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 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 verification/CJK
add new CJK request | history

Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

Requests for verification/Italic
add new Italic request | history

Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, 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/CJK
add new CJK request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

Requests for deletion/Italic
add new Italic request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.

Requests for deletion/​Reconstruction
add new reconstruction request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.

{{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfd-redundant}} • {{rfeq}} • {{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 should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Oldest 100 tagged RFVs

December 2022Edit

Slavic given names created by 2601:243:1400:74cf:896a:14b8:9f7f:8d7eEdit

Some of this user's creations are real Serbo-Croatian names, like Nikoslav (whether they are citable in English or not is less clear). The others seem highly dubious. I have nominated the ones for which I was able to find no supporting sources whatsoever. There are a few more that may be worth nominating too. I encourage others to check. 00:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are reminsiscent of the assembly-line-style "English" entries cranked out by Bruno Med. Bruno Med, however, was based in Croatia- so this is perhaps a copycat. If you look at the /64 range, you can see them editing one of those Bruno Med entries. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it turns out that these aren't real, someone should notify the Polish and Kurdish Wiktionaries, since they have copied them over. 01:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFV-failed. Binarystep (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]








English transgender slangEdit

Many recently created entries in the "English transgender slang" category are highly specific, 4chan /lgbt/ board-derived terms with very little usage outside of these groups. Some are lacking any citations at all. Considering most of these are derogatory in nature, I would advise caution with adding terms like "rapehon" or "manmoder", especially if they have as little or niche usage as these do, per WT:DEROGATORY. Should these remain added? HoldOnMagnolia (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something I like to do occasionally is to check Twitter to see what people are saying about Wiktionary. Today I found this post. Hundreds of people have seen these entries, for better or worse. 06:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See previous discussions on racist terms. One conclusion was that CFI-compliant terms can be documented, but especially niche derogatory terms shouldn't get promoted or given undue high visibility (cross-linking etc, Darky Cuntinent was at some point listed as a synonym for Africa). – Jberkel 09:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If more people have seen the entry than used the word we can start being concerned. Equinox 08:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure these are perfectly "CFI-compliant" terms; they fall under a clause that leaves it up to community consensus whether to keep them or not.
Despite the impression the existence of these entries gives, a recent poll to allow Twitter and Reddit as sources on par with books and Usenet failed. We can still fall back on the wording added to WT:ATTEST in February:
  • "Other online-only sources may also contribute towards attestation requirements if editors come to a consensus through a discussion lasting at least two weeks."
I highly doubt that we'll find terms like rapehon being used in durably archived sources. Maybe someday, but not now. By the way, we've failed other terms like Talk:dorcassing, Talk:sniddy (and other examples I can't recall offhand) that had long-term usage on Twitter and were much less offensive, so if these pass I'm just really confused about what standards people are applying. Making these rulings on a case-by-case basis will lead to inconsistency, but maybe it's a necessary evil. Turkroach, listed above, is a very similar case, both in terms of the derogatory nature of the term and the online venues in which it could be attested. 09:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case I put in my vote to allow online-only sources for the sake of citing these terms. In my view, a high page view count is proof that the terms in question are in widespread use, as there are clearly many people trying to find out their meaning. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or angry people on Twitter retweeting links to them :) – Jberkel 00:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The pageviews have been consistently high prior to the popular tweet linked above. Ioaxxere (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm unsure if these are CFI compliant, that's why I've brought them here. I agree with 70's thoughts on confusing standards (although I'm not as well-versed in Wiktionary policy). HoldOnMagnolia (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some people want Wiktionary to be academically rigorous and to only cite books and periodicals, in order to maintain our supposed image of respectability and not become Urban Dictionary. Others think Wiktionary should include practically anything that's been used on social media, in order to keep up with the latest slang and avoid becoming irrelevant. It seems impossible to please both camps. The current compromise solution, enshrined in policy, requires a separate discussion for every term whose attestation relies on online sources, which is just impractical. So whether these terms are kept or not is really uncertain, and mostly depends on who happens to show up. 03:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to this tweet: https://twitter.com/kelthecelt/status/1218249784244477958 , there is a medical journal that mentions various terms for HRT pills.
The quoted paper reads as follows: "Hormone replacement therapy has many nicknames among transfeminine people, including titty pills. titty skittles, smartitties, chicklets, anticistamines, mammary mints, life savers, tit tats, breast mints, femme&m's, antiboyotics, trans-mission fluid, and the Notorious H.R.T." Three citations, for all senses. (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @HoldOnMagnolia, Jberkel, Equinox, Ioaxxere: In the interest of possibly moving this discussion forward, I have made up a table of uncited/insufficiently cited transgender slang entries along with the number of quotations furnished for each. Someone should probably tag all of these with {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} as appropriate. (And with {{hot word}} or {{hot sense}}, if citations don't span a year.) Currently none of the entries are tagged.

Table last updated: 23:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Entry Citations Derogatory?
Social media Other
anticistamines 0 0 no
boomerhon 0 0 probably
boymode (noun) 0 0 no
boymode (verb) 0 0 no
boymoder 0 0 no
brainworm 3 0 no
breast mint 0 0 no
cishon 4 0 yes
crack someone's egg 1 0 no
egg 0 1 no
Fem&M's 7 0 no
Femme&M's 0 0 no
gigahon 2 0 yes
gigapassoid 2 0 yes
girlmode (noun) 0 0 no
girlmode (verb) 0 0 no
girlmoder 0 0 no
heighthon 2 0 yes
hon 5 0 yes
honfidence 2 0 probably
manmode (noun) 0 0 no
manmode (verb) 0 0 no
manmoder 2 0 no
midshit 2 0 probably
oldshit 2 0 probably
passoid 2 0 yes
pooner 2 0 yes
rapehon 3 0 probably
rotten egg 21 0 probably
shoulderhon 2 0 yes
stealth (adverb) 0 0 no
stealth (adjective) 0 0 no
thussy 7 1 (mention) no
Tit Tac 0 0 no
titty skittle 6 1 no
trutrans 3 0 no
twinkhon 3 0 yes
youngshit 2 0 probably

We can't really pass any entries with 0 citations. The community can choose to accept entries with citations from online sources, but that requires an explicit two-week discussion. The entries are not even tagged yet, and the discussion above is pretty disorganized, so I think the two-week clock should not be considered to have started. I'm not sure how such a discussion should even be structured though. Should we have separate subsections for each term, considering their citations individually? 23:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I specifically wrote that I supported accepting online sources, and no one objected in over two weeks. I can't force people to have a discussion, so I think we can put this RFV to rest. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From what I can see:
  • There are procedural issues that might make it a bad idea to close this request immediately. The entries were never tagged, limiting visibility of this discussion to people who might have stumbled upon them. There was also never an explicit listing of the affected entries so it isn't clear which entries within the category were under discussion. The nominator referred to "recently created" entries, but that's vague, as e.g. crack someone's egg was created in May, egg was added in August, rotten egg was added in late September, rapehon in November. Which are meant to be included? Furthermore, the discussion was not tagged with an "Input needed" box or a specific subheading to the same effect that would indicate to RfV readers that this is a discussion on whether to accept online sources. I think that if that had been done, more people would have commented.
  • If this were to be closed immediately, the result would probably be "no consensus" to count online-only sources. It looks like HoldOnMagnolia objected to the inclusion of these entries, or at least the 4chan-slang/uncited/derogatory ones. You supported their inclusion. Nobody else really expressed an opinion either way. So that would be 1-1.
  • The wording of WT:ATTEST (second bullet point) implies that we need a positive consensus to count online-only sources; "no consensus" isn't good enough.
  • Even if we were to ignore HoldOnMagnolia's comments (why?) and assume that there is a positive consensus for counting the online-only sources in question, that doesn't obviate the need for having sources at all, which applies to a few of these. It arguably doesn't even obviate the need to have at least three citations total, especially in the case of derogatory terms, which applies to yet more of them.
  • Deleting all of these would probably be wrong at this stage, as e.g. egg is clearly in real use, maybe even outside of social media, even if not enough citations have technically been added yet.
  • Keeping all of these would probably be wrong at this stage, as e.g. boomerhon is a completely uncited derogatory term, which clearly goes against the spirit of WT:DEROGATORY.
  • Making a finer-grained distinction (keep some, delete some) would be wrong at this stage because nobody has offered such a proposal.
  • We could really use a better policy on online sourcing.
That's why I think this discussion needs some kind of reboot/restructuring. 01:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm in agreement with you here. I handled the RfV poorly (I am not entirely well-versed in Wiktionary policy, unfortunately). If I (or someone else) made a separate RfV specifically targeting the derogatory ones (which I take the real issue with) and properly tagged the articles, I think that would work out more favorably for everyone involved rather than deadlocking it at 1-1 here. HoldOnMagnolia (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we need to archive this and start separate RFV (sub)sections for any word which (a) still exists (several have failed RFV in the time since this discussion started), (b) is still being doubted/challenged, and (c) does not already have its own specific RFV section. Some of the words in the category (e.g. stealth, mentioned in the table above) are easily and now amply cited, whereas others are borderline at best.. - -sche (discuss) 02:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 2023Edit

Rfv-sense: noun. OED provides only Scots evidence after 1500. This, that and the other (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Cited although could easily be moved to Scots like you said. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nah, not cited for modern English at all. Whenever you see "quh-" at the start of words, you know it's Scots. Also, another hint (not conclusive by itself) is that they were all published in Edinburgh.
I'll move the cites to Scots. This, that and the other (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coined in 2021 by CNBC's Jim Cramer. Most cites that I'm seeing on a cursory search are very mention-y. AG202 (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Cited. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second cite does not pass WT:ATTEST. AG202 (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AG202 I've added a few cites (including a printed book), does it look good? Ioaxxere (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ioaxxere Forgot to respond, sorry, but these look good, thanks! Cited. AG202 (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Al-Muqanna take a look? Ioaxxere (talk) 05:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems fine to me! —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case feel free to mark this as "RFV Passed". Ioaxxere (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFV-passed. Binarystep (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 2023Edit

Sense 2: "the promotion of homosexuality". Equinox 19:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFV Failed. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aha! After realizing that this might have been formed/used like transgenderism, I've found cites of it and added them to the citations page. In fairness or full disclosure, since it's pertinent to the question of whether things are being failed hastily or without searching for them, I must point out that two cites of this sense were the first two cites that turned up when I did a Google Books search for the term, google books:"gayism". Some uses of the term don't clearly distinguish the "promotion"/"ideology" and "homosexuality" senses (perhaps because the users don't distinguish between the concepts) and the citations can't cleanly be assigned to one or the other, but enough cites are clearly using this for a supposed ideology a la transgenderism that I think such a sense is citable; wording might be modelled on that other entry. It's derogatory. (Interestingly, whereas the people talking about transgenderism seem to be Western and white, many uses of gayism seem to come from Africans; I suppose Western homophobes already had the phrase gay agenda.) BTW I've long suspected that such a sense also exists for homosexualism (see its talk page), and corresponding senses may exist for the -ists. - -sche (discuss) 02:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, I've restored the sense (cited). - -sche (discuss) 22:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only on Wikipedia and Wikibooks? 04:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No hits aside from Wikipedia and Wikibooks as [1] [2]. I've been asked to issue a warning that I will close this as failed on or after the soonest date allowed by policy unless there are objections. Ioaxxere (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can only find mentions online (and not many at that), the Google Scholar hit only contains the text "Proposed English name: Managalas Plateau Snake", and there's nothing on Google Books. 04:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can't find hits in any of the usual places. I've been asked to issue a warning (which is getting a bit annoying tbh) that I will close this as failed on or after the soonest date allowed by policy unless there are objections. Ioaxxere (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Transgender derogatory termsEdit

This entry, or one or more of its senses, has been nominated as derogatory pursuant to WT:DEROGATORY. It may be speedily deleted if it does not have at least three quotations meeting the attestation requirements within two weeks of the nomination date, that is, by 15 February 2023.

(This is a continuation of the above English Transgender Slang category RFV, specifically for terms in Category:English transgender slang) Per WT:CFI & WT:DEROGATORY, these terms should not have gone on for this long without proper cites. As a side note, it's very telling that, knowing the rules that we have here, that these entries keep being created and it's to the point where the project is being noted for promoting these words as seen here, and pageviews be damned, at this rate, as Equinox said: "If more people have seen the entry than used the word we can start being concerned.", we should start being concerned. We're not even applying the basic rules of requiring cites for derogatory terms at creation and Category:Candidates for speedy deletion remains full of entries. We're once again having the issue of editors adding derogatory terms towards specific groups that aren't properly cited, which is why WT:DEROGATORY was created in the first place. People are noticing that their tweets are getting added, leading to increased awareness of the citation process at Wiktionary, which increases the possibility of citogenesis, especially with our Hot Word template. This also leads to tweets being deleted as with the second cite at passoid. I had to take a break from this project after the last cycle, and there are current and potential editors who are hesitant to participate for this reason, so I'm very disheartened yet not surprised to see that it's still an issue. This is seriously getting out of hand.

