Open main menu

Wiktionary β

Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English

< Wiktionary:Requests for verification

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

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

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

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

Scope of this request page:

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



See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oldest tagged RFVs


July 2017Edit

grow tender and growtenderEdit

Any takers? (difficult to search for because of the verb + adjective sense) SemperBlotto (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You can search for the plurals and for article+noun/possessive pronoun+noun. There seems to be some rare usage in stories on newspaper websites- but I have no idea if those appeared in the durably-archived print editions. There are also a few legitimate uses on websites that definitely don't qualify for CFI. I would call this real, but possibly unverifiable. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

November 2017Edit


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


Is this a word that is actually used? Google books has results, but they don't seem to refer to the device mentioned here. A google search shows the word being used little outside of Wikipedia with the intended meaning. I also don't think the devices are in current production and something only a countable number of people use. The Wikipedia article on them is misleading. RightGot (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Is "Disabled World" durably archived? It looks like a website to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
That depends on whether you count pamphlets as durably archived. Kiwima (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I have to imagine they normally wouldn't be. Are copies of this pamphlet held at a significant number of libraries, or is there any other reason to believe it will still be findable decades from now? —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017Edit


DTLHS (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

So far, all I can find are uses in non-durably archived sources. Kiwima (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
A Google Groups search just finds two posts that don't appear to be Usenet, given by their group names, and are both by the same poster anyway. Khemehekis (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
*sigh*, yes, this is one of those frustrating words. I can find a LOT on non-durably archived sources. Enough that I am convinced it's a legitimate word. But I can't manage to cite it by our rules. Kiwima (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

January 2018Edit


I can see it being used for several things, but not for Utah. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not the only entry in need of verification – several of the entries added by Special:Contributions/ are a bit dubious, IMO. How should we treat these abbreviations? I mean, there must me hundreds of local and national teams who use abbreviations on their scoreboards, but that doesn't mean that we have to include them here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
This one is certainly worth the RfV and perhaps some others.
For some others we could decide, whether by precedent, vote, or consensus, that some classes of abbreviations are OK and focus on making them conform to some standard. For example, 3-letter codes for airports could be deemed OK and presented only as Translingual (See YUL, JFK and their histories.). This contributor is not even consistent for such entries and probably for other types.
We could also apply a short block to the IP to get its attention. If that doesn't work, longer blocks might be required. DCDuring (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the height of arrogance. None of you have ever left a message on my talk page, so how the hell am I supposed to know you have issues? Have you ever thought of ever interacting with anyone outside of blocks? MediaWiki has user talk pages for a reason, and messages posted there are actually delivered to the user in question. This Wiktionary BLOCK = HELLO THERE standardized behaviour is very disappointing. -- 07:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
You don't have a talk page. There is a talk page for your IP address, but that's sort of a hack, to get around the fact that there's no way to communicate with an anonymous individual. If you create a user account, then you will have a user talk page. You could also have a watchlist and look to see if people are having issues.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I can find lots of evidence for "University of Texas at Arlington" and "Utah Transport Authority", and some for a few other acronyms such as "Union de Transports Aeriens", "United Typothetae of America", etc, but none for Utah. Kiwima (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Judging by the geolocation and by the mediocrity of the edits, this is quite possibly Fête, who has never been known for taking a hint- whether administered with compassion and tact or with a 16-lb sledgehammer. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh well. You would know best. DCDuring (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a sports ticker and score card abbreviation for teams represented by the geographic name "Utah" when playing other teams. In North America, sports pages, sports feeds, and sports tickers frequently use three-letter abbreviations to represent teams. Teams are frequently referred to by their geographic name instead of team name. (ie. the w:Utah Jazz is frequently abbreviated via UTAH instead of JAZZ.) When multiple teams have the same geographic name in the same sport in the same league, then they don't just go by the geographic name, but instead either use the team name or a combination of team name and geographic name. University teams typically are abbreviated with the university name instead of the team name as well. If you watch sports television, the sports tickers will use these three letter abbreviations all the time. The particular team meant depends on the particular sport and league the ticker is currently displaying, as most locations have multiple teams in multiple sports that can be referred to by any particular 3-letter geographic abbreviation, so depends on context. This is a sports abbreviation though, so the context is sports. -- 07:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

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

-- 07:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

None of which matters much to RfV. See WT:ATTEST; URLs like forums..../boards/viewtopic.php (the second link) are clear warning signs that they aren't permanently archived.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I have cited and removed the RFV tags from VGK, CBJ, NYI, NYR, and NJD, all of which are abbreviations of NHL teams. EhSayer (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "Abbreviation of Kitchener. "

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

This is a sports ticker and score card abbreviation for teams represented by the geographic name "Kitchener" when playing other teams. In North America, sports pages, sports feeds, and sports tickers frequently use three-letter abbreviations to represent teams. Teams are frequently referred to by their geographic name instead of team name. If you watch sports television, the sports tickers will use these three letter abbreviations all the time. The particular team meant depends on the particular sport and league the ticker is currently displaying, as most locations have multiple teams in multiple sports that can be referred to by any particular 3-letter geographic abbreviation, so depends on context. This is a sports abbreviation though, so the context is sports. -- 07:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

8. Riley Damiani (KIT), Ryan Merkley (GUE), Noel Serron (OSH), Curtis Douglas (BAR) – TI Score: 16
Dec. 29/17 – ER (3) – KIT (4)
OHL - KIT (2015) RD: 3 (#44)

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

February 2018Edit




RFV-sense of the variant of ad- used before certain consonants. I suspect that this only existed in Latin, and not English, where examples of al- etc in this sense are just borrowings of Latin words, as is the case with e.g. allocate. The one example of ag- which claims to have been formed in English (aggenital) is suspect, because aggenitalis (and aggenitus?) seem to exist. Compare Talk:sug-. - -sche (discuss) 20:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I've made (the RFVed sense of) al- Latin-only. I see there are four words which claim to have been formed with ac-. - -sche (discuss) 04:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I've switched ag- into a Latin entry, too, as all the ostensible examples of it have Latin etyma of which they seem like borrowings. Ac- is trickier: many of the words other dictionaries cite as derivations as obvious wholesale borrowings from other languages (accede, acquire), but accompass does not seem to have a Latin etymon *'accompassus (two New Latin works use adcompassus)...but it's also not clear that it uses an ad- derived prefix and not the intensifier a- with the c doubled to ensure correct pronunciation, and/or under the influence of Latin-derived acc- words, and/or because spelling was variable when the word was coined. - -sche (discuss) 05:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Tagged but not listed: Both noun and verb for analog of tweet on Mastadon.

