (not intended as a joke). Of course, the term mishy-phenation is a nice example for illustrating the risk of death confusion by automated hyphenation. I suppose that mishy-phen is an ill-chosen back-formation.  --Lambiam 15:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

squameEdit

I could only find two cites (as opposed to mentions). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 10:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hazarasp: Where are these two cites? At the very least, we need a link to them. It does not help for you to just make the assertion, you need to provide evidence. That way, someone only needs to find the third. Kiwima (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Kiwima:; Sorry about that; I was running out of time. On further thought, there's probably just the one (for the variant squamme):
  • 1661, Robert Lovell, “Metallologia, Of Mettalls”, in ΠΑΝΖΩΟΡΥΚΤΟΛΟΓΙΑ [PANZŌORYKTOLOGIA]. Sive Panzoologicomineralogia. Or a Compleat History of Animals and Minerals, Containing the Summe of All Authors, both Ancient and Modern, Galenicall and Chymicall, [...], Oxford: Printed by Hen[ry] Hall, for Jos[eph] Godwin, OCLC 79920846, page 12:
    Dioſc. the flouers bind, repreſſe excreſcencies, and cleare the eyes, ſo the ſquamme, and helpes their flux, and aſperity of the eyebrowes [...]
By the way, the first quote you added seems to be Middle English; I've moved it to the ME entry. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

underreplacementsEdit

Tagged by Facts707 on 3 April, not listed: “Can't find any citations for this plural form”. J3133 (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

caroigneEdit

Tagged by 2003:DE:3735:4178:C01B:C675:748A:7137 on 20 March, not listed: “Middle English (enm) only?”. J3133 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

guideressEdit

Tagged by 2003:DE:3735:4178:C01B:C675:748A:7137 on 20 March, not listed. J3133 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Middle English to me. It can be seen in Chaucer's translation of Boethius' The Consolation of Philosophy, but I have found nothing in Modern English. Kiwima (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

legatoEdit

Rfv-sense: "slur curve above or below a passage of notes indicating that they should be played in a legato manner". Does legato refer to a slur curve in the music score? OED gives the definition "a legato style of performance; a piece or passage (to be) played legato" instead. RcAlex36 (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I searched for phrases like "a legato written" (above such-and-such passage) and "write a legato", but didn't find anything. I found a couple citations for "a legato over", but in that phrase it's not clear that it means the slur/curve mark. One book that mentions "the staccato - contrast with the legato above" seems to mean the passage, sense 3, rather than the mark. Likewise, the one cite I can find (and also put on the citations page) of "Beethoven ties the legato over the bar at first but then ceases to do so", while it could mean the mark, seems (from context and from the way other books use google books:"the legato above") to mean the passage or style of play. - -sche (discuss) 02:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

fatherEdit

Rfv-sense "A senator of Ancient Rome.".__Gamren (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I can find plenty of citations, but they all capitalize the word (except for one mention that uses the lower case to translate the Latin):
1877, Hardwicke Drummond Rawnsley, A Book of Bristol Sonnets, page 7:
The eighty Fathers (senators) sat silent in their robes of office in the senate house;
1879, Titus Livius, The fifth, sixth and seventh books of Livy's History of Rome, a tr., with intr., summary and notes by a first-classman, page 174:
Go to Rome to the Senate: the Fathers will decide whether you have deserved more punishment [for what you did] before, or forgiveness now.
1886, Victor Duruy, ‎John Pentland Mahaffy, History of Rome, page 275:
Claudius put a stop to these executions, and the Conscript Fathers, repenting, placed Gallienus among the divi , — which was equivalent to the maintenance of his acts.
1886, Wilhelm Ihne, Early Rome, page 37:
When Romulus had left the earth and had become a god, the Fathers met together and appointed intermediate kings from the senate, to reign in turn each for five days, in the place of the king, till a new king should be chosen.
[
1886, Wilhelm Ihne, Early Rome, page 104:
This authority was lodged in the senate, a body of men consisting of all or the most influential heads of families, and therefore appropriately called 'fathers' (patres).
]
1890, Robert Franklin Pennell, Ancient Rome from the Earliest Times Down to 476 A.D., page 9:
His duties were to command the army, to perform certain sacrifices (as high priest), and to preside over the assembly of the Fathers of the families, which was called the Senate, i. e. an assembly of old men (Senex).
I suggest moving it to Father. Kiwima (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
We have this sense as a plurale tantum at patres. Maybe the English is likewise? Cites 2, 3, 4 at least seem to use it as a collective noun for the institution, rather than for the members of that institution. Sense 3 supports conscript father, but with different capitalization.__Gamren (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The cites all use the plural mainly as an artifact of my search technique. Some of those sources also used the singular in other places. Kiwima (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Ah, neat. If they also use the singular then yes, move to the capitalized form (assuming no-one else finds lowercase). :) And someone interested in Latin might look into whether patres is really plural-only or can also be found in the singular... - -sche (discuss) 02:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

eager beaverEdit

Sense 2: "A woman with a high sex drive." Added by the notoriously unreliable Luciferwildcat. Equinox 15:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