Terms on this list: boomerhon, cishon, gigahon, gigapassoid, heighthon, hon, honfidence, midshit, oldshit, passoid, pooner (actually has a print cite), r*pehon, twinkhon, youngshit. The other terms at that category will also need to be verified, but these are currently more pertinent. Pinging @HoldOnMagnolia since they began the other discussion (and sorry to 70 I can't ping you). AG202 (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for this.
The print citation for pooner is for a different sense. In Neal Stephenson's 1992 sci-fi book Snow Crash, poon is short for harpoon, and a pooner would be a harpooner, i.e. someone who latches onto other vehicles to get around. (Though I wasn't even able to find the word pooner(s) by searching the original book on IA, so maybe this is only used in secondary literature.) No connection to the transgender sense. 18:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CFI Vote (various transgender derogatory terms)Edit

  1. Keep and in response to a few points (I'll revise this list if they are addressed):
  1. The deleted tweet at passoid is not an issue, since it has been archived. I also haven't seen any evidence that the deletion of this tweet has anything to do with the entry.
  2. Having a definition for a word is not equivalent to promoting its use (this is essentially arguing for censorship).
  3. I haven't seen any evidence of editors being hesitant due to participate on the whole project as a result of particular entries existing.
  4. I haven't seen any evidence of citogenesis ever occurring on Wiktionary.
  5. I'm not that concerned about what random people on Twitter think about Wiktionary.
I think that these terms are worth keeping, especially the most used ones. Someone found an interesting exchange on 4chan from December: [3]

How do you feel about the documentation of our culture on normie websites like wiktionary?
documenting culture is their passion and i respect it
at least they're kinda accurate
actually, that's a good definition.

Even putting aside the pageview argument (consistent 300-500/month for anyone wondering), the entries have a high approval from actual readers of this website. Ioaxxere (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. There have been examples of citogenesis mentioned in prior discussions but I’m not going to search for them so you can believe me or not. The other point that I’ll respond to is the editors point. I’ve had multiple editors come to me in confidence that these type of terms being highlighted and documented with such fervor bothers them and makes them not want to participate (especially when we had IPs openly being racist to folks that edited them, ex: towards me myself). Also, like I’ve explicitly said that this makes me uncomfortable, and other editors have even publicly brought it up in prior discussions on this topic. Again, whether you choose to believe that is up to you. AG202 (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    There have been examples of citogenesis mentioned in prior discussions but I’m not going to search for them so you can believe me or not.

    How are you defining "citogenesis" in this context? Are you referring to cases where Wiktionary cited itself, or times where Wiktionary either coined a term or influenced an existing term's usage?

    I’ve had multiple editors come to me in confidence that these type of terms being highlighted and documented with such fervor bothers them and makes them not want to participate (especially when we had IPs openly being racist to folks that edited them, ex: towards me myself). Also, like I’ve explicitly said that this makes me uncomfortable, and other editors have even publicly brought it up in prior discussions on this topic.

    How are these terms being highlighted? As for them being "documented with such fervor", I don't think it's fair to imply that everyone who adds offensive terms is a bigot who endorses their usage. We've obviously had trolls in the past (such as the racist IP), but everything in this RFV was added by Ioaxxere, who has a history of high-quality edits. Binarystep (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Do not approve. The widely-used point does not apply here. These terms don’t have much currency and Twitter was blocked from being universally approved for CFI for a reason. Many of these terms haven’t even escaped usage for the past year. We explicitly said that we’re not wholesale approving terms solely used on Twitter or 4chan, yet we’re moving towards that. Also, again, we need to actually enforce the rules that we have. AG202 (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Some of these entries… don’t even have 3 cites for the basis of WT:ATTEST to begin with. Let alone the issue of mentions vs uses. AG202 (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That should be resolved now⁠, it's just a matter of me getting around to it... (i.e the lack of cites reflects only on me, and not the entries) Ioaxxere (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Keep, though this really should've been handled on a case-by-case basis, since some of these terms are far more common than others. Binarystep (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree in terms of the CFI vote, and at the point of sending the RFV, none of the entries had qualifying cites, plus I'm not aware of any of these terms' commonness. Also, you could easily do a split vote. AG202 (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I know I've seen hon, passoid, and gigapassoid before. It's the others I'm unfamiliar with. Binarystep (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Keep after discussing Tweets, and removing words that did not exist 2 years. I think this is what we do with tweets here. My reasoning for removing words less than 2 years old is that those words would need another cite from this or next year, and it would be impossible to get a tweet from 2024 by the end of Feb. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by CitationsFreak (talkcontribs) at 16:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
    I’m confused by this vote. Is this a conditional keep and are you stating your support for removing the entries that are less than 2 years old, and after discussing tweets? We’ve already voted on Twitter and the consensus was that it should not be wholesale approved for CFI. AG202 (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes. Except for the Twitter thing. I think I may have been following outdated policy. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by CitationsFreak (talkcontribs) at 4:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC).
    @CitationsFreak Are you aware of WT:CFI#Spanning at least a year, which specifically empowers us to keep words less than 2 years old under the "hot word" rule? This is settled and common practice; see Cat:Hot words newer than a year and Cat:Hot words between one and two years old. Are you suggesting the "hot word" rule should not be applied in this case for some reason? This, that and the other (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am arguing that it does not apply because it would get deleted in 2 weeks from WT:DEROGATORY. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by CitationsFreak (talkcontribs) at 4:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC).
    @CitationsFreak Why would an admin delete an attested, cited term under WT:DEROGATORY solely on the basis that it was a hot word? Especially if the term in question had been voted on! The "usual attestation requirements" mentioned at WT:DEROGATORY would certainly include the hot word rule. Also, please sign all your posts using four tildes: ~~~~ This, that and the other (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Alright, I forgot that it was a thing. I still feel a little weird about keeping them, no questions asked. Having only Twitter cites for slurs feels a little off to me. Three citations, for all senses. (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Calling any of these "slurs" is pretty inaccurate given that they're only used within trans communities. The derogatory nature of these terms has been seriously overstated during this discussion—by 4chan standards, they are really mild. Ioaxxere (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Based on the way these terms are used, they should probably be categorized as self-deprecatory rather than offensive. Binarystep (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If that’s a strong case for you, then you can vote abstain or if it’s more serious, then you can vote to not approve the words. AG202 (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    All of these words have existed for more than two years, so I assume you are in favour of keeping everything. Ioaxxere (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Don't approve of the social media sources for these terms, if those are the only sources available. If we had one or two durably archived quotations of use for these terms, which could come into existence soon enough if these really do have (sub)cultural currency, then I might view the situation differently. Originally I didn't have a strong view one way or the other, but the more I've thought about this the more I've come around to something like AG202's view.
    Also, I realize this is a "slippery slope argument", but if these are approved I expect it to set a precedent that would embolden the creation of more social media-only terms. Many of those are innocuous or fun, like sea pancake or fandom ships, but others are even more offensive than these, like some of A3A0's creations. The case-by-case judgement system of course would prevent this precedent from being binding, but I think this is still a legitimate concern because editors take past decisions into account when deciding what's worth bringing to RfV and how to vote in such discussions. (Or at least I know I probably do.) 05:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Don't approve of the social media sources for these terms, if those are the only sources available. If we had one or two durably archived quotations of use for these terms, which could come into existence soon enough if these really do have (sub)cultural currency, then I might view the situation differently.

    Then we'll always be stuck in 2005. There are plenty of terms that are used within certain niche groups and subcultures (such as post-Usenet fandom slang), which still haven't appeared in "professional" sources after well over a decade of frequent, consistent use. As long as we're not allowed to cite words directly from the "unwashed masses", we'll never have accurate coverage of the way people currently speak. Whether we want to admit it or not, social media is the most accurate way to track the evolution of language. Legacy media is and always will be decades behind, and so will we if we continue to rely on it.

    Consider, for instance, that until we finally started allowing internet citations last year, we didn't have any fandom slang newer than Buffy, the X-Files, and Star Trek: TNG. Even the MLP terms we had were from toy collectors in the 1990s rather than fans of FiM. Modern fandom culture is nothing like what it was 20-30 years ago, but our readers had no way of knowing that. We didn't even mention things like Homestuck, My Hero Academia, Steven Universe, or Cuphead, despite all of them having large fanbases with their own unique jargon. For years, the only modern entries we had were random ship names like Rizzles that were lucky enough to end up in published essays.

    Also, I realize this is a "slippery slope argument", but if these are approved I expect it to set a precedent that would embolden the creation of more social media-only terms.

    And? If a word is commonly used and understood, why should we pretend it doesn't exist?

    Many of those are innocuous or fun, like sea pancake or fandom ships, but others are even more offensive than these, like some of A3A0's creations. The case-by-case judgement system of course would prevent this precedent from being binding, but I think this is still a legitimate concern because editors take past decisions into account when deciding what's worth bringing to RfV and how to vote in such discussions. (Or at least I know I probably do.)

    A dictionary's job is to document language as it is, not to dictate how it should be. Why should the offensiveness of a word even be a factor here? Wiktionary acknowledging a word's existence isn't the same thing as endorsing it. Our job is to make it so people can look up unfamiliar words and find out what they mean, and deleting these entries would only get in the way of that. If our readers see comments talking about "gigapassoids" or "shoulderhons", should they be expected to simply shrug and say "Oh well, guess I'll never know what that means"? Are they supposed to go to Urban Dictionary instead, where most definitions are intentionally false and designed to screw with the reader?

    Here's an example of why this type of censorship bothers me. Last year, a recent sense of jogger (specifically, its use as an N-word substitute) was deleted for being an online-only term. Of course, this didn't change the fact that it's still used constantly by white supremacists on social media sites. Without an entry, though, people unfamiliar with the term won't be able to look it up and understand the racist meanings of seemingly innocuous comments they encounter (how many people would read "I fucking hate joggers" and assume a non-literal meaning?). Just recently, I actually saw someone denying that the term was ever used as a slur in the first place. By refusing to acknowledge dogwhistles, we actually make it easier for them to remain undetected. By the time these words end up in print, they won't even be used anymore.

    Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the terms you're concerned about make up an insignificant percentage of total entries being created. Right now, offensive terms are only 0.1% of English lemmas. Why should we ban all modern slang out of fear that 0.1% of it might be offensive? We'd be cutting off our face to spite our nose. Binarystep (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    FYI, IPs aren't eligible to vote. These are some really good points though, and I would also love if people stopped relying Urban Dictionary (which is basically our Uncyclopedia). Ioaxxere (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (That's only for official votes at WT:VOTES not for RFD votes in past practice, though whether or not this one is one is arguable) AG202 (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Also the vast majority of Binarystep's points have been addressed in prior discussions, and they've been told to avoid this reply style specifically because it takes up space and makes it very hard to follow or reply. The only point that I'll actually address is the "Why should we ban all modern slang out of fear that 0.1% of it might be offensive?" comment as neither me nor 70 stated that. They've openly been in support of other social media terms, but not these ones. My line is on offensive terms that only have currency online. I do not wish to amplify white supremacist nonce words, as I've stated before. To be quite frank, I'm surprised that editors are even encountering some of these terms in the first place. There's the constant point that people will "encounter" these terms in the wild, but like seriously? As someone who's actually Black and the target of "jogger", for example, I'd never find myself in alt-n-word.groups on usenet or white supremacist threads on Twitter, and I know that the majority of folks would not either. I don't care about what different n-word equivalents they use, there's always going to be new ones, and they all end up meaning the same thing. To be even more frank, some of these words (especially the Usenet ones) have never seen the light of day until they're added on Wiktionary. Like no one outside of those supremacist groups (or those who willingly are in those spaces for some reason) would even encounter them in the first place! I've never seen most of these words as someone who's been active on Twitter and social media for years! If your issue is that we should include derogatory words because they're words, that's fine, but let's stop kidding ourselves that there are actual large groups of people who are not already a part of those racist/homophobic groups that would want to look up these nonce terms. And the overuse of the word "censorship" when we literally have WT:CFI truly undermines the meaningful connotation of the word. AG202 (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's frustrating and disappointing that I keep having to put myself out there and explain why these issues are not the case on the ground, only for the same crap to be repeated over and over again, not taking my perspective into account. AG202 (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I honestly don't understand how the block quote format makes my comments harder to follow. The whole reason I do it is so I can respond to individual statements in a way that makes it more obvious what, specifically, I'm replying to. Regardless, I'll try to keep quotes to a minimum from here on out. It seems I misunderstood 70's argument, and for that I apologize. The slippery slope comment suggested to me that they thought we should be more skeptical of internet slang overall, because allowing it could potentially justify the later inclusion of offensive terms.
    To be honest, the use of the phrase "slippery slope" doesn't seem to make sense otherwise, since that'd basically be saying that including offensive terms is bad because it could lead to... offensive terms being included. That's less of a slope and more of a single data point.

    I do not wish to amplify white supremacist nonce words, as I've stated before.

    nonce word: A word invented for the occasion.
    None of these terms are nonce words. People aren't independently coining jogger or hon thousands of times over the span of several years. They're established terms with set definitions, and the fact that they haven't appeared in books doesn't make them nonce words. As for the idea that no one would ever encounter these terms in the wild, that's fairly easy to disprove. Going back to the jogger example, white supremacists don't like staying in their own spaces, because they get bored when they don't have people to argue with. Look at the comments on news articles, popular tweets, and posts on /r/all. You're practically guaranteed to find a racist remark or two if you read far enough, though a lot of stuff eventually gets removed by mods, which contributes to the perception that these terms are only used in certain places.
    You're also forgetting that there are non-racist parts of the internet where people make fun of stupid shit posted by racists (such as /r/TopMindsOfReddit or /r/insanepeoplefacebook). Posts in those sorts of groups inevitably end up with comments to the effect of "what does jogger mean" or "why does this person hate joggers", which tells me that there are in fact non-racist people who would benefit from a proper definition.

    And the overuse of the word "censorship" when we literally have WT:CFI truly undermines the meaningful connotation of the word.