I have cited both, but only as a hotword. Mastadon is too new for anything else. Kiwima (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  • @Kiwima, and do not seem to be durably archived. Both senses are now lacking one cite. And if you do find more acceptable cites and pass this as a hot word, you have to add the {{hot word}} template to the entry so that we can keep track of it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
How do I add the {{hot word}} template to a single definition rather than to an entire entry? Kiwima (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
With {{hot sense}}. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


An alternative spelling of llama, but seemingly a dictionary-only word; obsolete if real. @Cnilep is the creator. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I have just added two quotes from books published in the nineteenth century. I suspect the word is obsolete, though. Cnilep (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Also a twentieth century usage, from 1918. Cnilep (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
1918 is just a loose translation of Buffon, so not independent. Wood is also clearly reliant on Buffon, but I suppose his is a genuine adaptation (still plagiarism by modern academic standards!). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


Nonce word. DTLHS (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I DID find another citation besides those araphorostic shoes. We still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Another word to consider at the same time is araphostic: also with two cites. Kiwima (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
One dictionary that came up when I GB'd "araphostic" said that the preferred spelling was arrhaphostic. Googling that, I found this cite here. Khemehekis (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh dear! Not yet ANOTHER spelling. Between the three spellings, we have enough to convince me that it is (was?) a real word, but not enough to meet RFV criteria. Kiwima (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Has Wiktionary specifically settled on a policy for when two homophonous spellings/capitalizations have the requisite three durably archived cites between them, but neither spelling alone meets COI? If we add the two araphostics and the one arrhaphostic together, we have just enough for the pronunciation without the -or- in the middle. Khemehekis (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
If no one spelling is attested, sadly they should be {{no entry}}ed, but (like Talk:gaplapper) one spelling will usually become citable as more books are digitized, etc. (With capitalization, things are more flexible.) - -sche (discuss) 22:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
araphorostic and araphostic have two citations each, and arrhaphostic and arhaphostic have one citation each. I didn't find any citations of ar(r)haphorostic. - -sche (discuss) 06:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


arrhaphostic, arhaphosticEdit

I'm adding araphostic to the RFV (or it could be moved to the bottom of the page as a new RFV) as it has only two citations. See araphorostic. Eventually one of these spellings will become citable, but eventually may be a while. (Also adding the -rh- spellings so they'll all be linked to this discussion when it's archived.) - -sche (discuss) 06:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, Century gives the pronunciation of the -phostic form as \ar-a̤-fos'tik\, which is in IPA /æɹ.əˈfɑs.tɪk/; Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary confirms this and adds more detail on the stress, arʺa-phosʹtic \arʹɑ-fꝋs'tic\, in IPA /ˌæɹ.əˈfɑs.tɪk/; both label it rare (Century also calls it "badly formed"). A modern version/reprint of Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary gives the hyphenation and stress of the -phorostic form as ar-af-or-os'tik; Funk & Wagnalls gives it as arʺa-pho-rosʹtic and marks it as obsolete; neither gives the quality of the vowels AFAICS. - -sche (discuss) 07:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

March 2018Edit


Entered to mean A bird, the great bustard, from Webster 1913. Wonderfool requests verification in RFD. google books:"gustard", google groups:"gustard", gustard at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Most of what I find refers to a 1526 quote by Hector Boece, so I have left only one cite that refers to this quote, choosing the best reproduction of it I could find (quoted in 1881 by Henry Eeles Dresser). I did manage to find two other independent quotes, although the 1952 quote is a bit mention-y. Kiwima (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Unclosed: The 1952 quotation '... where it was called the "gustard" ...' is not just a bit mentiony; it is a mention. And the 1881 quotation is also a mention, "called a Gustard". It has been my position that phrasing of the form "called X" are mentions, not uses. Such phrasing may help reassure us of the meaning, but does not help meet WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

While I agree that the 1952 cite is mentiony, the 1881 quote is a use. It talks about the bird, then names it, the gustarf, before even mentioning any other names. Khemehekis (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018Edit


We have a sense "(obsolete) At the time that; when.", but it's only backed up from a quote from Malory, 1485, which is technical Middle English (pre-1500), and more importantly says "Than the knyght sawe hym lye soo on the ground," not then.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Pretty common in Middle English, but AFAICT doesn't seem to have survived past the 15th century. Ƿidsiþ 08:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


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

Looks like it might be used in – what do you call them – flow diagrams? — SGconlaw (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


Google searches don't seem to support a CFI-compliant adjective, let alone a noun. Equinox 10:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I've added one citation from PLOS ONE (can't find any others). It could well be an adjective though. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

OTOH dasyphyllus is a fairly common specific epithet. DCDuring (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
MW actually has two meanings: "having leaves thick or thickly set" and "having woolly leaves". DCDuring (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


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

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

May 2018Edit


A type of sports bet. No Google Web hits for "a T-Play" bet. Equinox 18:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This is painfully hard to search for, for technical reasons. When I type in "t play", I get contractions like don't or can't, followed by play. Khemehekis (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
As you probably know, one strategy is to eliminate those by adding e.g. -can -don to your search, but yes, still a pain, since that might eliminate legitimate matches with can etc. elsewhere on the page. Equinox 20:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


Just some short-term meme? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I can find quotes spanning from at least as early as 2016 to as recent as three hours ago -- but not on durably archived sources. We have no good durably archived sources for this type of internet slang. Kiwima (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Usenet produces nothing. Khemehekis (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
This is one of those terms that is often used is some online communities, but hasn't had mainstream use yet. Google finds 129 thousand results, but they are mostly from internet forums and nothing from reliable sources. Amin (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "Outstanding stupidity"

Not in a OneLook reference. Can we find citations that unambiguously support this definition? DCDuring (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

AltHypeFan's block has expired. They should be around to defend this definition by now. Khemehekis (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
It is 4chan slang, basically a synonym of "obsessive pedantry/attention to detail" or "anal-retentiveness". I feel as though the other existing senses cover it. Equinox 20:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't know whether the other senses cover that usage or not (they may: it may be just hyperbolic reference to the real condition, like "this post gave me cancer/AIDS"), but this definition doesn't appear to. - -sche (discuss) 21:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


Squirrel. DTLHS (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@DTLHS: Please check (first and last probably refer to the same, but the word seems to have existed) Alexis Jazz (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The 1913 quotation is a mere mention. As for the other two, they look like Middle English rather than modern English. (MED Online indicates that ōc-querne means "the fur of a squirrel", not "a squirrel". Variant spellings are aquerne, aquierne and okerne.) — SGconlaw (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Sgconlaw: It's (as far as I can tell) indeed not modern English. I don't know if English Wiktionary also covers Middle English? Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the English Wikipedia (theoretically) covers all languages. However, the main header for the entry would have to be changed from "English" to "Middle English", which is treated as a different language from modern English. For examples of such entries, see "Category:Middle English nouns". — SGconlaw (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Sgconlaw: that should be done, but I don't know if we can just change it or should add an entry for that and remove the current entry with this RfV. Are the requirements for that the same? It seems fairly obvious the Middle English word for "squirrel" would have been used in more than 3 books back then, but we may or may not have online access to any of those. Alexis Jazz (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Sgconlaw: I misread, acquerne is not the same as aquerne. Alexis Jazz (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: sorry, I'm not following what you mean. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@Sgconlaw: I would expect that the Middle English word for "squirrel" would have appeared more than 3 times in books, but that word may be aquerne and not acquerne. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, the 1898 and 1920 citations seem to be quoting the same Middle English passage. - -sche (discuss) 14:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Yup. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, I believe the normal word for squirrel in ME was squirrel (obviously spelt differently). "Acquerne" may have meant something slightly different – the Dictionary of Middle English defines it as "the fur of a squirrel" (in the same way, perhaps, that otter once meant "the fur of an otter"). Ƿidsiþ 04:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