cross the wiresEdit

Sense: synonym of get one's wires crossed (= "to get confused or mixed up about another person's intentions; to misunderstand one another"). I can't find this particular phrase used this way: it would need to be something like "we crossed the wires and failed to understand one another". All I find is the other sense (a news story breaking) or literal crossing of electrical wires. Equinox 15:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I could only find one possible quote:
2009, Mark Moogalian, Mr. Farride, page 6:
This produced sensory overlap that crossed the wires between sight, sound and touch, triggering a perceptual avalanche throughout his being.
but I am inclined to wonder whether the person who added this didn't mean cross wires. Kiwima (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
That quotation doesn't seem to fit the definition of getting confused about someone's intentions or to misunderstand, though it does suggest some kind of confusion or conflation. Equinox 15:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

cam backEdit

surjection??⟩ 20:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  • If it is OK (big if) then the headword needs to be fixed. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Check the verb inflections too: "cam backed" seems less likely than "camming back"! Equinox 15:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

deplumationEdit

Rfv-sense: A disease of the eyelids, attended with loss of the eyelashes. Found in a bunch of dictionaries, no more Yellow is the colour (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

top Edit

sense: "Someone who takes a position physically above their partner during sexual activity." Colin M (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedily deleted, see also talk:power bottom.__Gamren (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

bottomEdit

sense: "Someone who takes a position physically below their partner during sexual activity." Colin M (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedily deleted, see also talk:power bottom.__Gamren (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

power bottomEdit

sense: "A person who takes an active role in a sex position physically below their partner." Colin M (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I feel this can be speedily deleted. Pretty much anyone with a regular sex life is going to be below their sex partner at some point; it's a ridiculous category.__Gamren (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

doughnutEdit

Slang for vulva. Of the two citations, the 2012 ("basically the in and the out, the hot dog splicing through the doughnut") seems to be making a metaphorical comparison (this is like this) rather than a true sense of the word; the 2014 seems nonsensical and of unclear meaning at best (it's part of a nonsense poem). Equinox 18:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Green's has an entry for this sense with 5 cites. They range from 1859 to 1935, so I'm guessing they're not of a piece with the current cites, which, as you say, might just be ad-hoc metaphors. I suppose lifting cites directly from Green's is not on, but they might at least provide some indication for where to look. Colin M (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Not cited! Two of those cites are for "doughnut dollies", completely unrelated to vulva. Why did you think this could mean vulva? "Vulva dollies"? See link [23]: "American service men in England during World War II called American Red Cross girls Doughnut Dollies. It was a warm and affectionate term designed to show the soldiers' appreciation for the morale-building efforts of the American Red Cross. The Red Cross girls operated clubmobiles which were driven to air bases where the girls served fresh doughnuts,..." Equinox 06:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The 1994 cite is pretty spurious too, seems to mean "virginity" rather than "vulva"... BigDom 11:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, now it is cited. Kiwima (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

youtubeEdit

(Somehow) passed in 2008–2010 with one citation (as Equinox notes). J3133 (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this is easily cited on Usenet (example). Assuming we're happy with cites that refer to directly to YouTube as a particular named entity, rather than requiring a more figurative use. But it seems like these are better understood as errors resulting from people typing lazily in informal settings, rather than evidence of a 'legitimate' alternative spelling. e.g. I'm sure it's also possible to find tons of examples of lower-case canada on Usenet or other informal online spaces, but it doesn't seem like we should list that as an alt spelling. Colin M (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
This is basically for every internet domain. So somebody wanted reddit, and we could have twitter – which we have only as a verb, because that is another kind of regular. What else? blogspot, wordpress, tumblr? Another factor is something being a terminal command, as these are generally lowercase-only. So we can probably have wget and curl, which are apparently properly written Wget and cURL, without me knowing this before, as one encounters them as commands and package names. I have the idea that they should not be included as they are not English or Translingual but computer language, C, which humans sometimes speak and which is the default without setting a locale. Fay Freak (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Helsinki syndromeEdit

This good writeup suggests that it doesn't exist with any well-defined meaning. To keep the entry, we need three cites plus a clear definition line to put them under, which I am just not seeing. This, that and the other (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

This is cited. It may be an error, but it is a very common one. As for the possibility of another, different "Helsinki syndrome" that refers to the Helsinki accords, I have added three cites to the citations page, but I am not at all sure that they agree with each other enough to produce a definition. Maybe a pejorative term by cold war ideologues about those who supported a thawing of US-Soviet hostilities? Kiwima (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

wheezeEdit

Rfv-sense: "To convulse with laughter; to become breathless due to intense laughing"

DCDuring (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I strongly disagree that the evidence provided supports the definition unambiguously. These are citations of someone wheezing while or before laughing: easily seen as two separate phenomena in the cites. Try substituting the definition into the purported cites: doesn't work. I doubt that any cite with 'laugh|ing|s|ed' and 'wheez|e|ing|es|ed' in the same sentence will be good evidence. Perhaps in the same paragraph, but even then, there is likely to be ambiguity. DCDuring (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The last two cites include the {very easily found) phrase "wheezed laughter", which clearly indicates that the laughter is part of the wheezing, not a separate action. If you want, I can add several more cites with this phrase, it is quite common. The first two cites say that someone wheezed, and then go on to describe the laughter that the wheeze comprised. Again, not a separate action. Kiwima (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)