    WT:CFI has nothing to do with censorship. There's a difference between deleting an entry for purely lexical reasons (hoax, SOP, encyclopedic content), and doing so simply because we don't like the term, even though we have ample evidence of its existence. Binarystep (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think the slippery slope is from mostly "self-deprecatory" offensive terms with 2,000 Google hits (cf. boomerhon), created by a respected user whose edits overall are of superb quality, to offensive terms used in a much more hostile way with perhaps even fewer results, created by trollish single-purpose accounts or IPs. For the latter, one recent example that comes to mind is toll paid, apparently part of a harassment campaign directed at interracial couples; I don't see much reason to document that (and apparently nobody else did either, given that nobody tried to cite it before the RfV time elapsed; but if they had taken three examples from Twitter should that have sufficed?)
    If people want to strike my comment because I'm not logged in, fair enough, at least I made my voice heard and sparked an interesting discussion. That's mostly what I hoped for. Worth noting that a proposal to prevent unregistered users from voting in RfDs failed, and that's a very similar context. (Edit) Also, if you check the relevant wording of the CFI policy, it only says "a discussion lasting at least two weeks", not a formal vote, and there's no general prohibition against IP participation in "discussions". I'm aware that some past CFI discussions have been structured as subpages of WT:Votes, and in those (example) I did refrain from voting per the policy, but it seems dubious to apply that here.
    I do think some of Binarystep's points are valid, but I'm not swayed enough to change the sign of my overall view. I'm not against using social media citations in every case. If 200step passes RfV, I think that's fine. I might be against using social media citations alone to cite offensive terms, which doesn't seem like a super-unreasonable line to draw. I think editors of professional dictionaries probably wouldn't include these terms either, but maybe I'm wrong. (If they did include them, that might sway me to the opposite view.) Part of my reasoning is also that I want Wiktionary to remain respectable and defensible to the public. When someone came here and complained that the verb definition of jew was offensive and fake, we were able to dig up lemmings in other dictionaries, and I even created a citation page with a bunch of convincing uses from the 1800s. If someone came here and complained that we had offensive terms that only existed on Twitter, then I guess our only response would be "yep, we do, but our policy explicitly allows it, so there". Which doesn't seem as persuasive. 18:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I think the slippery slope is from mostly "self-deprecatory" offensive terms with 2,000 Google hits (cf. boomerhon), created by a respected user whose edits overall are of superb quality, to offensive terms used in a much more hostile way with perhaps even fewer results, created by trollish single-purpose accounts or IPs.

    There's no reason that couldn't still be dealt with. What'd happen if a troll decided to cite a normal term using quotes from a racist book or neo-Nazi newsgroup? Presumably we'd do something about that, even though it's technically allowed under current CFI.

    For the latter, one recent example that comes to mind is toll paid, apparently part of a harassment campaign directed at interracial couples; I don't see much reason to document that (and apparently nobody else did either, given that nobody tried to cite it before the RfV time elapsed; but if they had taken three examples from Twitter should that have sufficed?)

    I see no reason why that term shouldn't be included. It's vile, yes, but it's also a real idiom used by white supremacists all the time. To be honest, the only reason I didn't try to cite it is because burn the coal, pay the toll was already deleted, and toll paid doesn't make sense without it.

    I'm not against using social media citations in every case. If 200step passes RfV, I think that's fine. I might be against using social media citations alone to cite offensive terms, which doesn't seem like a super-unreasonable line to draw.

    My question is, why should a dictionary reject words for non-lexical reasons?

    I think editors of professional dictionaries probably wouldn't include these terms either, but maybe I'm wrong. (If they did include them, that might sway me to the opposite view.)

    On the other hand, professional dictionaries also wouldn't include fandom slang (except brony), transgender slang (and I'm not talking about the derogatory terms), terms related to specific Usenet newsgroups, or any of the various terms pertaining to miscellaneous subcultures (such as all the furry slang we have). Wiktionary's stated goal is to include "all words in all languages", which suggests that we're a bit more descriptivist than other dictionaries. We're not the OED, and I hope that doesn't change.

    Part of my reasoning is also that I want Wiktionary to remain respectable and defensible to the public.

    I don't see how including these terms makes Wiktionary less respectable or defensible. These are real words used by a significant number of people online. All we're doing is truthfully documenting the English language as it currently exists. If anyone has a problem with these terms, they should blame the people who use them, not the dictionary that reports on their usage. Don't shoot the messenger and all that.

    When someone came here and complained that the verb definition of jew was offensive and fake, we were able to dig up lemmings in other dictionaries, and I even created a citation page with a bunch of convincing uses from the 1800s. If someone came here and complained that we had offensive terms that only existed on Twitter, then I guess our only response would be "yep, we do, but our policy explicitly allows it, so there". Which doesn't seem as persuasive.

    Should we only include terms that have been used since the 1800s? If someone complained about us having fandom slang that only exists online (which has happened before), our response would be the same as in your example. In both scenarios you've described, our defense is ultimately the same: "This word exists, and here's the citations to prove it." Binarystep (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I truthfully do admire your arguments for consistency and inclusionism, but I think I just disagree that we have to, or should, treat all terms on equal footing. The way I view these terms is more along the lines of how Wikipedia views BLPs: we could require a bit more evidence for notability before documenting them, because their potential to cause harm is much greater than for the typical entry. Of course, the same would apply even more strongly to offensive nicknames for (not very well-known) individuals, a closer analogue to BLPs. If you agree such offensive nicknames demand a higher standard of sourcing, or should even be excluded entirely, you're already admitting that we shouldn't just treat all terms on equal footing, because from a purely abstract linguistic point of view there's nothing that distinguishes them from any other proper noun with an individual human referent (which we have plenty of).
    To make things more concrete, last year there was an RfD discussion about an offensive nickname for a particular feminist activist mainly known for appearing in one viral video. In that discussion, even the arch-inclusionist WordyAndNerdy wrote that Wiktionary is "not a place to memorialize every bit of 4chan effluvium". I second the principle, though I have no doubt that my interpretation of it is broader than what WAN intended. For example, I would definitely include toll paid in this category. Searching for ["toll paid" "burn the coal"] on Google yields under 800 results, and if you exclude 4chan it drops below 500, the remainder being websites that are much more effluvious than 4chan (!). I had to include "burn the coal" in the query because without that, literally none of the results on Google as far as I bothered to scroll related to the racist trope, except for the cached ghost of our now-deleted entry, which ranks first. That seems to be a clear case of drawing unnecessary attention to effluvium.
    That said, I think in the end I would agree with you and WAN on the vast majority of terms; as you said, offensive terms make up a tiny minority of entries. While offensive terms for groups of people or individuals can be a source of harm, I don't see a parallel case for excluding fandom slang, LGBT vocabulary, etc. 07:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The key difference between these terms and ones referring to specific individuals is that these terms lack the potential to cause unique harm, as there are already tons of equivalent terms from pre-internet sources. Our earlier documentation of the word jogger didn't harm anyone who wouldn't already be harmed by our entries for the N-word and its derivatives (and I'm not convinced that simply including a slur in the dictionary causes harm in the first place, as it only reflects existing attitudes), and deleting it didn't reduce the ability of racists to say horrible things. On the other hand, including an insulting nickname for someone who isn't a public figure exposes them to harassment they would otherwise never face.
    Additionally, if we don't document bigoted dogwhistles, this allows their users to maintain plausible deniability. Going back to my previous example, if the entry for jogger doesn't mention its use as a slur, it becomes easier for racists to deny their true intent when confronted. This has already happened before with the 👌 emoji, with people claiming that it was a "4chan hoax" with no history of use by actual racists.
    As for your point about Google results, that isn't an accurate way to measure how frequently a term is used. The majority of tweets and Reddit posts don't show up in search results, and the exact amount seems to depend on the user. I could probably find tons of citations for toll paid if I were so inclined. Binarystep (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The block quote format creates issues because they take up so much space. Again, I don't see these words in those spaces, and there's been a strong tendency at least from my perspective to avoid amplifying those words in those spaces as well. I've never seen most of those Usenet words outside of Usenet (and they're hard to find online), and if not for Twitter being searchable, I suspect that "jogger" would be the same. And yes there are racist comments that pop up on news articles and such, but I never think that I need to look them up. They are racist terms and there's no need to know the specific definition when it boils down to "racist term used towards Black people". Any word at that rate can be used like that, that's why I see it as a nonce word. This mirrors the experiences of Black folks that I've talked to as well, we don't need to know these specific terms. Context tells us very very clearly what they mean. We don't need to look them up online. I've seen many racist and overall offensive terms in my lifetime and have very very rarely needed to look any specific one up. Also, we definitely have rules at CFI: we already don't accept any words that have only been used for less than a year, words that fail the independent criteria, Wikimedia-only terms, and more. If you want to change those rules as well, that's fine, but I've never seen such fervor for those qualifications nor have I ever seen them called "censorship". AG202 (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Some of the users in this discussion haven't been around for very long, so they might not be aware of the discussions involving Usenet last year. A good example is Darky Cuntinent, which IMO may even be less worthy of inclusion than the terms mentioned here for a variety of reasons, but was kept following an RfD discussion. I also supported deleting that, although I respect those who wished to keep it (the ultimately prevailing outcome) and the creator of the entry, who I'm sure created it in good faith. I don't think there's been any campaign to push for deleting less controversial Usenet-sourced entries like all elbows, a piece of technical jargon that would probably be unattestable except using newsgroups. Overall, if it came down to never accepting Usenet vs. continuing to always accept Usenet, I'd probably be on the latter side since I think we'd be missing out on a lot of slang from past decades, but I see why AG202 has reservations. At least with Twitter we don't have a policy yet established, so there's still room to carve out more nuanced inclusion rules. 18:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    While I believe that you've never needed to look up slurs, Wiktionary entries are still useful as evidence for their existence. If someone uses the slur jogger, you would be able to "prove" (to some authority who can deal with it) that they were being racist by showing them our well-referenced entry. Unfortunately, that's no longer possible since the definition was deleted.
    Also, I think we should stay on topic, since whatever points are being made about Usenet and racism don't have any bearing on this discussion.
    As for the IP's point: Wiktionary has never been "respectable and defensible to the public", for the simple reason that the vast majority of the public have no idea it exists (or assume it's part of Wikipedia). Ioaxxere (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are much better ways to prove that. And that goes in hand with your second point in response to the IP. If we're not respectable and defensible to the public, how would we have good standing with our definitions and even "prove" in the first place? It does not add up and there's some circular reasoning there. The two points cannot coexist well. If we're not respectable and we're not relevant to the general public, then why is the point about people needing to look up these hyperspecific entries brought up so much? Like it's either one or the other. This also affects the part that we're losing editors and languages are losing support, though I'll concede that it's not as relevant to this discussion. AG202 (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    There are much better ways to prove that.

    Such as?

    This also affects the part that we're losing editors and languages are losing support, though I'll concede that it's not as relevant to this discussion.

    Which editors quit because we have entries for offensive internet slang? How are languages losing support because of a handful of words amounting to 0.1% of English lemmas and <0.03% of all entries? Binarystep (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Again you're almost purposefully missing the point that I've said over and over again. It's not some statistical number, it's the editing community's attitude towards these terms. Sure it's 0.1% of the lemmas, but these conversation take up so much space, and when people see admin hyperfocusing on creating entries for the worst slurs known from Usenet and defending them to no end, it creates an environment where our priorities seem to be in the wrong place. I mean even now, WT:DEROGATORY isn't even really being enforced, with derogatory terms with no cites staying up for months. People notice these things and, at least on my end, have talked to me privately about how this climate bothers them and makes them feel uncomfortable. It also goes with the point that the IP brought up that it affects our legitimacy. If you don't care about any of that, then so be it, but then just say that and leave it, rather than nitpicking and devaluing my experiences. AG202 (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It wasn’t very genius to try to give less of an impression of this community being focused on rare slurs by creating a policy giving particular attention to them—the first effect of which even was editors hunting entries of them down in order to tag them, and others feeling challenged to cite such entries and ultimately add them with cites. My position was always an as fair as indifferent scientific attitude, and people should be attracted by such qualities rather than us having or not having particular things that could serve annoyance, and in fact I am optimistic enough to believe that not that many people are dumb enough to think the latter way, in spite of pretending indignation, which is a quasi-religious ritual nowadays, in lack of other mainstream values than being overtly liberal. Fay Freak (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You have been warned before for adding links/quotes directly to white supremacist websites; that's all I'll say to your reply. AG202 (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That’s not saying anything. All Cretans are liars, so I am wrong if it has been possible to vaguely relate me to white supremacist sources? But I have not been demonstrated wrong there either, and it’s not what being “warned” means either. I have been consistent in applying philologic and linguistic methods, some people seem to take issue with it. Fay Freak (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Fay Freak we should try to stay on topic. What do you think of the issue being voting on? Ioaxxere (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Ioaxxere: It’s on topic: The arguments for keeping are more comprehensive than I expected (reading this wall of text only after this your request as before I thought that a closed mouth gathers no feet, but it looks we haven’t even actually steeped into having opinions about genders, so we succeeded in keeping our decency unlike complainants suggest), and it turns out that indeed the issue boils down to what I have called out, the attitude towards language as it occurs: people being uncomfortable, random people on Twitter being curious of us being so bleeding-edge (I have used Arch btw), us being constructed to “highlight”: but they highlight this coverage, we treat them like any irrelevant words, and we shan’t put offensiveness of a word even be a factor here but complainant continues to do so; no relevant criteria have been brought forward how we should weed out terms that are too private to some internet niches and not sufficiently lexicalized. “Wide or long-standing currency” is exactly not our bar any more. Fay Freak (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @AG202: You're the one hyperfocusing on these terms by constantly trying to get them deleted. Most people wouldn't be talking about them otherwise. No one's "defending" offensive slurs either, people just disagree with you on the idea that documenting a term is the same thing as endorsing it. As I've said before, I don't appreciate the implication that inclusionists are raving bigots looking to promote a hateful ideology through Wiktionary.
    As for this affecting our legitimacy, I don't see how that's an issue. We're not the OED. It's already been long-established that we're a descriptive dictionary that includes thousands of terms "respectable" dictionaries never would. This exact argument has already been used to justify attempts to ban fandom slang and delete entries for being "too dumb", albeit unsuccessfully in both cases. Binarystep (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    People have defended offensive slurs, as seen by IPs (including the ones that have directed used offensive terms towards me) + the many editors that have been banned for adding solely slurs (as recently as a few days ago with the deleted Bathhouse Barry entry) + a prolific editor having to be publicly warned for linking to white supremacist websites before this whole thing even started. Nor have I tried to delete every offensive entry, notice how this is one of two RFVs related to derogatory terms on this page started by me, and it’s one specifically requested by someone else to start (the other being the one for r-slurred). If I was really on a crusade to delete all derogatory terms, trust me I’d be going much further, meanwhile our current policy isn’t even being enforced to begin with, so there’s already a clear existing bias. I also never said or tried to imply that inclusionists are bigots, including yourself, even when you’ve used unsavory phrasings towards me and discredited my personal experiences, and I don’t appreciate the implication that I did. My emphasis has been on the project’s legitimacy and image not on individual editors. If I thought you were a bigot, I would not have tried to reason with you or even reply to you from the beginning. Do not put words into my mouth. This is a recurring issue pattern that I’ve unfortunately fallen into again, and I regret having this discussion once more, and this will be my final response on this thread to you. AG202 (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nearly all of your examples are trolls, not users with actual contributions to the wiki. The only exception I'm aware of is the one you mentioned, and that's still just one person. The majority of people here aren't particularly interested in promoting white supremacist content. Additionally, I never said you were trying to delete every offensive entry. I said you were trying to delete every internet-exclusive offensive entry, which is accurate. You've also repeatedly spoken of people "defending" slurs, which makes it sound like you think people are being sympathetic towards bigoted ideologies.
    How does including these terms harm our legitimacy or image? As I've mentioned before, a dictionary's job is to document the words people are using. It's not our fault if people are saying jogger or hon. Anyone who has a problem with those terms should take it up with the people responsible. The "respectability" argument will only harm us in the end, and it could easily be applied to any term that isn't in professional dictionaries (fandom slang, subculture slang, things that are "too dumb to include", the list goes on). Binarystep (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You're assuming that people would automatically recognize jogger as a racial slur to begin with. As I mentioned before, there are still a lot of people who are unfamiliar with that definition, and thus wouldn't realize that a comment complaining about "joggers" is actually referring to black people. People who aren't terminally online (not to mention non-native speakers) would greatly benefit from an accurate definition in this case.