Added one citation. DTLHS (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I did some research and discovered that cataglottism was the proper form of the word. It's a nonexistent entry, which had only two citations on its citation page, but I found and added a third citation. Perhaps the entry can be created now. Khemehekis (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018Edit


Attested in modern English? If not, move to Middle English? - -sche (discuss) 02:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Or possibly move to Scots Leasnam (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


Searches for "stevvons", "stevvoning", "stevvoned", "stevvon'd" turn up just enough hits that one (consolidated?) verb definition-line is probably citable, although several of the places the word occurs are dialect dictionaries, whose usexes (if not direct quotations of real people or works) don't count. - -sche (discuss) 06:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It's really a slightly more modern dialectal (spelling) variant of steven. It's listed as an Alternative form there Leasnam (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn't (and don't) want to RFV steven until I can make an effort to cite its various senses and find out which I can and can't find citations for, but ultimately it too needs to be checked. - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
In any case consider glossing as obsolete unless we have good evidence that modern northerners have a clue what this means. Equinox 20:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)



Batavocentrism, batavocentrismEdit

I did a very cursory look and couldn't find three durable citations, but they may be out there. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be attestable in Dutch either. – Julia • formerly Gormflaith • 15:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Nor French or Portuguese, as far as I can find, which the creator put in as translations. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
No word anything like it (apart from Batavia and Batavian) in the OED. Sounds reasonable, but looks like a protologism to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Nothing on Usenet. Khemehekis (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I could only find one cite (for Batvocentric). Kiwima (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


I was torn between sending this to RFV or RFD, but I don't think I will take the role of an arbiter of everything concerning WT:CFI. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 17:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a meme, it appears, originating with the rapper Lil Pump. There are also a lot of mentions of it (mostly explaining its origins), but I haven't found any durable citations yet. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Usenet contains only one post with this word; apparently "esketit" is somebody's signature in that post. Khemehekis (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The creator of this entry has now also created esskeetit, which seems like an alt form. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 21:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


Collective noun for goldfinch. Mainly/only in word lists? Equinox 18:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I see that can also refer to finches in general, not just goldfinches, and has an alternative form in charm Leasnam (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


1859 and 2004 are eye dialect for "lonesome". 2011 might work, but it's in a poem, where the context is unclear and the word may well be a nonce. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 11:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The etymologies have been split. Etym 2 is the one in question. I've added some cites (not durably archived) from online sources to demonstrate use Leasnam (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

vintage carEdit

"A motor car that was built between the years 1919 and 1930." Extremely specific definition, what evidence is there for it? DTLHS (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems at least somewhat established as a definition. These aren't durably cited, but they're related. [2] [3], [4]. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
That's my understanding of the term. If I can find time, I'll look for verification. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
It may be more of a British definition than an American one. Added one ref. DonnanZ (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


Only in this one cited paper? Equinox 17:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's an example, but in hyphenated form: [5] --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I have added another cite in the unhyphenated form. We still need a third, unless we want to accept that hyphenated version. Kiwima (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The term "DoggoLingo" is very uncommon, but other terms associated with it (doggo, shibe, do someone a frighten, hecken, pupper, etc.) have been used millions of times. The media on which internet culture is propagated however don't really tend to meet our attestation criteria, however, being non-durable (subreddits, tumblr blogs, facebook meme pages, etc.). So personally I don't have much hope CFI-compliant cites will be found for these terms. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Usenet returns nothing. I've never heard "do someone a frighten", nor "hecken". Is "shibe" a reference to the Shiba Inu? Khemehekis (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
It's pretty much meme-heavy language, as in the "stop it son, you are doing me a frighten" meme. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
It is common enough to attract the attention of the Boston Globe: [6]. Oh, and sorry I misspelled heckin. -- Beland (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

do someone a frightenEdit

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

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

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

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

prior knowledgeEdit

Rfv-sense: Existing knowledge before one begins learning a subject, language, etc. Tagged by @Tooironic. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I would think this would be trivial to cite, but it is redundant to sense 1; perhaps RFD was intended? Equinox 21:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Definitely trivial to cite. To get this out of the way, I have cited it. Kiwima (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
First, I think the sense as used in the quotation for sense 1 is better covered by the definition of sense 3. Second, that sense 3 is just a special case of the generic sense of "something someone knows or knew already", "knowledge that is prior [to some form of new information or some new situation, as implied by the context]". In the context of organized learning, it can refer to knowledge that may be needed for following the curriculum – or, contrariwise, knowledge that is actually not a prerequisite. The term can be used outside of a legal or educational context. ("This left a ton of devices out on the web that anyone could log into if they had prior knowledge of the default passwords." — "The rules are introduced as they come up, giving everyone else the opportunity to jump right in to the action without any prior knowledge." — "Women who aspire to become actresses should have a prior knowledge of what they're coming in to." — "BlockCAT is an Ethereum-based decentralized platform that provides an easy to use web portal to deploy smart contracts without the need to have prior knowledge or expertise." — "Prior knowledge in the fire protection industry is seen as a plus." — "Former Volkswagen boss denies prior knowledge of pollution cheating" — "Prior knowledge about marine animals isn't necessary to be a Maritime Aquarium volunteer." — "Although there was no cake, children's prior knowledge would lead them to expect a cake to be present." — "The record shows that defendant's jury was composed of eight persons who had prior knowledge of the case and four who did not.") And as to use in a legal context, prior knowledge need not imply any wrongdoing; in fact, it can be exculpatory: "Prior knowledge of an invention is an affirmative defense [against a claim of patent infringement]."  --Lambiam 19:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


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

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

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

July 2018Edit



  1. (blend of French + Thai) Frenchthai, usage of using French mixed with Thai

Created by a suspect IP. It's hard to be sure with all the false positives, but I can't find anything on this in Books or Groups. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

academic institutionEdit

Per the discussion at RfD, can citations be found indicating a use of the phrase that is limited to institutions of higher education? bd2412 T 04:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

First, for terminology, higher education: "Education at university level or beyond" (I am a non-native and had to look it up, so for everyone's convenience.)
Second, W:Academic institution is an article that includes primary schools in the subject matter that it covers. May I plead that, whatever the definition as refined by search for attesting quotations, the entry is kept to provide clarity to the reader? Or is it obvious that a primary school is an academic institution? Or is it obvious that it is not? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


A sport. The entry was a bit of a mess and appears to have been shunted our way after Wikipedia deleted it. The reference links were 404s so I have removed those. Equinox 19:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


"Alternative spelling of µs". I might believe that u is sometimes used in place of µ and that us is accordingly a "Plural of µ", but given that we have no such sense at u and µs has no relevant content, I ask for citations. - -sche (discuss) 21:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