    They are racist terms and there's no need to know the specific definition when it boils down to "racist term used towards Black people". Any word at that rate can be used like that, that's why I see it as a nonce word.

    At that point, you might as well say that every racial slur is a nonce word. Overall, the problem is that you're assuming your experiences are universal. Even if you have no need for these entries, that doesn't mean that's the case for everyone.
    As for your last point, I never claimed that CFI doesn't have any rules. Requiring independent citations is just common sense, because it'd be ridiculous to include entries for words that have only ever been used by a single person. Similarly, requiring that citations span over a year filters out terms that no one really uses, though I actually wouldn't mind having entries for brief fads like Listenbourg, since it's ultimately more beneficial to the reader. In any case, both of these rules clearly exist for lexical reasons (i.e. making sure a word really exists), rather than being an attempt to block entries for words we don't like.
    I definitely think we should abolish the "no Wikimedia-speak" rule, though, because it seems to be motivated by a Prime Directive-esque policy that we're supposed to strictly observe language without ever contributing to it. The fact that we deleted our entry for usex is downright bizarre to me, given that the word obviously exists and has widespread usage. Binarystep (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Disallow, for the reasons others have stated above - checking several, the terms don't seem not have any wide or long-standing currency; a few tweets from one (or more? not always clear) people under various usernames from the last year or two are not a basis for entries, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 01:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To be clear, the terms have been in use for several years (~4-6), and the tweets are not necessarily representative of actual usage (but I'm hesitant to quote 4chan). Ioaxxere (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    At this point, I'd say to include any and all available citations. Citing 4chan might seem iffy, but it's the most effective way to prove that these terms have longstanding currency within online communities. If you want to study clowns, sometimes you have to visit the circus. Binarystep (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @-sche (also @Binarystep) You are right that these tweets are not a good basis for any entry, and they are not. I don't know what "checking" means in this case, but I've added some old 4chan quotations to better illustrate the age of each term. In particular, hon dates from at least 2015... did you know that was 8 years ago? How much longer before we get long-standing currency? Ioaxxere (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. Keep. I don't want to have to vote. I'm tired of the endless cycle of re-litigation re: online sources and modern slang. It's a major factor in why I stopped actively contributing. But this needs a tie-breaker. Ioaxxere has done the work of attesting these terms, and Binarystep has made every argument I could make. There are, fundamentally, two types of Wiktionarians: those who believe that languages are living, ever-evolving entities, and those who believe that words are fixed type impressed on dead trees. A digital dictionary that treats language as the latter is a dictionary securing its future irrelevance. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time to close this @AG202? Or probably an uninvolved user should do it... Ioaxxere (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An uninvolved user should do it, yes. AG202 (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RFV-passed (4:3). I'm merely tallying, don't shoot the messenger! --Overlordnat1 (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fay Freak was in favour of keeping, so it's actually 5-3. Ioaxxere (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's updog? The Sanskrit name for this yoga position is ऊर्ध्वमुखश्वानासन (ūrdhvamukhaśvānāsana), but this particular transliteration doesn't seem to be very popular, with fewer than 10 (low-quality) results on Google. Also note the lack of the ना () syllable, which may just be an outright error, possibly arising due to confusion between शवासन (śavāsana, literally corpse position) and श्वानासन (śvānāsana, literally dog position). 07:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No hits on Google Books, Google Groups, Google Scholar, OED, Green's, Twitter, Reddit, or archive.org. I've been asked to issue a warning that that I will close this as failed on or after the soonest date allowed by policy unless there are objections. Ioaxxere (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense: def. 2: "(idiomatic) If an already bad situation progresses into a catastrophic situation.", with only a usex: If worst comes to worst, these stock certificates will make fine wallpaper."

First definition: "(idiomatic) If a possible worst-case scenario actually occurs."
Is there attestation to distinguish the challenged sense from the first sense (of which it might be a subsense)? Or should this be an RfD? DCDuring (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The citation previously said "worst comes to worst" (without "if"), but User:Espoo changed it. I've changed it back. The phrase can be used without "if". Equinox 20:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's an incorrect made up example, not a citation. It's not idiomatic without "if" or some other preceding word such as when, had, let, lest, etc. You misunderstood what is meant by "shortening" in the etymology. --Espoo (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
YOU ARE WRONG, or being deliberately obtuse and pedantic. Search on Google Books for "well, worst comes to worst". The elliptical form is very common. Equinox 21:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a better idea to assume others are acting in good faith and are less obtuse than you. I unsuccessfully tried to find citations without "if" before adding it to what you incorrectly thought was a citation. Instead of edit warring, the correct way to proceed would have been to add the citations you found using your clever addition of "well" to the search. I assumed the form without if was just sloppy transcription of a hard to hear colloquial pronunciation fworst. In any case the question of whether the second sense is truly a different sense or not does not depend on whether the invented example or some citations use if or not because there's no reason why this sense couldn't also have citations with if. --Espoo (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that the entry contains citations without leading "if". DCDuring (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see that either the undated citation or the 2014 citation support the existence of the distinct sense at all, let alone unambiguously. They look like support for the first sense. I don't really see why we need two definitions, differing only in whether the situation in which the usage occurs is neutral or bad. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talkcontribs) at 23:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I don’t see any point in distinguishing the second sense, even if citable. 05:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restore deleted sense at basedEdit

Moved from RFD.Gamren (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Continued from Talk:based#3rd sense)

User:Gamren has deleted a sense with three citations out of procedure (diff) and locked the page after I reverted it. While I believe this user acted out of line, I'm willing to start a discussion and come to a consensus. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. Keep (obviously) for the reason that sense 2 doesn't mention the right-wing connotations of the term. While the senses could be merged, I believe there is a difference in usage (the now-deleted usage example was: "My last account got banned for being too based."). Ioaxxere (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That usex looks like it should be "biased". DonnanZ (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not a typo - see [4] for lots of legitimate use. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should restore your entry and if necessary immediately RFV it. This seems like an out-of-process deletion to me, as you added new cites when you restored it - if you hadn't then it would be a different matter but you did. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't add any new cites to the entry. Ioaxxere (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see what you mean, WordyandNerdy added the quotes last year. I got the wrong end of the stick, as the previously RFVed sense at Talk:based was similar to the one deleted by User:Gamren but not the same. In which case I'd still say the deletion was out-of-process and vote Keep/Undelete. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can't always take what you read as gospel. I found a piece of text, "the first two miles of the line from Moll to Turnout" in a 1946 magazine. Turnout was a misprint of Turnhout and Moll is apparently a variant of Mol. DonnanZ (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's widely used. Clearly not a typo. Theknightwho (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I told you, this is a RFV issue. RFD is only for non-attestation reasons.__Gamren (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gamren Could you please explain why you edit warred over deleting this out of process? Theknightwho (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No.__Gamren (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gamren Then consider this a formal warning not to do that again. Theknightwho (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He hasn't learnt much from the desysopping vote. DonnanZ (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Donnanz Do you have an actual issue with me warning over edit warring, or is this just more spiteful sniping? Theknightwho (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gamren has been an admin since 9 December 2016, far longer than yourself. I think seniority counts. DonnanZ (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Donnanz That actually makes it worse, because they should know better. I also gave them a chance to explain their actions, and they refused. You might think certain people should be above the rules, but that isn’t how it works. Sorry. Theknightwho (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That doesn't explain why you're allowed to wage war and nobody else is. No further comment. Don't bother to reply. DonnanZ (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Donnanz Your reply doesn't even make sense. Drop the stick. Theknightwho (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All things considered, the "formal warning" to Gamren was hardly appropriate. DonnanZ (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The word already had a political sense by Nov 2016 as I remember hearing it during the presidential election. At first I thought it was a variant on best, and it definitely was used in a positive sense by supporters of Trump. The political sense might even be older than the neutral sense, but 4chan posts aren't usually archived anywhere, so perhaps we can't be sure. Soap 20:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don’t see this as a distinct sense. What somebody is admirable and praiseworthy for, of course differs by ideological point of view. If one says “My last account got banned for being too based.” this means that platform only support things that are degenerate or otherwise exitiable rather than praiseworthy, or disallows for things to go too much out of the ordinary in either direction. As a compromise, it can be made a subsense to make the reader aware of such specific contexts. Fay Freak (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, this feels like one of those cases (like groomer, discussed above) which are borderline between being a distinct sense or just the other sense plus context. Does anyone care to show other terms being used similarly, e.g. someone saying their account was banned for being too epic, which would be suggestive of it being a general sense + context? Conversely, is there evidence the political sense is older, which would jiffy it in? I do think it merits at least a usage note, if we don't keep a subsense. - -sche (discuss) 21:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just noting that this was recently given a completely different etymology from Lil B's based; see #based below (concerning another sense added at the same time) for more. - -sche (discuss) 05:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

mountain soapEdit

I suspect this is a mistake by Webster's for saponite, as every source other than Webster's defines it as a completely different type of rock. There is no entry for saxonite in the open-access Merriam Webster dictionary today, but I dont have access to the Unabridged version. Nevertheless, I am fairly sure of this and my first instinct was to just change the definition to follow sites like this, but Ive been wrong about things I thought obvious before. Soap 23:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would also like to add mountain soap to this RFV, as it's currently listed as a synonym of saxonite and so what affects one affects the other. Both entries are cited to Webster 1913. Soap 00:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding "mountain soap", I found this mention in Beeton's Science, Art, and Literature (1870; page 309), under Armenian bole: "BOLE, ARMENIAN, bole (Swed. bol), a dark-red hydrated silicate of alumina, mixed with peroxide of iron in large quantities. It also contains traces of lime and magnesia. It is occasionally used for coarse paint and for stage purposes. When the amount of magnesia is such to cause it to feel greasy, it is termed mountain soap, or fett-bol." Equinox 01:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have confirmed from other sources that it is saponite, not saxonite; I will update the entry. Equinox 01:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added three quotes, which fit the definition "soft earthy mineral", although I don't know whether they are (or can be determined to mean) saponite specifically. They're all from before 1860; is this term still in use? Chaff in the form of things like "mountain soap stone" (meaning soapstone from the mountains, not this) or even "mountain soap" (soap made in the mountains, perhaps old-style) makes searching difficult. - -sche (discuss) 02:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resolved? AFAICT the original issue (Webster wrongly defining mountain soap = saxonite, when saponite was meant) has been resolved, and I added cites a while ago. - -sche (discuss) 09:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I wasnt able to find anything else either. I suppose it's possible that geology and mineral science wasnt so well developed a hundred years ago and that the only definitions that exist are the imprecise ones we've already found. Soap 10:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense "(Wikimedia jargon) To undo a revert of a bold edit". Possibly coined in March 2022, when w:Wikipedia:Obversion was created, which is less than a year ago. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This spelling. 05:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a curious term. The etymology (which was also tagged for verification, by someone else) says this term seems to have been a calque [which seems like an error for "learned borrowing", it's not a calque if af- isn't English] of an Old English term which, however, seems to have been a modern English invention. Well! I only spotted two citations: one which glosses itself as referring to the dragon definition, and two near-identical copies of a text (one using the plural and one the singular) which gloss it as referring to the idol definition. - -sche (discuss) 10:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is indeed interesting. I noticed there was an OED reference at the bottom of the entry so I looked it up. (The reference for the etymology in our entry is the OED.) The earliest reference to afgod and afgodnes are in a glossary in a 1605 book by Richard Rowlands (under the name Richard Verstegan). Although Rowlands asserted the word was Old English no evidence of it has been found, and the OED suggests that while perhaps there was a manuscript that Rowlands referred to which is now lost, he could also have just assumed the word existed in OE based on the word afgod in Dutch (his grandfather was Dutch) or Old Saxon. Thereafter, afgod only next appears in 1769 in a text purporting to be from the 15th century written by the poet Thomas Chatterton. Thereafter, there is a debate in the late 18th century about the meaning of the word used by Chatterton, and then it does not appear to be used any further. Disregarding the appearance of afgod in dictionaries and glossaries, it looks like the limited uses are in Chatterton's works and in the 18th-century discussions about the meaning of the word (which could be mentions). Afgodnes appears to only be attested in dictionaries and glossaries. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is the letter in the 1769 Town and Country Magazine (see entry) the text by Chatterton? But that letter dates itself to the same year as it appeared in the magazine (1769). Is it one of the discussions of Chatterton, then? It does seem borderline between use and mention, though arguably just over the border in use territory. If we found at least one more cite, we might have enough to boil the entry down to one combined (perhaps non-gloss) sense, but I've only spotted the two. Is this the fake 15th century cite? If it's really from after 1500, I suppose it could be argued it's also a use, though then perhaps not independent of the Works of Chatterton cite. (Obviously, if kept, the entry would need to explain the erroneousness of the term better.) - -sche (discuss) 19:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OED says the Town and Country quotation is "from a letter also attributed to Chatterton". Yes, that is the fake 15th-century cite; w:Thomas Chatterton notes that "He [Chatterton] was able to pass off his work as that of an imaginary 15th-century poet called Thomas Rowley, chiefly because few people at the time were familiar with medieval poetry". So it's looking very much like Rowlands may have mistakenly thought afgod was an English word, and then Chatterton (perhaps following Rowlands) used it in a fake 15th-century text and in references to that text, and subsequent 18th-century uses refer to Chatterton. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fascinating. Well, I've corrected the metadata to attribute all the cites to Chatterton, and copied them over to the cites page in the expectation that this will fail, unless his word caught on with anyone else the OED missed. - -sche (discuss) 02:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 19:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't find any uses, only some mentions/entries in dictionaries or wordlists. (Cf the RFV of afgod.) - -sche (discuss) 10:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFV-failed. Apparently an old hoax word; see discussion of afgod. - -sche (discuss) 19:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SURJECTION / T / C / L / 07:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a mention in this book of "ballerina" being used for this (so technically not the noun phrase "ballerina roll", but close). A variation of this claim is also on Wikipedia, but unfortunately without a citation:
A hard four can be called a "ballerina" because it is two-two ("tutu").
Other mentions include Casino.org, NextShooter.com (in the form "Ballerina Special"), etc. Haven't found any uses so far, but they may be out there. 01:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Created by A3A0, 7 hits on Google. A hypothetically possible term. Between the multiple SI prefixes ("zepto" and "kilo") and the existence of a more standard term for the same measure (attogram), I'm not sure why anyone would use this. That said, terms like hectokilogram do exist, so who knows. 02:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The difference I see is that hectokilogram cannot be replaced with a shorter word, since there is no established SI prefix for 100,000. There is no tradition of using SI prefixes that undo each other ... the word, as you say, is attogram. Sometimes a particular multiple is so often used in a specific science that they create a new word for it .... meteorologists creating bar and millibar for example ... but this is the opposite of that process ... making a word more difficult instead of more convenient .... the only possible way I could see this being used is through its supposed abbreviations, z and zkg. But Im not convinced .... the 7 google hits dont look real, anyway, .... not only are they duplicates of each other, but it looks like they are user-editable websites like us. Soap 11:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One hit on Google Scholar, which seems to use it as an adjective (although I guess it could be attributive). 04:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SURJECTION / T / C / L / 23:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was coined quite recently (2015) and since then it has seen occasional use online, but not in durably-archived sources. This, that and the other (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense: someone added a request for definition for a meaning similar to "put someone up" (house them), but I can find no evidence for this meaning. Can anyone else? Kiwima (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-of the spelling glom, used for glaum meaning "to stare". I can only find it as glaum, glawm, and gloom with this sense. Leasnam (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To my surprise, I think I can cite glom meaning something in the vein of "to look at" or "to stare" (although it's hard to be sure what exactly it means): Citations:glom. I think both glom and glaum need some cleaning up, though. Ety 2 of glom is currently defined as an alt form of glaum, but if the definition at glaum is accurate ("To look sullen or sad; scowl, frown; look, stare") I discern no trace of looking sullen or sad in the cites of glom, and conversely the senses under ety 1 of glom seems like they are alt forms of ety 1 of glaum. - -sche (discuss) 21:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yet another cryptocurrency. Needs usage that satisfies WT:BRAND. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sense 2: "The tendency of society at large to be overly concerned with censoring or criticizing personal conduct." I can't see how this noun definition would be used in a sentence. Equinox 08:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tried searching for phrases like "societal grundy", "grundy of society", "people's grundy", but couldn't find anything; even "his grundy", "their grundy" just turns up "his Grundy award" and the like. - -sche (discuss) 18:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFV-failed This, that and the other (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The spelling "cister" is well attested, but I couldn't find "cis-ter". Nosferattus (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Wordy has cited it.) - -sche (discuss) 18:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFV-passed This, that and the other (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sense 1: "A measure by the ell." Bit baffled by what this definition means and all the uses I could find refer to sense 2, a cloth inspector. Samuel Johnson's dictionary does define it as a "measurer by the ell", but he's also talking about the cloth inspector, who measured cloths to make sure they were the right dimensions. Added by @Equinox ages ago. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This came from an old dictionary (Webster or Imperial); I found it in Google Books and it says "a measurer by the ell", so this is a typo I made apparently. Equinox 18:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFV-failed, we have the correct sense in the entry anyway This, that and the other (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFV both senses:

  1. proponent of the adoption of the Union Jack in one's flag
  2. citizen within the Commonwealth of Nations

I found three legitimate occurrences, but they're all nonces: they don't refer to any of the above senses and don't add up to an entry. One is someone's pen name in this 1917 newspaper, otherwise unexplained; in this journal it appears to refer to being overly patriotic (" [] I am not a Union Jacker. I deplore the existence or intrusion of nationality in motor-cars. [] But I am exceedingly pleased that an English car should have done it"); in this book it just refers to someone who's holding a physical flag ("'Dear, dear!' sighed the Union Jacker hopelessly, hitching the Grand Old Flag closer round his neck"). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One from the blogger-beloved Dictionary of Neologistic Nonsense Obscure Sorrows. Equinox 22:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although there are some hits online, including mentions of this sense, the uses turn out to be puns about Trump. - -sche (discuss) 18:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFV-failed This, that and the other (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense "(nonstandard) To begin to cross the line, as if with one's toe; to test limits imposed by an authority, to push boundaries." - per Talk:toe the line#Credibility of recently added quotation * Pppery * it has begun... 02:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've encountered a sense in this vein, where a person toeing the line means they're pushing boundaries rather than obeying boundaries like sense 1; some examples from the web are [5], [6]. But I don't know if it's made it into durable media. (Sometimes people use it to mean something like ~straddling the line.) - -sche (discuss) 18:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All forms of aby: abye, abuy, abie, etc.Edit

Continued from Talk:abies: instead of focusing on a single inflection, I'd like to get an overview of every attested form, since the term was rarely used post-1500. This includes aby itself, which only has one quotation for the exact spelling. I think the rule is that alternative forms need 3 quotes and inflections need 1. Ioaxxere (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am very wary of demanding 3 cites for terms like this. Spelling was highly unstable in the Early Modern English period. Some terms which lingered into the 1500s may only be preserved in three or four texts, being spelled differently every time they were used. It would be counterproductive to delete these terms just because authors failed to settle on one spelling at the time. This, that and the other (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@This, that and the other I have been strongly advised to never do this. See this dicussion. Ioaxxere (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There may be cases where bending the rules makes sense (e.g., Early Modern English; even though we don't have explicit rules in place to treat it differently, I agree it's not unreasonable to be slightly more lenient), but I don't feel comfortable just giving Ioaxxere carte blanche to pass entries at their own discretion when they are questionable, because there have been at least a couple recent cases where clearly insufficient quotations were provided at the time of calling a term cited/RfV-passed.
The most recent one was only yesterday, Falklands fritillary, which at the time only had one good quotation of the noun phrase in question, and two quotations of a different noun phrase ("queen of Falklands fritillary") which happens to include the words "Falklands fritillary", but not as a grammatically separable unit, even though the person who brought it to RfV explicitly questioned whether it was citable without the word "queen". I don't think this is pedantry, like haggling over capitalization or something. (And since then more quotations have been added! Thanks for that!)
I think a good solution might be for Ioaxxere to ping TTO or another established editor to double-check the borderline cases, and only pass them once confirmation has been given. And eventually they'll get a sense for what's alright and what isn't from doing so. 21:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the advice, but I've think I've had my fill of "bending the rules". Even though I agree with the reasoning brought forth by User:This, that and the other, I'm not going to pass any more questionable terms and there is clearly nothing borderline about 3 versus less than 3.
Also, you don't have to keep bringing up Falklands fritillary in unrelated discussions⁠—I interpreted "Queen of the Falklands Fritillary" as a longer version of the same term, as did 98.*. The extra quotations that I added (less than four hours later, by the way) prove that the two forms are used interchangeably. Ioaxxere (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ioaxxere: just FYI, all indications are that 98.* and 70.* are the same person. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the thing is that it might not be a good idea to fail all borderline cases either — hence the suggestion of seeking another voice, which is also what AG202 recommended.
Sorry for bringing up the Falklands term. I agree they are used interchangeably, but we should ideally have quotations to show that because one would not automatically assume they were interchangeable without evidence. (Thank you once more for promptly adding the extra quotes, and all your other great work, including the majority of your RfV closures.) 04:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are already three citations for abye on the page aby.
abuy occurs here, here, here (abuying), here (abuying), here (abuying), here (abuying), here (in Middle English).
abie occurs here, here, here.
aby, in addition to the existing quote, occurs here, and here.
Someone should check that these are valid quotes. I'll be happy to format and add them once confirmed. @This, that and the other. 16:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, those all look good, although we can't count the Middle English one. It might also be tricky to match them to a definition... Ioaxxere (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"A person who has autographism." The word exists, but I don't think this definition is correct. Equinox 08:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In 19th-century sources this most commonly refers to someone collecting autographs,[7][8][9][10][11] but sometimes to the person donating their autograph.[12][13]  --Lambiam 20:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it just looks like a tyop for deprive OpenForceage (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Webster template is factitious and to be ignored. I'll be glad to delete this after 30 days; I would speedy it if there weren't so many GBooks hits to sift through. This, that and the other (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the number of results, especially in older books, it makes some sense to define this directly as an archaic spelling of deprive (or "archaic or nonstandard"). I couldn't find any instances where it doesn't just mean deprive though after a relatively extensive search. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added the archaic/nonstandard spelling sense to the entry with 3 citations. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(I've accordingly converted the rfv to an rfv-sense.) - -sche (discuss) 00:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFV-failed This, that and the other (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

irregular double first cousinEdit

The IP that created these also made several questionable edits to some existing entries. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 21:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I vaguely remember a similar IP, also geolocating to Brazil, who added a lot of unattested terms and senses related to degrees of relation in kinship. I'll have to see if I can track down some diffs. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Special:Contributions/2804:431:D725:C6BC:95AD:4533:8CAC:EB4B/48, who also geolocates to the general area of the city of Saõ Paulo. They also tried to proscribe usage that didn't follow their system, even when it was the only one most native speakers would be familiar with. This is no doubt the same person. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another purported name for tic-tac-toe, this time in "Southern Ireland" (sic). This, that and the other (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would expect some evidence of this on Twitter etc. if it were real but I can only find sources mentioning it as a word for tic-tac-toe. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yet another purported name for tic-tac-toe. Online sources claim this name is used in Norway! Looks like BS to me. This, that and the other (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, my guess is that this might be a literal translation from the Norwegian term, but not actually used in English. Equinox 13:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What even is a "twiddle" anyway? Our entry twiddle has 8 noun senses, which could probably be condensed (by comparison, OED only has one sense, although it is composed of three semicolon-separated parts). This, that and the other (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is probably German, not English Pious Eterino (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check for the -s plural. (I can't seem to find it.) Equinox 05:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a "proverb", just a cliché (as it says in the etym). Not many ghits. Or is this internet-only? – Jberkel 15:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The etymology is trying to say it derives from a cliché, not that it's an entry for a cliché. It's a common online phrasal template ("the real X is the friends we made along the way"), which is easy to verify in durable sources too ([14] [15], [16], [17], [18]), but I'm not sure what the best format for an entry would be. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, wouldn't it be better to list it on Appendix:English_snowclones? – Jberkel 16:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also quite possibly well-attested in greeting cards and wall hangings available in gift shops. It is SoP IMHO. How do we distinguish it by attestation from the kinds of expressions we call proverbs, which can be SoP, or nearly so? DCDuring (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should be moved to Appendix:Snowclones. This is common (as a meme etc.) in the form "the real X is the friends we made along the way" as stated above Ioaxxere (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I think an Appendix:Snowclones entry makes the most sense, following Appendix:Snowclones/X is the new Y etc. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • By what authority or objective criteria can we say it is not a proverb. Or is it just a matter of marshalling subjective opinions in a vote? DCDuring (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would say that a proverb should have some kind of figurative or non-obvious meaning, like too many cooks spoil the broth. Ioaxxere (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    After reading through a few quotes, I don't think this has a single obvious meaning (or maybe has lost it after endless mutations), it certainly can't be summed up as "the journey is often more important than the destination". In some cases it seems to get used as a filler or non sequitur. Or maybe the meme's just dead. – Jberkel 22:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The idiomatic usage seems fairly consistent to me, it's observing that X either isn't worthwhile or doesn't exist independently at all. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ok, that makes (a bit) more sense. The friends/journey part is misleading. It's just a long-winded way of dismissing X. – Jberkel 23:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    However sappy and lame it may be, it is probably expressing a proverb-like sentiment: "([whatever/however arduous] the journey|whatever the goal/destination) the real treasure is the friends we made along the way." DCDuring (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have heard this as a tongue-in-cheek Internet "meme" thing. e.g. Reddit has the real holocaust, the real Silent Hill ... Equinox 05:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cartoonist Tom Gauld used the phrase maybe the real gold was the friendships we made along the way in a cartoon for New Scientist magazine, which we might consider to be durably archived as they do still offer a print version. Soap 19:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 2023Edit