This would be an SI prefix followed by the symbol s for second, the SI unit of time. The SI standard allows the substitution of u for the SI prefix µ (pronounced "micro"), which means (one) millionth (10-6).  --Lambiam 22:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "(Israel) A shot of hard liquor." On the talk page a user opines that this is incorrect. Googling suggests it may indeed refer to a unit of hard liquor, but possibly a different unit than a shot. - -sche (discuss) 01:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not just Israel either. DTLHS (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
It is a relatively mild drink (e.g. beer) that is taken after a harder one (e.g. whiskey). SemperBlotto (talk) 04:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's the sense right before this one (in the entry). But this sense is claiming (and I can find a handful of websites about Israel which suggest this is plausible) that in Israeli English, a unit of hard liquor can be called a "chaser". (But it may be a different unit, i.e. a different amount of hard liquor, than a shot.) - -sche (discuss) 04:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


Ahem.......this is a strange one. Definitely the entry needs to be cleaned up anyway; "describes" doesn't generally start a good definition. But I only found this and this in my search for citations, and I doubt they line up with the current definition. I can't find evidence that Keanu Reeves was the first person this word was used to describe either, at least in durable sources, and in fact I'm almost certain that's not the case. From what I'm looking at here, the word looks like a nonce word or at best an informal term, but that does not alone deny its inclusion. My only worry is that if we can find over 3 citations, can we prove that any 3 of them have the same meaning? (Also, unrelatedly, I'm finding a lot of news results, but those are for an Italian book with the name Cinemology, perhaps deserving of a Wikipedia article? Anyway be careful for titles.) @Kiwima might be a good person for this citation hunt. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I will see about getting the article I read this in uploaded as a citation. I do believe that the word has been used to describe other works in the past. – Cinelosopher

Here are some citations that would fit a different sense:

  1. 1971, The New York Times Book Review, volume 76, page 42:
    Without sinking into fens of cinemology, which properly belong in another section of this wilderness, one can say for openers that all three critics cross lines continuously in practice.
  2. 1973, Maureen Turim, “The Aesthetic Becomes Political: A History of Film Criticism in Cahiers du cinéma”, in The Velvet Light Trap, volume 9, number 13:
    Debate must take the shape, to use the current jargon, of "meta-cinemology," a discussion of the approach to film itself, above and beyond the discussion of films.
  3. 2016 July 22, Victoria Dmitrieva, Dana Namdi, “Using cinemology in psychological practice”, in International Journal of Psychology, abstract:
    Our experience of using ontopsychological cinemology based on using films shows that it is an effective way to identify discrepancies between the person's rational beliefs and authentic needs.

DTLHS (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


seeme kinda fake to me. 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:85A2:1A9E:D7F7:47BC 20:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The adjective definitely does exist. See Google Groups Usenet uses for proof (I could only find one Google Books usage though). So this RFV now only pertains to the noun sense. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I managed to find two cites for the noun, but can't find a third. Kiwima (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
@Kiwima Thank you, but I very highly doubt unatheist as a noun means "ex-atheist." "Un-" doesn't imply "used to be but isn't anymore," but just implies "isn't." PseudoSkull (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. It is more likely to mean non-atheist. —This unsigned comment was added by Kiwima (talkcontribs).

wikistorm Edit

None of the cites seem to be durably archived. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The first (Sep 2013) is Fox News, which I suspect is durably archived. The third (2014) is MIT press, which I am sure is durably archived. I added a fourth (2015) which is also durably archived. The fifth(Feb 2016) is Penn State News, which may well be durably archived. The sixth (Dec 2016) is published in an academic journal (although it has the same author as the third, so only one of them would count). I added another 2016 from a durably archived source. The last one (2017) is from the University of South Florida Scholar Commons, which I believe is also durably archived.
All told, I would say this is cited - at least for wikistorming as a noun. The verb is more questionable. Kiwima (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree with all of your calls, but there are three books attesting the noun, so it looks like it's good (the verb, not so much). I also think the definition needs a change, because all the cites seem to focus on feminism. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Etymology is an interesting point, since to storm something is a violent military attack, but it's possible that it comes from another collaborative origin like "brainstorm". Equinox 18:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

RFV-resolved The verb fails, the noun (wikistorming) passes. Kiwima (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

feddle Edit

"To fast forward past the standard FBI warning at the start of a movie." (The noun at this entry might be dubious too...) Equinox 21:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I could find no uses of the supplied meanings, but did find some other meanings. Kiwima (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

feddle Edit

Noun sense: a federal agent. Again, seems to be pure invention. Equinox 23:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


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

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


DTLHS (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

We have three cites, two on clearly durably archived sources, but I have my doubts about the third. Kiwima (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


Nonstandard spelling with no cites. DTLHS (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  • added 2 but they're probably just grounds to consider it a recurring typo, should this be redirected to misdemeanorous ? ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I added a book cite. I have my doubts that the other two are durably archived. Kiwima (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


Dictionary word. DTLHS (talk) 05:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  • So I suppose we would include it if we were a dictionary! SemperBlotto (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps DTLHS meant a dictionary-only word? Khemehekis (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


Cannot find anything. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 18:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

199 hits for "redcore" on Usenet, not a single one of which is this purported slang sense. Most of them are hits for the Montreal band or a brand of infrared heater. Khemehekis (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Or a fungus that causes root rot in strawberries (which I added) Kiwima (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


Requesting citations independent of Nicholas Rescher or people quoting Nicholas Rescher. DTLHS (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

reboot Edit

"To restart (a computer or video game) from the beginning." Is this not just the normal sense 1, i.e. resetting a system? If you simply quit to the game's menu and start playing from level 1, that's not a "reboot" as far as I know. Equinox 14:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


The entry should not exist according to an IP. "radande" does indeed not really look like Swedish, while "trädande" is a generic term for a tree spirit. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 19:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Mentiony citations at Citations:radande. DTLHS (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


Humorous unit for measuring activity, based on a certain busy person in history. Seems rather obscure, and the given citation is a mention. Equinox 20:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Given the fact that the word was coined at a secret Russian nuclear research facility, you would expect possible uses in Russian sources, so I searched for миллиБриш (milliBrish) and микроБриш (microBrish). That did give one hit to a contribution to a Festschrift, but again only a mention, recounting the same anecdotal evidence of the accomplishments of ru:Бриш, Аркадий Адамович (no article on the English Wikipedia) as in the one citation given. Conclusion: not attestable even in the original Russian form.  --Lambiam 09:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


"(UK, historical) The act of killing a person in a secret manner, distinguished from simple homicide." This was the original sense in the entry (which came from an old dictionary); somebody later replaced it with another def, saying that it was incorrect. It deserves an RFV though. Equinox 22:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

cited. I have tweaked the definition, to indicate precisely what was meant by a "secret" killing, and added cites for both that definition and the one for the fine. I included the 2013 quote, although it is clearly a mention, because it makes clear that the word refers both to the crime and to the fine levied when it occurred. Kiwima (talk) 02:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "(abbreviation) jack". Not sure which jack it refers to; in my experience, a poker jack is abbreviated as J, not JK. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 01:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Just found it listed in Morrison's Sound-it-out Speller: A Phonic Key to English, where it glosses the word as "lift" (so the kind of jack that mechanically raises a vehicle?). Equinox 21:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

solarpunk Edit

Seems spammy. DTLHS (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

cited - but the definition desperately needs cleanup - it is waaaay too encyclopedic. Kiwima (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

precrastination Edit

Needs two more real cites. Per utramque cavernam 10:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