I can't find any evidence of this. Pious Eterino (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definition 2, a misspelling found in a typeset book from 1807. But how do we know it means knife? Even if it does, can we really call this a common misspelling? The author of the book almost certainly did not believe the word "knife" was actually spelled kime .... it seems more likely this is some little-known word borrowed from a language of India, possibly a word that is already in our dictionary but not in the Western alphabet. Soap 17:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The idea of kime being a common misspelling for knife that existed only in the 1800s–1810s strikes me as a bit trollish. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually I see it's discussed at the Wikipedia page for Ghost word, which claims (without citation) that it "turned out that "kimes" was a misprint for "knives", but the word gained currency for some time". The discussion of the kimes affair by Skeat can be read here. There are a few things to note: first, the current citation is incorrect, the passage first appeared in a book review in the Edinburgh Review in 1808 (here) and it was the author himself who confirmed that it was a printing mistake for knives. Second, Skeat does not mention anyone actually using kimes as a word for knives—all that happened was someone thinking that it was a torture device of some sort invented by Indians, and being corrected shortly afterwards. So on that evidence I don't think this is worthy of a dictionary entry. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a long-outstanding Tea Room discussion with few participants. To me it seems clearly NISoP. As long as we have an adequate figurative definition on toll, one or two usage examples of the frequent collocations take its/their toll should cover it. DCDuring (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a question for rfd, not rfv. Your issue is not whether the phrase exists (it clearly does), but whether it is NISoP. Kiwima (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Evidence in the form of cites supporting idiomaticity would be welcome. DCDuring (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are 22 uses of take its toll in the first 14 pages I scrolled through when I did a Google Books search just now, not even counting variants like takes its toll and taking its toll, so I say we should move it to RFD. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there anything about the uses that suggest toll is being used in a way not consistent with other uses?
It is clear that the expression is not a set phrase, I think, unless someone shows overwhelmingly greater frequency of use in this form compared with:
  1. uses with verbs levy, exact, etc.
  2. uses with their, a
  3. uses with adjectives like deadly, fatal, heavy, enormous, great, grevous, certain and comparative and superlative forms thereof, modified by adverbs
DCDuring (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you but you're basically saying this will fail RFD. It will surely pass RFV though, if and when someone bothers to find and add some quotes. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What would a "cite supporting idiomaticity" look like anyway? This, that and the other (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can find no examples of this word, which was added by @Graeme Bartlett, just scannos of the last part of adulterated, obliterated, etc. The usex also includes the word "hecatonicosoctaexon", which also does not seem to exist. Kiwima (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The usex was added by @Equinox with the comment that it's from Wikipedia, and searching there I found it at B7 polytope. A bit of further research reveals that it (along with hecatonicosoctaexon) is part of a systematic naming scheme developed by the amateur mathematician Jonathan Bowers, and at this wiki we find "terated" as an adjective describing a six-dimensional polytope derived by a certain kind of operation. The details of these operations are beyond me but I don't think this word is used outside the community of online polytope afficionados, who are apparently a thing. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We will never be as cool as an "online polytope aficionado". I hate to get all up in Graeme's grill but he does sometimes seem more keen to fix the red link than to check that it's really a legit word with widespread use. Equinox 10:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fun fact: I added two pages to the polytope wiki, a long time ago. It wasn't some six-dimensional monster, though—I created Circle and Sphere (which aren't even polytopes. hasn't been deleted tho) Ioaxxere (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't even figure out what it is supposed to mean. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BGC only has mentions. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 07:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(And some are for a different sense, a person who's stone, willing to give but not receive sexual pleasure, rather than one who's into rocks.) - -sche (discuss) 22:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For that sense I also see a few scattered mentions of lithsexual without the o (mirroring lithromantic), but again, not enough uses. - -sche (discuss) 06:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The existing quotes are to random websites and are not durably archived. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 07:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does this noun (etymology 4!) really exist? The verb is ok, although it might better be defined as simply an alternate form of ought. What about the adjective? I can't find that in the OED either.—Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Didn't survive out of Middle English Van Man Fan (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OED has a verb through-gird, of which through-girt is the past participle. They give 3 Modern English cites for the verb (the Douglas one, which would be a fourth, is Scots). Noting that through and thorough were more or less interchangeable in ME, I think we should move this entry to through-girt. This, that and the other (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The situation here has been sorted; ready to delete this after it waits out its month. This, that and the other (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Said to be a misspelling of scoff. Is it common enough to include? Ngrams has scough being about a thousand times less common than scoff, and the hits all look to mean other things, anyway (onomatopoeia, scannos, names). - -sche (discuss) 10:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It also appears in a Kipling poem where modern critical editions gloss it as "seize", but apart from Kipling I can only find this sense in various pulp stories by Talbot Mundy: Citations:scough. (Actually it also appears in one Illustrated London News number, but I think it's alluding to Kipling: "Was he not "scoughed" by a typhoon as he went about his giddy social pleasures, little approved by the auld Scots engineer?") —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Two things.

  • 1. The three quotes given for sense 5 seem like they're just contextual uses of sense 4.
  • 2. I'm pretty sure we don't allow quotes from Twitter in the first place

--Simplificationalizer (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree the current citations don't seem to evince a distinct sense. On the second point, the current policy is that they're allowed on a case-by-case basis if editors specifically agree to it. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to accept Twitter quotations for this entry. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All the citations currently under sense 5 are using sense 4. Lots of kinds of people (or takes) have brainworms, and I see it used when talking about certain non-transgender people's transphobic obsessions and delusions more often than when talking about internalized transphobia. I can imagine how, if someone was only or mostly familiar with it being used when referring to trans people, they might assume it was definitionally restricted to internalized transphobia, but no, it's just sense 4. - -sche (discuss) 06:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, sense 5 is indistinct from sense 4 to my reading. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Etymology 3: "One who eggs or incites." As noted at egg, this sense of the verb is obsolete outside of egg on, for which the agent noun is egger-on. I can't find "egger" on its own for this sense on Google Books or EEBO. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of the old out-of-copyright NED's three cites, only one is eggers without on: 1605, Answ. Supposed Discov. Romish Doctr., 37: The eggers and instruments of all those slaughters.
I might expect this to also be the agent noun for other senses of egg (verb) like to egg someone's house, but I haven't spotted cites... - -sche (discuss) 05:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense: 2. To slander.

I don't think that the cites support this sense, certainly not unambiguously. UD has a definition that fits my hearing of the expression: "To talk trash, insulting or casting doubt on a person's ability." (429 thumbs up, 164 down; no other definition comes close). Our first definition is not as good as UD's . DCDuring (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Our definition is clearly wrong, since one of our own quotes defines it differently: "One of them, the white mask, the leader, was talking smack at me." / "Talking smack?" / "You know, talking smack, talking trash, giving me shit about being Indian." Ioaxxere (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added definition 1 to the RFV, because as you say, the cites don't seem to support that definition as written, either. It seems like the two definitions may be two (imperfect) attempts at getting at the underlying meaning. - -sche (discuss) 05:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense: Adverb: "(more often in the plural) In the afternoon."

I am not familiar at all with this usage in the singular.

In the plural, it might be a "habitual", like mornings, days, holidays, weekdays, weekends, nights, evenings, Summers, Augusts, etc. (modifiable by certain adjectives [early, late, cool, hot, sunny, etc], which make it seem less adverbial) and the days of the week.

"Habitual" usage example: Weekends/Summers/Augusts/afternoons we would go to our beach house.

Is this plural usage lexical? It could be the remnant of adverbial -s#Suffix. DCDuring (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cited but I've added "archaic in the singular", as it seems to be. The OED's note for this sense is that it's "now only in" combinations (like "morning and afternoon"), but I'm not sure how useful it is to lump those together with "afternoon" by itself. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are the habitual -s forms plurals or relicts of the Old English adverbial genitive?  --Lambiam 23:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Etymologically I would guess the latter, though I think calling it a plural probably better matches contemporary speakers' intuitive feeling about it. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are expressions that use "of a" with the same time expressions: Of a Summer Sunday afternoon we would go for a picnic. I suppose they are too dated to matter to our users. Maybe we do need to have adverb entries for all of these, but not at the S-less entry. It should be under a distinct etymology, I think.
I found a discussion at AHD on this:
Our Living Language Some speakers of vernacular English varieties, particularly in isolated or mountainous regions of the Southern United States, use phrases such as of a night or of an evening in place of at night or in the evening, as in We'd go hunting of an evening. This of construction is used only when referring to a repeated action, where Standard English uses nights, evenings, and the like, as in We'd go hunting nights. It is not used for single actions, as in She returned at night. · These of and -s constructions are related. The -s construction, which dates back to the Old English period (c. 449-1100), does not signify a plurality but is similar to the so-called genitive suffix -s, which often indicates possession, as in the king's throne. Just as this example can also be phrased as the throne of the king, nights can be reformulated as of a night. This reformulation has been possible since the Middle English period (c. 1100-1500). Sometimes the original -s ending remains in the of construction, as in We'd walk to the store of evenings, but usually it is omitted. Using of with adverbial time phrases has not always been confined to vernacular speech, as is evidenced by its occurrence in sources ranging from the Wycliffite Bible (1382) to Theodore Dreiser's 1911 novel Jennie Gerhardt: "There was a place out in one corner of the veranda where he liked to sit of a spring or summer evening." · Using such of constructions reflects a long-standing tendency for English speakers to eliminate the case endings that were once attached to nouns to indicate their role as subject, object, or possessor. Nowadays, word order and the use of prepositional phrases usually determine a noun's role. Despite the trend to replace genitive -s with of phrases, marking adverbial phrases of time with of is fading out of American vernacular usage, probably because one can form these phrases without -s, as in at night. DCDuring (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense of "true, accurate, factual". The sense discussed at #Restore_deleted_sense_at_based was recently moved to a different etymology section, together with a sense I'm unfamiliar with, "true, accurate, factual". Does that sense exist? Finding that out is part of determining how likely it is that "admirable (used by Lil B)" and "admirable (used by right-wingers)" have different etymologies; at first blush I see no reason to think they have different etymologies, but if the bridging sense is real and/or we have references asserting the new etymology, it could be right. - -sche (discuss) 05:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I replaced the definition with an interjection sense [19] Ioaxxere (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Striking this as resolved, since the sense has been removed and the new sense is defined differently and under a different POS than the RFV'd sense. (Whether it's really an interjection or just the same old adjective used interjectionally as with "correct!" "right!" "true!" "well-said!" "excellent!" "well argued!" etc is probably more a question for RFD.) - -sche (discuss) 02:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unlike bigenital surgery, this term seems to have currency in some spaces, though perhaps not under the precise definition in the entry. It's mentioned in the Nonbinary Wiki's entry on article on bottom surgery. The lone citation provided in our entry isn't a use of androgynoplasty but rather a reference to a post by a Reddit user with the handle Androgynoplasty. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The talk page mentions Wish List by John Locke as a potential attestation source, but I couldn't find the term in there (it's available on IA). – Jberkel 21:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

However, I found the mentioned ad: Equinox Made Me Do It, lol. The new default edit summary. – Jberkel 00:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One assumes this was a SB typo for mikimopinic, but that word can't be found. This, that and the other (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just noting that the one Google Books hit for mikimopinc itself, "mikimopinc and cucumopine" in Kihara et al 2012, is a scanno, the book has mikimopine. - -sche (discuss) 01:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SURJECTION / T / C / L / 05:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like a Tumblr protologism. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 05:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added a quote from a related page that uses the word. OmegaFallon (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense: "A region of sedimentary rock defined by its boundary discontinuities". I think the page creator made a mistake here. Other places have very different definition. Pious Eterino (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just the single use in a Robert Browning poem. Pious Eterino (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess this is what is referenced, but it isn't English. This, that and the other (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note quarnell is defined as this too. Equinox 14:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seemingly a rare misspelling. Equinox 02:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cited, and it appears to be more of a blend than a misspelling, considering the unique pronunciation. Binarystep (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A move in one specific video game. Doubt it meets CFI. User is creating multiple terms of this kind. Equinox 14:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meaning "embrace". I found some uses in texts relating to fish, which clearly don't mean "embrace". This definition would be obsolete in any case. Pious Eterino (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First verb sense: to single out. All the citations use single out and not single. Equinox 22:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense "the sound of a spoon rapidly whisking around a pot or basin." quite specific. – Jberkel 01:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The single given citation is from H. G. Wells' The Invisible Man (and I've now marked it as such), though it's an interjection there and not a noun. Seems like a nonce coinage. Equinox 01:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"A nonsense onomatopoeiac word from early bebop music." Is it only in the one song, or several? Equinox 01:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe [20] [21]? But they're mentions. Are we really after things like this and this? In any event it would need to be moved to ramalamadingdong. This, that and the other (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This[22] appears to be the original form (Rama Lama Ding Dong) and there's a similar vocable sung in the Grease song 'Let's Stick Together'. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can it be attested other than as a meaningless vocable? We do not have an entry for lalala, which occurs in countless songs. I don't feel we should include terms that consist of a haphazard string of syllables not carrying referential or pragmatic meaning.  --Lambiam 21:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Outside the scope of lyrics or specific parts of speech, I see this word as an easily recognizable term expressing that something is intended as nonsense. I found three cites of that general type and added them on the page, but I don't know if they prove anything. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO ramalamadingdong is too specific to be dismissed as a haphazard string of syllables, so given that it's used in running prose in all three of those cites I would say this is cited and discuss further at RFD if necessary. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Internet slang: used as a filler response when one has nothing in particular to say. Equinox 00:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"(humorous) A growl or scream, commonly in deathcore music." Some evidence on the Web. Equinox 04:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In one text. This, that and the other (talk) 05:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't exist in this form. virgin field epidemic might have a better chance, but it is SOP, so why bother.