"Nothing more and nothing less", as distinct from the other sense ("that's the end of the matter"); the latter sense, which to me seems to best cover both sense's cites, was just added by an IP who has made some notes on the talk page that led to my creating this RFV. Equinox 12:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

not have the faintestEdit

google books:"not have the faintest", google groups:"not have the faintest", not have the faintest at OneLook Dictionary Search


I already mentioned I couldn't recall hearing it often, but in fact I can't seem to cite it. The only entry I found was in a dictionary: "not+have+the+faintest" An Asperger Dictionary of Everyday Expressions. Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a sort of bowlderized dictionary-form of "I don't have the faintest", "She didn't have the faintest", etc. DTLHS (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@DTLHS but is it also used in real life?
The Five Ws to the rescue:
Time to make some citations..   Done Exactly three. That's all there is. Guess it should be enough. Alexis Jazz (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I have heard people say this quite a bit. Perhaps it is dated.... Kiwima (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
foggiest, slightest, etc. Also, vaguest, least,DCDuring (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


Is this actually an adjective or just an alternative form? DTLHS (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually it might be a noun, alternative of dacoit. Examples follow Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
“Karachi: Hostage recovered in CPLC raid, violence claims 2 lives”, in (Please provide the title of the work)[7], 5 March 2015: “Two dacoid were killed by police near Gunna Mandi, Sohrab Goth area.”
Hari Shanker Sharma (1980) Ravine erosion in India, Concept Pub. Co.: “Out of the total ravines lands in Rajasthan nearly 4.02 lac hectares has been estimated under dacoid infested ravine land.”


Rfv-sense: A person who has been robbed by a dacoit. DTLHS (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll call it an obsolete spelling. DTLHS (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


Able to sin. (Seems wrong: shouldn't it logically mean "able to be sinned [against]"?) Not much in GBooks. Equinox 21:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I’ve added three quotations, but the term appears obsolete, as I did not find quotations later than the 19th century. Language is not always logical; peaceable does not mean "able to be peaced".  --Lambiam 07:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Understood about logic for some common words, but when it's a super-rare word that can hardly be found at all, logic might come into play. Equinox 01:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

dead simpleEdit

The noun sense. Needs a headword if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

three-sigma observation Edit

Made by person who made redcore. 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:C073:2829:9837:FE1B 13:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

SoP. This is just like a three-mile walk. Perhaps a case could be made for five-sigma observation, because there is agreement in the particle physics community to only announce discovery of a new particle after the significance level of the combined observations has reached five sigma.  --Lambiam 13:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
cited. This should be moved to requests for deletion as SOP. Kiwima (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


Found in Webster, created by @Equinox. I'm only seeing one cite on BGC. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I see some Scholar cites, but in French and German, not necessarily referring to the birds. DCDuring (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
This page is for English. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I think we allow all contributors. DCDuring (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Citations:thamnophile, do not really support an entry or this definition. DTLHS (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


Real thing on the Web. Don't think it meets CFI. Equinox 01:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

cited DTLHS (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


Some slang. Equinox 02:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


"The compulsion to abuse small children". I'm not convinced that this is what "Herodism" actually means. Please convince me (or perhaps better, correct the definition). Equinox 02:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Equinox Perhaps I should not have been the one to create this entry. I seem to have gotten the definition from this book, and I vaguely remember some other books giving similar contexts, although I can't seem to find them now and it could have just been an error in my judgment of such contexts. I now try to give citations for all the entries I create, which may help with future confusions such as these. Nevertheless, I have added a definition request line for other senses of this term, as Google Books shows the word definitely is in use, but as you said not likely to mean this. Sorry about this! PseudoSkull (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Every quote I find that supports a definition of a compulsion to child abuse ultimately traces back to "Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter" by Mario Vargas Llosa, including the link given by @PseudoSkull above. However, it looks to me like that was an idiosyncratic coinage by Llosa. I have, however, added and cited three other definitions. Kiwima (talk) 05:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


"An action that was unintended". Not convinced that this is what this word means. If it fails, please deal with any related thesaurus/synonym detritus. Equinox 02:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

In several dictionaries with two other definitions: "watery food or drink".
slipslop in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 also has "blunder".
Google slipslop (BooksGroupsScholar) seems to offer attestation for all three definitions. (Need to exclude the numerous references to "Mrs Slipslop" (in Joseph Andrews and other uses as proper name.) DCDuring (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I have cited numerous other definitions, but cannot find enough support for an unintended action. I also added one cite that uses slipslop as an adverb, but I have not found the required two others. Kiwima (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

That didn't fit very well with the others, which all had an idea of laziness or carelessness, rather than lack of intention per se. DCDuring (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


This is used in a single work. DTLHS (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


cited Kiwima (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


Used in a single work. DTLHS (talk) 05:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

backstraightway, backstraightawayEdit

I see no evidence for this spelling with no space. DTLHS (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

backstraightway was a typo on my part, and I asked for it to be deleted. There are numerous quotes available for backstraightaway, so I added some from 1995 to 2018. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

RFV-resolved. backstraightaway passes. Kiwima (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


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

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


Rfv-sense "(vulgar, colloquial, usually followed by “up”) To break; to destroy." Obviously fuck up exists, but just fuck, with this sense?__Gamren (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Trivially meets RfV because fuck up does.
As to a possible RfD, someone who encounters a use of fuck collocated with up could legitimately expect to find guidance among the definitions (not just the derived terms) of fuck. DCDuring (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't seem right. Would you want put to have sense lines for each of put up, put off, put through...? They aren't just put! Equinox 10:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I would like the entry for put to at least include definition lines that made some sense for someone trying to understand the collocations or phrasal verbs (if indeed they are phrasal verbs). How would a new user even know to go to derived terms for the verb + particle combinations? DCDuring (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
We've historically often handled this by listing fuck up in the "derived terms" section of fuck, and likewise with put up/off/through as "derived terms" of put. (In some entries, conversely, we've handled it with senses like the one here labelled "with up" or "usually with up".) I am sympathetic to the view that we should do something more noticeable/prominent, like have an {{only in}}-like sense line directing users to all the phrasal verbs. - -sche (discuss) 07:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "(vulgar, colloquial) To play with; to tinker." The usex and citation have instances of fuck with.__Gamren (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Trivially meets RfV because fuck with does.
As to a possible RfD, someone who encounters a use of fuck collocated with with could legitimately expect to find guidance among the definitions (not just the derived terms) of fuck. DCDuring (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
What? It doesn't "meet RfV" unless fuck is used to convey this sense without with. As for redirecting readers: that's what "Derived terms" is for. It's no different from compound nouns with spaces, or adjective-noun combinations.__Gamren (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Right. - -sche (discuss) 07:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
We go the route of duplication of content every time we include terms like coal mine, not to mention cases not sanctioned by the eponymous rule. Even to serious amateurs like us, it's not as if it is obvious what is a phrasal verb, what is a verb that has definitions whose substitutable wording differs according to the following PP, or what is a purely SoP collocation of verb and a PP or adverbial/aspectual particle. I don't think we need a separate sense of bucket and kick for kick the bucket, but I do think we have to be willing to countenance duplication of content to aid our human users and leave the spurious ideal of no-unduplicated-content to Wikidata (if even they bother). DCDuring (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
We don't duplicate definitions between coalmine and coal mine, and we shouldn't between fuck and fuck with, because they'll fall out of sync and inaccurately say to readers that there's a difference. However, I agree that more prominent linking is good (I also feel this way about plural-only senses that people probably look up the singulars of, like messages/message). I noticed that abide was already using a template to give a definition-line pointer to abide by, and have overhauled it to accept up to eight phrasal verbs on one line (tweaking abide to use the revised template): presenting {{used in phrasal verbs}}. - -sche (discuss) 15:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I like the solution abide uses (it's more pleasing to the eye when those sorts of definitions are listed at the end, however). I don't like the idea of giving fuck the same definition as fuck with because it implies that the word can be used on its own that way, without the "with." Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, I've deployed {{used in phrasal verbs}} to fuck. - -sche (discuss) 21:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


There does seem to be a well-attested adjective sense, but the only POS currently in the entry is "Noun":

  1. (slang) A cannabis cigarette

No trace of this in Books or Groups. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


Needs two more citations. DTLHS (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


These are mentions and not uses. DTLHS (talk) 03:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Worse, they're mentions in modern English of an Old English term which I haven't been able to find in Bosworth-Toller. Also, sōlmonaþ is supposed to be the Old English word for February. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


Relating to zoiatria. Only seems to be the name of a college. DTLHS (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

critocratic Edit

Seemingly only 1 use. DTLHS (talk) 03:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Its not common, but I added 3 quotes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Quotes from Wikipedia are not acceptable. DTLHS (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
We now have three quotes. Although the online sources make it somewhat difficult to tell, the two from UNBLJ are clearly different, as they come from different volumes. Kiwima (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

kritocracy Edit

One use. DTLHS (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Cited. Khemehekis (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Researching it, I've discovered that krytocracy is also a common spelling, so I've created that entry with four cites from Usenet. Khemehekis (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
The etymology of the term is κριτής (kritḗs, judge) + -cracy. Spelling this with a y displays ignorance.  --Lambiam 21:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Of course it's incorrect etymologically, but so are koala and ginkgo. The spelling "krytocracy" has appeared on reputable sources such as World Net Daily and The American Conservative, and gets more Usenet hits than kritocracy, so it should be included in Wiktionary. Khemehekis (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
These “reputable sources” only use the term in quotations; all are quotations from the same person, the late Jack Wheeler, writing on his blog To the Point.  --Lambiam 17:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
If you google it, you will also find plenty of appearances of father and mohter or mohter and daughter. We should be able to state that something is a misspelling, as we in fact do at occurence and occurrance.  --Lambiam 18:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've changed the line at krytocracy to read Misspelling of . . .. (BTW, I checked out that bio of Jack Wheeler you linked -- interesting guy. He both led Mothers Against Drunk Driving and worked for the George W. Bush administration. How does he square MADD with serving a president with a DUI arrest?) Khemehekis (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

RFV-resolved Kiwima (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

POO Edit

Purports to be an abbreviation for an entry that we don't have. Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk)#

The OED entry is already linked. — LlywelynII 14:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
We don't count other dictionaries. We need actual usage. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
cited, although all cites spell it "P.O.O." - Do we want to move the entry? Kiwima (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

check upEdit

The sense that duplicates check up on. The example given is "check up on", which AFAIK is correct -- I don't think it's used without "on". I would have just replaced it with the two senses I added just now, but I'm not sure if the translations can just be transferred to check up on or not. 2601:14D:C200:3C20:7132:D6A8:93DC:9BF6

Parker squareEdit

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

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


As a shortened form of homeboy, I don't think that exists. The cite given is for homes, where it is already correctly described as an alternative to the more common holmes (though I think it was more commonly pronounced like homes up until the 80s or so), which by the way is definitely not related to Sherlock Holmes. GaylordFancypants (talk)


We have a number of citations that are rather "mentiony". Can anyone find anything better, or shall I delete it again. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Same user has now created Floyder, Floyders, Floydered. Equinox 21:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I have now provided additional citations using Floydering, Floyder, and Floyders in speech and text in context. As a neologism I understand due diligence, however as noted to each of you individually, I've complied in providing numerous published citations from a wide variety of sources (newspapers, websites, and journals, and even a song title). Those citations include the definition, etymology, uses in speech, and even variations on the word Floydering: Floyder, Floyders. With due respect, while I have sought Wiktionary:Assume good faith it does feel like the amount of scrutiny applied here is more than a majority of other Wiktionary entries or contributors have or receive. Per Wiktionary policy: In contrast to protologisms, neologisms are words that have already been in public usage by authors other than their inventors. As soon as a protologism finds its way into newspapers and websites, journals and books, it becomes a neologism and merits a separate Wiktionary entry. Accordingly, the word(s) exsist and merit separate Wiktionary entries. With the amount of citations and references, I'm unsure why there is a continued perceived begrudging resistance here, and a push to delete? --2600:1700:5370:980:F5D0:497:D0EE:8AE4 23:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
But a "continued begrudging resistance" to actually learning our rules and policies regarding use-vs.-mention etc. is fine, right? -- There are a few good cites in there but most are just "look at this cool word we are talking about!". Equinox 00:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Again, respectfully, I am unsure what more is required or what I've not complied with that has been requested? By your own quote you admit that "there are a few good cites in there" and I do appreciate that. The copious citations now provided include a wide variety of sources (newspapers, websites, and journals, and even a song title) and substantiate the definition, etymology, uses in speech and text, and even variations on the word. I can continue to provide additional citations, however I believe it excessive. In this exercise, while Wiktionary may hold a higher standard that other Wikimedia projects, in contrast I've found the interactions here rather unwelcoming and resistant, certainly not in the same supportive, collaborative, or helpful spirit. I've had my entry deleted outright, been insulted, and had my contributions scrutinized to a degree and in a manner that would seem both overly critical and demanding. I believe such engagement could only be off-putting to potential future collaborators of the project. Again, if there is something still required, I am happy to comply and provide it. --2600:1700:5370:980:24BC:2F47:34B7:6E8 20:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018Edit


Is it attestable in lowercase? SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 10:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

armgaunt Edit

A nonce of uncertain meaning and, apparently, uncertain reading, for I see some scholars going back to the 1800s who suggest that the word is not armgaunt at all but termagant or another word. - -sche (discuss) 16:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Looks good; passed. - -sche (discuss) 21:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