Mentions only. This, that and the other (talk) 06:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find uses of "foraneous vicar", which seems to be a phrase used by translators who don't realise that the English term is vicar forane. OED labels this word a dictionary-only term. Other than Joyce (who is a poor source of attestation), are there any other uses of the given two senses? This, that and the other (talk) 06:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems to be a term of art in a piece of software called "Connectome Workbench". I don't think we want to be including things like this. However, saving us from that discussion is the fact that this is hardly attested. This, that and the other (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oddly, the coordinate term grayordinate is quite well attested, making me wonder whether this is truly a software-specific term of art like I initially believed. This, that and the other (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments on the talk page reproduced below:

See Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/2011. - -sche (discuss) 23:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IDK why this passed RfV (for English at least). There are no quotations and I'm struggling to find anything convincing. So far the only occurrences in English-languages works I've been able to find are within tables of common names, and it's not even clear that those are intended as specifically English names. 23:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This, that and the other (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(I've updated the link; in between the time of my comment in 2012 and now, Wiktionary:Requests for verification_archive/2011 got so large some terms were split off to Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/2011/more. Later, many were archived to talk pages, so those archives are now small again. At this point, they could probably all just be archived to talk pages with the gadget, though.) - -sche (discuss) 18:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, I think it 'passed' because the RFV was about whether it was the plural, and once it was changed to be a diminutive/alt form I must've felt the various occurrences in tables etc were sufficient. Glad someone thought to reevaluate more closely at whether those occurrences were really sufficient. - -sche (discuss) 18:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To make daff. Equinox 12:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've updated the entry to 'Alternative form of' daften, which is slightly more common. Leasnam (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sense 2: "The status eventually returns to its original value after completing some sort of cycle." Was silently deleted by Espoo without discussion. Equinox 12:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cited, simplified the stilted definition to "things repeat in cycles", removed the unjustified "very rare" label—this usage is pretty frequent in my experience, and easy to cite. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The noun: "An animal or cell which has chiasmata." Equinox 18:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense "not terrestrial". Ioaxxere (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see just 75 google results for "to hatebox" and just 8 for "hateboxing"; this seems unlikely to be used enough to pass. - -sche (discuss) 18:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at Twitter, there are uses of "hatebox". Mostly as nouns, but some are used as verbs. There's one so far even in this context. CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In diff I Rfv-sense "(very strictly, often offensive, proscribed) Having a gender (identity) which is opposite from the sex one was assigned at birth: being assigned male at birth but having a female gender, or vice versa; or, pertaining to such people." I personally would like to see some examples of this usage but this is not my area of expertise and I don't know what to look for. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only difference between this and the first sense is the use of "opposite" rather than "different", which seems to indicate that this is a nonbinary-exclusive definition. Only problem is, I'm not sure if that is a separate sense, or just a matter of context. To me, this would be like having a separate sense for LGBT+ defined as "(very strictly, often offensive, proscribed) same as sense 1, but excluding asexual people". Binarystep (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This must be intended to cover uses like google books:"transgender or non-binary" (etc) where transgender, non-binary (and cisgender) are treated as categories on the same level, rather than non-binary being a subtype of transgender... but whether this is best handled with three(!) senses or just a usage note, I'm not sure. Senses 1 and 3 also seem not-that-distinct. Perhaps we could get by with tweaking sense 1 like Having a gender (identity) which is different from the sex one was assigned at birth: for example, being assigned male at birth but having a female or non-binary gender or vice versa; or, pertaining to such people. (Compare transsexual.) so it doesn't take a stance on non-binary people either way (just saying "for example" instead of trying to list possibilities exhaustively), then having a short usage note about how transgender is used as an umbrella term, rarely even including e.g. crossdressers (see cites under sense 3), but crossdressers are usually considered separate and sometimes non-binary people are considered a separate category on the same level, too. (?) - -sche (discuss) 23:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UPDATE: I just now happened to find a discussion that seems to come close to sense 2: [23] @0:25 to 1:00 talks about transgender "in a binary sense, transition from one of two genders". I will try to see if anything in the conversation comes close to an example of sense 2, but I am not an expert and I totally see the concerns raised in the above two comments. I recommend other editors listening to the conversation to see if sense 2 or the other senses are used in this conversation. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brave dude. Equinox 13:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Binarystep, Equinox, -sche After reading your comments and listening to the above material, I decided to try to find some cites for sense 2 and found some material that definitiely seemed similar to sense 2 (though I'm not 100% sure). The sense may be cited(?). I would appreciate it if you all would check this out and move things or change things as you see fit. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree the citations are using that sense; thanks for finding them. :) IMO the question (perhaps this is more an RFC / TR question) is, is it best to have a different definition-line for every slightly different scope someone uses the term with? I'm not sure; I don't know. As Binarystep says, it seems similar to how LGBT can be attested with a bunch of slightly different scopes (include asexuals or no? do bi people in "straight-passing" relationships count? etc). Or like how different jurisdictions and eras have different definitions of how much dairy is required for something to be ice cream, but is this best handled by a zillion definitions, or is ice cream basically one thing different times and places have slightly different definitions/standards of? (Some other ways of using transgender I could probably attest with effort are: very-broad use that even includes crossdressers, and conversely the way some people, including some trans people, historically used it only for pre-op folks, taking the view that once they had SRS they were no longer trans="on the other side of" anything since they'd now aligned their sex and gender (compare: if an object from beyond Jupiter is brought to reside permanently on this side of Jupiter, where the cisjovian objects are, is it still a transjovian object? in some contexts yes, but in others no). - -sche (discuss) 20:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I emphasize that I'm a non-expert in this, but I have learned a lot trying to cite these words. I have made senses 1 and 2 subsenses of a strict sense. The wording of this strict sense parallels Merriam Webster's definition. And Merriam-Webster's 'especially' subsense uses 'opposite' in its definition. See: [24]. The broad sense three (now sense two) remains as is. To me, sense three (two) is outside the gender identity categories concepts. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] 04:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is all over GBooks, but it should be labelled (obsolete or England dialect). This, that and the other (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cited, corrected etymology. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Japanese train station. Pious Eterino (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly used (only) in phrases like eki stamp. Equinox 15:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sense 2: "(less common) Any ocean larger than the current Pacific Ocean." All of the given citations are actually referring to sense 1, "an ocean surrounding a supercontinent". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Have moved them to sense 1, but for the record they were the 1979, 1990, and 1992 ones—fairly sure it was just a mistake since all the quotations at the entry were added in one go by an IP and the ones after 1978 happened to be put under sense 2. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC))Reply[reply]

claimed to be a British term for Baptists, deriving from a Scots verb. The quotations bar opens up to reveal a link to the well-known DSL Scots dictionary, which I've come to see as trustworthy. There is, of course, no entry for dookie in that dictionary, nor for dook which is what the link actually points to. I did find this, suggesting that Scots douk (duck) can mean to baptize someone. But that's a far cry from dookie being a word for a Baptist, let alone saying that it's used in English all over the United Kingdom. Soap 18:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The link seems to be broken because they changed their URL format. It should be to the entry for dook, which indeed has "Hence ... (b) dookie, a Baptist", with one relevant citation ("They ca'd him a dookie . . . what wud he be, Jamie?" etc., original context here). However in the dictionary the quotation is marked "em.Sc." (east mid Scots), so it's not English. If the sense is moved to a Scots section then as an LDL this citation should suffice. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's worth noting that Scots is not an LDL: WT:WDL. This, that and the other (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Odd, I should've checked properly. I see there was some support for some kind of change in status in the recent past, but in any case I don't think this term would pass RFV for Scots either then. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

speedied as obvious hoax This, that and the other (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Used in marking scheme: α, β, γ or α+, α, α-, β etc." Is this really a noun? And what does it mean: grades given in school education? Equinox 22:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cited though I'm sure there's a less obtuse way of wording the gloss. Was under the impression (in the UK anyway) this is mainly an Oxford thing and rather old-fashioned although I know of at least one person at Cambridge who still uses the system. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reworded it on the same lines as the grade sense at B. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No attestations. The usual forms are "audiobook" and "audio book". The hyphenated form doesn't seem to be in Google Books. — Paul G (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Humorous misspelling of blog. The xkcd Webcomic is given as a source... not promising... Equinox 15:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also this comic shortly afterwards. Both strips are from 2006, so the fad may have come and gone by now, but old uses are still valid uses. I see plenty of hits on google for "on my blag", which is just one of many possible phrases to search. It may have appeared as filler text on some websites, since a subset of the results are very similar to each other, but I didnt look very deeply into it. Soap 10:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cited. Binarystep (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fear of deleted files/data. Equinox 16:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a second sense, which might even be more common than the first one ... the fear of being deleted, for those who believe we live in a computer simulation where someone outside the simulation has the same power over us that we have over computer files. Both are readily attetsable on social media but I'd rather not add a second sense if we're having trouble verifying the first one. Soap 13:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"To slip in or out quietly so as to go unnoticed." — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An obscure sex act. Failed RFV; was re-added by @Leasnam who commented there seemed to be enough citations available); but it still has no citations. Equinox 03:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It failed RFV back in 2008, but it now has more attestable citations. I'll get them added. Leasnam (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current definition is very specific, and I think it can be reworded to allow for variations of usage. Seems a better definition might go something like "A kiss or sex act which begins on a body part, oftentimes the genital region, then culminates with a kiss on the lips or mouth". Thoughts ? Leasnam (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sense 2: "on a given day". Can't see how this would work. Equinox 03:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cited, expanded the gloss a bit for clarity. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WT:BRANDSURJECTION / T / C / L / 07:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is "Glade plugin" used to generically to refer to electric air fresheners in general, not just those by by Glade? Not sure. If it that is the case, it warrants an entry. 2600:1006:B14E:C6CD:0:17:9804:9B01 14:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The actual trademark is Glade® PlugIns®. Equinox 20:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW I believe we could cite a sense at plug-in for this kind of air freshener (I assume other manufacturers produce them too, unless there's a patent stranglehold), which would make this SoP (give or take a hyphen). Equinox 20:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One use in BGC. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 07:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you do a Google Books search for "teennapped" or "teennapping" there are more uses. 2600:1006:B14E:C6CD:0:17:9804:9B01 14:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"teennapped" has the only result (the one I mentioned). "teennaps" and "teennapping" have none, while the two results for "teennap" are both in Hungarian. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 16:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Hungarian ones are also cross-column scan errors. I can't find anything beyond what you've listed either. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Teen-napping" and "teen-napped" have Google Books results. Maybe this should be moved to teen-nap. 2600:1006:B14E:C6CD:0:17:9804:9B01 17:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there are three valid cites, it will be just barely so. I can only find two .... a vampire fiction book for young readers called Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The Cursed Coven, and a book called The Twelve Days of Dash & Lily (since it wont highlight it for me, i found the query string on page 77 about halfway down). There are other results returned, yes, ... a self-published book about werewolves, some obviously unrelated uses, and a few unreadable targets. It's sometimes the case that Google Books will return books as positive for a given query string when they do not in fact contain it ... try searching Google Books for the string did not choose to comply with her wishes if you're doubtful, and you'll see what I mean.
So we have two valid cites through Google Books. Google Books isn't the only place in the world to look, and I could certainly believe that if there are two uses of this phrase indexed by Google that there are many more lurking in traditional print media ... this phrase is surely old enough to have been used over and over again .... but finding those others will take a lot more effort. Soap 20:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is a use of "teen-napping psycho"; not sure if adjective or verb. This, that and the other (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I've added that and the two that I found, so we have the sought-after three cites. And I dont see any way that they could possibly mean anything else, nor are they self-publised books, so we should be good now. And I'm sure there's plenty more. Soap 19:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense "Perplexity". The OED has a somewhat similar sense "b. fig. Confusing and bewildering ways; intricacies (of affairs, the law, a subject, etc.). Obs.", but almost all of their citations are better interpreted — and are interpreted by other dictionaries I can find them in, like Samuel Johnson's — as being the "circuitous path/journey" sense.
(Their citations are: "1576 Fleming Panopl. Epist. 285 They being ouerwhelmed in Meanders of mischiefes. 1631 R. H. Arraignm. Whole Creature i. 5 He was in such Meanders of miserie and labyrinths of troubles. 1652 H. L'Estrange Amer. no Jewes 71 There are many Meanders and windings in this question of Plantation. 1712 Arbuthnot John Bull 1. vi. Ten long years did Hocus steer his Cause through all the meanders of the Law. 1759 Franklin Ess. Wks. 1840 III. 132 In this purpose I am ready . . until by better information out of England, we shall be led out of these state meanders.")
- -sche (discuss) 20:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is telling that in all uses we find the plural, whereas perplexity as a confounding aspect of something problematic is quite commonly used in the singular. The juxtapositions (“Meanders” — "labyrinths”; “Meanders” — "windings”) and the metaphors (“steer through the meanders”; “lead out of the meanders”) strongly indicate these are figurative uses of sense 2.  --Lambiam 19:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- -sche (discuss) 20:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is entered as a verb, but the definition is for a noun: (slang) A person's mouth. DonnanZ (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm? You added this yourself. Was it a mistake? You added the same sense earlier to paper. I think you just made a silly mistake. Soap 17:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah. It was a pasting error, I must have picked it up when copying and pasting from trap, trap as a person's mouth is immediately below the sense I added a quote to; paper is rectified, and I will fix hand (with a red face). Thanks. DonnanZ (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense: sense 2: "(genetics) A subgroup of a subgenus or haplogroup"