This is mentioned in Norwegian contexts but it doesn't appear to be used in English (note that the only hit for the plural is in the Wikipedia article). DTLHS (talk) 00:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

dialogue tagEdit

This term doesn't appear in dictionaries that I have access to. Accordingly, the definitions lack authoritative lexicographical support. A superficial look at Google Books did not provide obvious support to either of the definitions IMO. Further, this term is intended to be used in usage notes. I would think we would be well advised to limit use of the expression in entries to either an SoP use or to an established use, preferably one generally accepted. DCDuring (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

From the first page of a google books search:
That's only sloppy quoted but sense 2 looks attestable.
If sense 3 is (also) known by another name? "dialogue tag verb" gets some google web results but doesn't seem to be common. - 17:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
First one's cited now. Second one is more informal, harder to find usable cites for (just to show I'm not making it up, here's some unusable cites from the web: [8] [9].) I'll try to check out usenet or other sources later. GaylordFancypants (talk)
I came across this term all the time while researching fiction-writing. Anyway, I've added the term said-bookism to the entry. Khemehekis (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Faintly related: Tom Swifty. Equinox 01:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Good suggestion(, Tom said suggestively)! I've added it in the "related terms" section. Khemehekis (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Related doesn't mean semantically related; it means etymologically or morphologically related. So it would go under "See also". DCDuring (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
They're now both cited. GaylordFancypants (talk)
The 2004 citation doesn't illustrate meaning. Other quotes from the same url do. DCDuring (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
What is a good label for the restricted context in which they are understood, which seems to be discussion about writing fiction? Something more vague like literature or something more specific? Literary criticism, rhetoric? DCDuring (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not lit crit (they seem to be mostly about how to write books, for people aiming to harness their imagination etc.) nor rhetoric (which suggests speech-making with an eye to persuading an audience); but the good old "fandom slang" tag would seem a bit cruel here. The books often have "writing" in the title. I would say "fiction writing" but of course you could use dialogue tags to colour your violent father in an autobiography too... Equinox 04:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Literary composition? Direct reported speech can appear in many literary genres: journalism, law, fiction, lit crit, history, humor, eulogies, etc. But only professional and would-be professional writers would seem likely to use or understand the term. The citations include some that find it necessary to define the term, even for those who buy books on writing. DCDuring (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
We are hijacking the RFV but yeah I like "literary composition": it suggests putting words together for a reward (might be an A-grade at school, might be £4,000 from Mills & Boon). Haw. Snobbery is underrated. Equinox 04:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The cites provide evidence of the context. If that evidence is misleading then we need other cites to demonstrate different usage contexts. DCDuring (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
How 'bout narratology? Khemehekis (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I might call it "written composition", since it can be used in non-literary contexts like a transcript. GaylordFancypants (talk) 07:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I have seen it used in a sociological study that analyzed dialogue. I would expect to be able to find it in some discussion of text-based natural-language understanding from an AI perspective. Maybe linguistics too. But not enough for attestation. I guess either of the two labels will do. DCDuring (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Relatedly, I wonder what categorization will result from the label. DCDuring (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
How about authorship as a label. DCDuring (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that. GaylordFancypants (talk)
After some thought I decided to move my recently-created appendix to Appendix:Glossary of authorship, and I am going to use that as a context tag and category unless anyone objects. GaylordFancypants (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
We need more craft vocabulary. Authorship has an edge on many other crafts because we rely on attestation in print. In contrast we don't have too much on, say, chimney-sweep vocabulary. DCDuring (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "An attribution in narrated dialogue (eg, "he said")."

Certainly plausible, but is it ever used without prior in-work definition? Also, is it limited in the context in which it is understood, eg, scholarly writing on linguistics. DCDuring (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Got three uses on Usenet when I was looking for something else... GaylordFancypants (talk)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


A fear of xenon. Per utramque cavernam 16:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Nothing obvious on Google, and seems rather unlikely. Just might be a misspelling of xenophobia. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I think xenon is okay but I'm fricking terrified of darmstadtium. Honestly who makes up these idiot phobias? Equinox 21:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Google Groups pulls up 7 hits, one non-Usenet, one that won't load, this somewhat mentiony use, this mention, both seemingly puns based on xenophobia, and one that's clearly a misspelling of "xenophobia". Khemehekis (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

strawing Edit

Rfv-sense: (obsolete, slang) The sale of straws on the streets in order to cover the giving to the purchaser of things usually banned, such as pornography.

Equinox (talkcontribs) was probably drunk when making this entry. --New WT User Girl (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I had just got home from selling "straws" outside Camden station. (Definition is from Chambers 1908.) Equinox 21:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Cool story, bro. Cite it up. --New WT User Girl (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Seems to have been used only by Henry Mayhew (added one citation, which also uses "strawer"), and then picked up by dictionaries. Equinox 21:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
So WT trumps Chambers once again. w00t. --New WT User Girl (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

tag line Edit

Rfv-sense: "Synonym of dialogue tag".

Maybe. Not in online dictionaries I looked at. DCDuring (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Cited. GaylordFancypants (talk)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


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

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


Rfv-sense: "snobbish".

Formerly included in the immediately preceding definition, which is now "fake". The cahracteristics fake and snobbish may often co-occur in the world but they do not mean the same thing. I moved the Means Girls citation from the preceding definition because it was the only one that was not unambiguously for the definition "fake". It is, however, actually of plastics, which would make it for one of the existing noun definitions. DCDuring (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I have added some cites, but I am not completely sure about them. Kiwima (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
To me none of them seem unambiguous. And Plastic snob would be a pleonasm if plastic meant "snobbish". DCDuring (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

go to sleepEdit

"An expression used to dismiss an extremely foolish statement, or to dismiss somebody that one does not feel like talking to." See also Talk:go_to_sleep, where Mglovesfun hadn't heard of it either. Equinox 02:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I have heard of it, or maybe it was "go back to sleep" as mentioned on the talk page. DonnanZ (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


Sense 2: cock-fighting (not divination). Equinox 03:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the person was thinking of "alectormachy"? Khemehekis (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Probably. Let's please not have a "common misspelling" for a "rare" word. DCDuring (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Just found the entry on Wiktionary: alectoromachy. Khemehekis (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


Middle English citation. DTLHS (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Modern English citation, and OED entry, already listed and linked. Thanks for the oversight; now, kindly go do something useful instead of continuing to question thoroughly linked and established entries you could've verified from the sources already formatted and provided. — LlywelynII 17:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Please read WT:CFI. We have only one valid cite- we need two more. As for the OED: it doesn't distinguish between Middle English and Modern English, and there are plenty of dictionary-only words that are always mentioned, but never used (esquivalience is probably the most extreme example). You've been around here for years, and you apparently know next to nothing about our verification requirements. You still have to follow the rules, whether you bother to learn them or not. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Good point, but at Citations:esquivalience I see a few actual uses for "esquivalience" (from 2012 and 2013). Khemehekis (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Take your pick of Appendix:English dictionary-only terms, then. - -sche (discuss) 23:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The OED includes both Middle English and Scots as if they were English, and also sometimes considers single citations (or twitter citations...) sufficient; we, being a multilingual dictionary, include Middle English and Scots under their own headers, and we have more stringent requirements for attesting English. If the date given is correct, the "poete Varro rehersethe" citation is Middle English, and would be sufficient to create a ==Middle English== entry. The single modern English citation is insufficient to verify the English section. Looking through Google Books and Scholar, I don't see any more uses of it (as an English as opposed to an Italian word) in books on journals. - -sche (discuss) 23:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
There's this on Usenet, but it looks like an error for repairable. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "An alternative finance method for entrepreneurs that requires 1) the cooperation of investors and stakeholders (i.e. the community), and 2) competition among peers." SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 21:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

often wrong, never in doubtEdit

It's the title of a book. Spamming? Needs formatting if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd defend this at RfD, too. DCDuring (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

swallow the dickEdit

DTLHS (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

A reasonable number of mentions in works on slang (apparently a variant of swallow the dictionary), but no uses. The rest are literal references to sexual practices. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
And no uses of "swallow the dic", AFAICT (which I tried based on the possible etymology you provided). A candidate for WT:LOP? - -sche (discuss) 00:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Given its appearances in published slang dictionaries, I'd say Dictionary-only Words is more like it. Khemehekis (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

mud outEdit

Equinox 13:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


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

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


I cannot imagine anyone spells it like this on purpose. DTLHS (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I managed to find one cite from 1530 (on the citations page), but I suspect that is simply a holdover from the Middle English word gendre meaning type or kind. Kiwima (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Able to resile or be resilient. DTLHS (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

see the dark side of the moonEdit

"To do something exceedingly difficult or nearly impossible, sometimes dangerous as well, for a cause" SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 15:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

cited (although I removed the "for a cause"). Kiwima (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
The 2000 cite ("like seeing the dark side of the moon, or stepping through a looking glass") suggests that here it might mean something like "seeing a reverse or opposite". Equinox 00:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
The citations from 2014 and 2017 may fit the definition, but the other two? The one from 2000 seems suggest "to see into another world". The 1999 which draws a parallel between seeing and opinions doesn't make sense except possible metonymically. 'Reading the opinion' is like 'seeing ....'. If so, that fits the second meaning.
Note that my reading and Equinox of the 2000 differ, so there is reason to be skeptical about either of our interpretations, ie, the meaning is at best ambiguous.
Does every rare metaphor need a definition in Wiktionary? DCDuring (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I might be willing to accept DCD's definition for the "looking glass" cite but not Kiwima's, which seems irrelevant to it. You need to be really careful with these rare phrases to read the surrounding text and check what they are talking about. It is very tempting to say "look, I found three people using the phrase" and not check how they were using it. BEWARE. Equinox 04:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


house slipper passed RFD because of houseslipper, but no citations have been shown for it. 2600:1000:B008:9316:7DE5:69CD:A589:81AF 22:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


Do either of the senses pass CFI? 2600:1000:B008:9316:7DE5:69CD:A589:81AF 23:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I managed to find one cite that uses "Baskin Robbins" (no hyphen) for the poker hand -- other than that, all I could find were mentions. Kiwima (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


Words like this need cites. 2600:1000:B008:9316:7DE5:69CD:A589:81AF 23:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Cited. - -sche (discuss) 00:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

wild outEdit

Someone cite this motherfucker. 2600:1000:B008:9316:7DE5:69CD:A589:81AF 23:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


Needs cites. 2600:1000:B008:9316:7DE5:69CD:A589:81AF 23:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
This IP has popped out of nowhere, done no work, and demanded cites for multiple entries. There are few of us and we can only do so much. Revert the requests if needed. Equinox 04:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


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

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


Please attest in the sense "astrology", as opposed to and separate from the other two senses, "crystal ball" and "witchcraft". Equinox 06:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

superstarlet Edit

Nothing obvious on Google book search. If OK then the definition needs improving. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I have added some uses, mainly from 1990s Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
There are also quite a few uses in Google groups: [10]. But how do we a template to quote these? There is quite a lot of erotica in these results. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
OK. And I've tweeked the definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I found "Template:quote-newsgroup" for newsgroup! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


Seemingly ironic replacement for "no", but I have a feeling it isn't durably archived. Even if it is, should be a hot word. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 00:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "To affect someone deeply; usually emotionally", which was supposedly added from personal experience... SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 12:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Certainly plausible as a metaphor. Cf. ring someone's bell. But, not every metaphorical use is part of the lexicon. DCDuring (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

dominant range Edit

"The amount by which the greatest value is the greatest". Can find uses of "dominant range", but they refer to something else and would be SOP. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 13:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


Net slang: "do you still think it is a scam?" Had a link to a site about Nigerian scammers, now a 404. I can't find it elsewhere. Equinox 22:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


With no hyphen? Equinox 23:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Prob not (if any). I think it was due to some books showing the word split between lines, as well-
beseen which theoretically could have been either, except for the fact that we don't really see any as "wellbeseen". I'll fix. Leasnam (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I actually did find one cite using "wellbeseen" (not a split word) and have added it to that entry. Also moved all content to well-beseen. Whether wellbeseen still survives is still a matter for rfv to determine. Leasnam (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


See the previous RFV on the talk page: this was passed as a hot word on the strength of citations from 2016, but there was doubt that it would actually remain in use. The hot word tag was recently removed, reminding me to ask: has it continued to be used? It occurs in this ?magazine? from 2018, but I can't make heads of tails of what it means there. - -sche (discuss) 06:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The {{hot word}} system doesn't really work unless the template is removed only by an RfV decision (based on achieving or failing to achieve attestation over more than a year). I guess I'll but a watch on both hotword categories. DCDuring (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "(informal) A rarely used nickname for the 2000s (decade)." Really? --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


As Modern English. DTLHS (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Have searched Google Books and full text for various forms. Only Middle English, silly spellings for “missed” and things like that, and this of which I do not know what it is. Not even r/Anglish has it, so it seems to be an a priori fabrication. Fay Freak (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


Are either of these citable in English? 2600:1000:B12D:BCB4:F812:1228:F7B0:5067 22:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


As per WT:FICTION, looking for cites "independent of reference to that universe"; more precisely, uses out of context in an attributive sense. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 19:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Before anyone asks, the RFV is still ongoing; the IP that created the page just keeps removing the template (I have already reported to WT:VIP). SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 00:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe it is a Filipino name or nickname, or is used as such in Bienvenido Santos' "Scent of Apples". Can't find a direct use on google books, but see it here. GaylordFancypants (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


"To cut away or cut off. To plane off." SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 14:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It mostly appears in lists of words that did not stand the test of time, but I did manage to fine one actual use (on the citations page). Kiwima (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


Related to above, same editor who created the entry and only information about the words is that they used to be part of some dictionary but were removed. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 14:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "(slang, theater) makeshift; improvised; substituted.". I know it's slang, but I can't still find anything. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 16:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Definition to be changed. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 17:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)