I see evidence of a general sense, but didn't have the patience to determine whether "a subgenus of" should be part of the definition or whether this definition is a duplication of or a subsense of def. 1 (which I just added and which seems abundantly attestable). DCDuring (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Modern taxonomy is based on cladistics, so subgenera should all be clades- by definition. The taxonomic literature is full of articles explaining why subdivisions at one rank or another aren't natural clades and are therefore invalid. The only way this sense wouldn't fit under sense 1 would be if there was a subdivision of a genus that wasn't itself a clade, i.e., containing part, but not all of more than one clade. As for haplogroups, they would presumably be clades, but I'm certainly not well read at all in the literature that discusses haplogroups, so I don't know if subclades are part of the terminology.
This has all the markings of a guess by someone skimming through a subject they knew nothing about- which describes a great deal of SemperBlotto's work in the life sciences. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia has an article with this definition, which was already used in the oldest revision from 2013. It cites a source, but this source is from 2022, so possibly subject to citogenesis. An earlier source ( Genetic Genealogy: The Basics and Beyond[25] (in English), Author House, 19 December 2013, →ISBN, page 13), possibly contaminated by the Wiktionary entry from 2009, was briefly used but removed as being a vanity press publication.  --Lambiam 19:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems very implausible that subclade and superclade would be used other than in deixis, ie, not in reference to a specific rank of taxon. DCDuring (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense "number", added by @Leasnam in diff. Latest OED quotation is 1175 A.D. Ioaxxere (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed. That was added from Century, which shows the same cite from the Ormulum Leasnam (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense "Unattractive; unappealing; unworthy of love" Ioaxxere (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Similar concerns to Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/CJK#神デレ, although there are actual Google results. @Immanuelle

Fish bowl (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense "Russian" and "Slav". I suspect we might be missing an {{altcaps}} of sense 3 of Communist ("Any citizen of a country controlled by such a party"), which is probably what "Russian" is getting at and should be changed to. - -sche (discuss) 02:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense: tarpon (Megalops atlanticus)

Doesn't appear in the comprehensive list of English common names in Fishbase. Does sometimes appear in lists of names of M. atlanticus or tarpon. DCDuring (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably just orthographic variant of Spanish sábalo (which Fishbase has). DCDuring (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense "Elops saurus", since in a cursory search I could find at least one cite in at least one spelling for all the other fish (Citations:sábalo) but not this, which I only found mentioned near "sabalo" but in reference to a different fish, the bony-fish. - -sche (discuss) 16:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This entry, or one or more of its senses, has been nominated as derogatory pursuant to WT:DEROGATORY. It may be speedily deleted if it does not have at least three quotations meeting the attestation requirements within two weeks of the nomination date, that is, by 3 April 2022.

Rfv-sense "a person of German descent". Added by @Romanophile in diff. Ioaxxere (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Cited(?), but...": The definition "A German, a person of German descent, or a person perceived to be of German descent" is probably more detailed than citations could support, but the core idea ("A German") seems to be citeable but to exist in a grey area of "is this the best way to intepret/handle this?" (like the many senses of transgender discussed above, or like how the sort of people who use Kraut aren't concerned with distinguishing e.g. a German-speaking Sorb from Germany from a German, yet it's reasonable we still just define it as referring to a German). In these cites, "the Nazis shelled [X]" in practice means "the Germans shelled X", "the German military shelled X", without any concern for whether the soldiers in question were National Socialists. But should we interpret and handle that as a separate sense, "German", or just the loose way people use words? I'm not sure, but we do have a sense at Communist for "any citizen of a country governed by a communist party". - -sche (discuss) 21:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, none of those citations show the term being used against an ethnic slur against Germans. I don't see the point in splitting hairs between "Germans" and "German military" and "Nazis" in a World War II context. Can you find citations that don't involve actual Nazis at all? Ioaxxere (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
-sche added some more cites today, but lulu.com is a self-publishing outlet and I would expect that we'd exclude that or at least put it in the same category as Twitter. Soap 21:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What we need to see are uses in which the recipient of the utterance does not already know from the context that the referent is German. Like here, where the character named Tojo says, "The whole damned business run by kikes an niggers an dinks an spics", a reader who does not know the meanings of the ethnic slurs kike, dink and spic cannot guess them from the context, but has to look these terms up. But here, where the character Hani calls Stephano not only “Wop” but also “spaghetti eater”, the reader knows that both Hani and Stephano know that Stephano is Italian, so this would IMO not be usable for attesting the sense “a person of Italian ethnicity” for the term spaghetti eater.  --Lambiam 22:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This entry, or one or more of its senses, has been nominated as derogatory pursuant to WT:DEROGATORY. It may be speedily deleted if it does not have at least three quotations meeting the attestation requirements within two weeks of the nomination date, that is, by 3 April 2022.

Rfv-sense "a white person". Added by an IP in diff apparently taken from Urban Dictionary. Ioaxxere (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed it because it already failed RFV recently. (See the talk page for some similar -skin terms, btw.) - -sche (discuss) 21:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Failed: previously failed verification; recreated without new quotations. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noun. "A type of normally wicker laundry basket." Added by an IP editor back in August, without citations or example sentences. Inner Focus (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sense: “The flesh of goat used as food. Synonym: goatmeat”. Removed by Getsnoopy on 15 March (“Removed incorrect definition.”) It was added by Kslays on 12 November 2019. J3133 (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can find citations which speak of "goat mutton" or "mutton from goats", but because they often contrast it with "sheep mutton" or "mutton from sheep", I don't think they are using mutton to mean "goat meat specifically, to the exclusion of other kinds of meat like sheep", but rather that they're using it in a general way similar to sense 1 of beef ("the meat from a cow, bull or other bovine", which then has "cow-meat" as a subsense). My suggestion is to drop this goat-specific sense; I will add a more general sense "the meat from a sheep, goat or other caprine" with some other citations of things like "urial mutton" (leaving "sheep meat specifically" as a separate sense or subsense). - -sche (discuss) 21:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Diminutive of Ive" (but Ive, other than a surname, is given as a diminutive of the name Ivy, which would make it circular). Equinox 21:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wouldn't surprise me, given how many other surnames get diminutized this way (Smithy, Jonesy...it seems like a productive process), but I don't know how to find it, as search results are swamped by the reverse (people using Ive and Ives as nicknames for Ivy). - -sche (discuss) 21:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"(euphemistic) The word alleluia, often pronounced during in Lent since Lent prohibits saying alleluias." Can be found in Web search, not sure about GBooks. Equinox 06:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cited, it's pretty common colloquially (and I heard it in person this Sunday). Rewrote the gloss though since as far as I know no church bans saying "alleluia" during Lent: it just isn't used liturgically, and not saying it in general can just be considered a "pious practice". —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
huh, neat. Is h-word attested for hallelujah, too? (I spotted one cite, but no more.) - -sche (discuss) 22:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stare at a man's genitalia. Created by that awful old "manbulge"-obsessed user. Equinox 16:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

US Air Force thing. Nothing in Google Books. A little evidence on the Web. Equinox 18:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"(British, programming) Used as the name of a metasyntactic variable."

Just in case there's still anyone on Wiktionary who isn't a programmer: a variable is a named value in a program, like numberOfEmailMessages, and a metasyntactic variable is a placeholder variable name where it doesn't matter what the variable means. There are some traditional ones like foo, bar and baz.

My problem here is that I don't think we could ever attest this in English, nor as a noun. Computer program code is not a human language and does not have (natural) grammar or parts of speech. (If you think you can do it, beyond mentions like "increment wibble by 1", then have at it!) So: should we make it Translingual? No. It's still not human language, and anyway this one is marked as "British": an American or French programmer presumably would not use it. Equinox 00:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I added one where it's used as a variable name in a pair of English sentences if that counts... ? I think this might be handled better at RFD, but it seems like foo, bar, baz, foobar, quux are defined similarly atm and are currently justified as placeholder terms, though I'm not convinced at all that metasyntactic variable names are doing the same thing as proper placeholder terms like "blah blah" and "John Q. Public" and the like—my inclination would be to move all of these to an appendix. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

0 uses on Google Books and only 600 hits on Google, most of which are other dictionary cites or copies of the book "Trojan's Essential Guide to Wicca" by Troy C McCormick. - -sche (discuss) 03:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... and Troy C McCormick is better known to us as GTroy, Acdcrocks, Catch22, LuciferWildcat, Ndołkah, etc (see Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2011/October#Gtroy_sockpuppets. In other words, this is self-promotion (the IP that created it looks to be the same person, who is known to live in the area the IP geolocates to). Chuck Entz (talk) 05:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verb sense 2: "British vulgar slang: To exhaust, tire out. I woke at 17:05 and felt totally bollocked. After a shower, I went to the NAAFI for some sarnies and orange juice." I am fairly sure this is legitimate, but I think it's only an adjective, bollocked. I don't think it's a verb: "this piece of work bollocked me" (made me tired) does not seem to exist, and I did do some searching. If this fails, please move it to the Adjective, where I can probably cite it if required. Equinox 05:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ability to kick well. A Wonderfool creation, with the edit summary "maybe", from a single sportswriter. Equinox 07:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to be chiefly restricted to rugby; I found this and this for example. I wonder if it refers to the player's ability to kick scoring shots (goals? tries? penalties? As a proud Victorian I know nothing about rugby) rather than just kicking in general.
There is also a phrase have one's kicking boots on. This, that and the other (talk) 05:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So we have quotes for 'found|discovered|remembered his kicking boots' from the quote at the entry and the two cites you've just found. There's also this hit for 'left his kicking boots behind'[26]. It looks like this is going to pass. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cited now. This, that and the other (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where is this term used? What makes it different from Thor? ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌProto-NorsingAsk me anything 12:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cited. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sense: "to be overwhelmed by emotion and take on a childish expression with a quivering lips and chin". The definition seems overly specific compared to the more general sense "to wobble" (which I've just added to the entry). I could find uses like "his bottom lip wibbling" and "her chin was wibbling" but these are just examples of the other sense. Einstein2 (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two plants: The first one's taxonomic name doesn't come up anywhere except Webster's 1913 dictionary. The second one is weird, as it claims it is used to make a drink in Austria. Good luck searching for this ... Van Man Fan (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first one was just a typo (or maybe a scan error) for L. pseudothea, but i couldnt turn up anything associating it with the phrase we're looking for. As for the other plant, .... i found the phrase "Brazilian tea" for related species,[27][28] but not this one. it might be a name for the genus as a whole, but I couldnt find anything listing Stachytarpheta mutabilis in particular, let alone defining it as the one and only Brazilian tea. Soap 13:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We will not find credible cites that support any specific concoction being the one and only Brazilian tea. The most common referent for Brazilian tea seems to be maté (Ilex paraguariensis). It is hard to find uses for other referents in running text, though there are mentions galore, often in tables, in handbooks, dictionaries, enyclopedias, and other reference works. DCDuring (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Contributors to our discussions have opined against use in tables as providing valid cites. DCDuring (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have substantially altered the entry, adding mate as a definition, and making the Lippia and Stachytarpheta definitions subsenses of a more general definition. I can find support for a Stachytarpheta definition, but not for a Lippia definition, though L. pseudo-thea is native to Brazil and used for an infusion. IMHO, the Lippia def. really needs {{rfv-sense}}, but the others do not. I would claim widespread use for the mate def. DCDuring (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Boy, I just love RFVing taxonomic terms like this, as Wiktionary does so damn well at fleshing them out! Long live DCDuring! Van Man Fan (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What you would probably love even more is citing, correcting, referencing, and illustrating vernacular terms like this. The biggest frustration is that use of the terms in tables is not accepted as citing the entry. DCDuring (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Denmark, Norway, and Sweden collectively and sometimes Finland, Iceland, and the Faeroe Islands.

The boldfaced part was added by Neel.arunabh on 3 May 2022 and removed by Getsnoopy on 26 November 2022 with the edit summary “Scandinavia never includes Finland, Iceland, and Faroe Islands (which, if included, are Nordic countries).” J3133 (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cited. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"A business that spreads its costs." I found one citation and it seems to be the only one: a nonce coinage? Equinox 16:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems like every use is in stuff by Peter Cheverton apart from this section header. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfv-sense "Permissive of unprotected sex." (The label needs formatting into {{lb}}, btw.) I'm unfamiliar with and don't know how to search for this; I checked the first couple pages of results for google books:"catholic" "unprotected sex" and google books:"catholic sex" and didn't spot anything.

There can be little doubt that this references the ban of the Catholic Church on the use of contraceptives, including condoms.[29] Rather than being permissive of unprotected sex, which is anyway only permitted between husband and wife to obey God's command to procreate, the Church has condemned the use of condoms as being against the law of God and of nature. It does not follow, and is also not true, that the Church condones unsafe sex; instead, it promotes abstinence as the alternative. The drive-by IP editor who added this sense presumably intended it as a joke that is also a jab against the Cat