Wealth Maker: Wiktionary - Recent changes [en]: Wiktionary:Requests for verification

Wiktionary - Recent changes [en]

Track the most recent changes to the wiki in this feed. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

Jun 25th 2012, 09:41

Revision as of 01:15, 25 June 2012 (edit) Equinox (Talk \| contribs)		Latest revision as of 09:41, 25 June 2012 (edit) (undo) Robin Lionheart (Talk \| contribs)
Line 2,717:		Line 2,717:

	:: To expand on this: it is in our interests ''not'' to copy the silly, mostly unused words that are published annually as "cool words of the year" (or whatever), and rather to behave reasonably and rely on evidence. Half the "words of the year" were never used. [[tweetheart]]? fuck off. [[User:Equinox\|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox\|◑]] 01:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)		:: To expand on this: it is in our interests ''not'' to copy the silly, mostly unused words that are published annually as "cool words of the year" (or whatever), and rather to behave reasonably and rely on evidence. Half the "words of the year" were never used. [[tweetheart]]? fuck off. [[User:Equinox\|Equinox]] [[User_talk:Equinox\|◑]] 01:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
		+
		+	::: '''Keep''' and '''delete''' are for RFDs. We're discussing an RFV. ~ [[User:Robin Lionheart\|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin Lionheart\|talk]]) 09:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

	== [[Florida flambe]] ==		== [[Florida flambe]] ==

Latest revision as of 09:41, 25 June 2012

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for verification

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new \| history \| Archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification add new \| history \| archives \| Index Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion add new \| 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 moves, mergers and splits add new \| history Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.
{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-cjkv}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} - {{context needed}}

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

Scope of this request page:

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

Templates:

{{rfv}}
{{rfv-sense}}
{{rfv-passed}}
{{rfv-failed}}

Shortcut:

[edit] assholeocracy

Though blessed by mention by Geoffrey K. Pullum, I don't think this and the purported alternative forms meets our standards for inclusion. DCDuring TALK 22:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Arseholeocracy does get one Google Book hit which looks like a valid, usable one, but the other two get absolutely NOTHING anywhere that I can find. If you want to leave 'em 30 days do, but they look like clear failures. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

IANAL, but I believe in due process. DCDuring TALK 22:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It really ought to be proctocracy anyway. —An gr 11:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If assholeness and and assholic and assholedom are citable I bet these are too, we love our insults.Lucifer 20:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, assholocracy was already (and remains) listed in Appendix:List of protologisms/A-P. If this gets successfully attested, it should be removed from there. ~ Robin 22:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I've created proctocracy, which just barely satisfies our criteria for inclusion. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I've done a bit of research, and added cites to the page. After I'd added up to six (6) on the page itself, I went ahead and created a citations page, at Citations:assholocracy. -- Cirt (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking just at the form assholocracy, it's now adequately cited (just about — some of them fail the use-mention distinction by being people defining the word, but there are at least three using it), so keep that one. I don't know about the other spellings. Equinox ◑ 02:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If you examine the citations page, Citations:assholocracy, you'll see that the other uses linked above, are cited, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Update: I've since added citations to assholocracy, arseholeocracy, and assholeocracy. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

assholeocrat has two citations which meet Wiktionary's standards, arseholeocracy has one, the others have none. :/ - -sche (discuss) 07:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

And I really can't find any more in books or on Usenet. - -sche (discuss) 07:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, bear with me, I'm in the process of doing additional research on this. -- Cirt (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Update on status of citations: The citations page at Citations:assholocracy now has three (3) cites to Usenet, one book cite, and three (3) cites to newspaper articles that are archived themselves via database archives including LexisNexis. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

When I count the citations, I arrive at different numbers:

assholeocrat, assholeocrats: one use each
Arseholeocracy: one citation which may be a mention, one non-durably-archived use, both capitalised sic
assholocracy: several mentions; one capitalised use IF this is durably archived, one more IF this is

By my count, [[assholocracy]], [[assholeocracy]] and [[arseholeocracy]] all fail RFV. - -sche (discuss) 02:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if we could please keep [[assholocracy]] for now, keeping in mind I've worked quite a bit on the research and its citations page at Citations:assholocracy has ten (10) citations. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems unreasonable to individually tally singular assholeocrat from plural assholeocrats for RFV purposes. Surely we needn't separately attest every regularly-formed plural of every noun. My inclination would be to count minor spelling variations like assholocracy and assholeocracy as the same word, too. ~ Robin (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this analysis by Robin, and if we tally these citations, there are clearly plenty for more than adequate attestation. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Standard practice is to accept singular and regularly-formed plural forms together; I put them on the same line in my meticulous count of the citations for this reason, not to imply that they should be treated separately. Different spellings are not conflated in RFV, however. Per RFV policy, which is stated at the top of this page, I have closed this months-old RFV by deleting all of the entries, as they are insufficiently cited and fail RFV. The citations which have been gathered so far, including the ones which are non-durable and do not count for RFV purposes, remain on the Citations pages, and more citations can be gathered there. - -sche (discuss) 20:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This action is premature. There was an ongoing effort to add additional cites to the citations page. And an emerging consensus in this subsection not to delete this. Please undo this deletion so we can further discuss this. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Cirt, in fairness, this RFV was open for six months, and you've been gathering cites for four.

I gave assholocracy an {{only in}} stub pointing to its still extant Appendix:List of protologisms entry, and encouraging collection of evidence on the Citations page. I expect this word will eventually get enough published uses to meet CFI, but it doesn't seem to be there yet. ~ Robin (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Can this meet WT:FICTION? -- Liliana • 16:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't from a fictional universe, though. This refers to a real, physical object. WT:BRAND, maybe? --Yair rand 04:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No it's from a fictional universe; the fact that you can put this on a card doesn't matter. I mean books are written on paper and paper is a physical substance, but the ideas expressed on the paper can be in a fictional-only context. See Citations:Baby Pokémon for in universe cites, ironically enough. Never actually watched Pokémon, well ok a couple of times, but aren't Baby Pokémon in the show as well as the card game? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are two separate quotes from Talk:Baby Pokémon, chosen by me simply because I agree with them. See that talk page for the whole conversation, including other arguments and counterarguments.

Basic Pokémon and Baby Pokémon aren't fictional characters within a game the way that Pikachu is. They are types of cards, like a jack, only in a far lesser-known game. --Yair rand 22:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
(...) "Basic Pokémon" is not a character, in the sense that it does not have a role in a fictional story. It is an object of a game. To be fair, someone could conceivably utter a sentence like "My Basic Pokémon defeated yours!", that does seem to rationalize the game object as a character. However, that is not exclusively a privilege of Pokémon; for one can do the same thing with chess pieces, as well: "My pawn took your queen." --Daniel 23:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

—This unsigned comment was added by Daniel Carrero (talk • contribs).

So you're saying that they are a fictional breed or type, not a single specific character. The same goes for Pokémon, which already failed. Something similar might be Imperial Stormtrooper (a specific type of character in Star Wars, but not a single entity like Han Solo) — for which we do have an entry, presumably because it is used outside of that universe as a stock character type(?). Equinox ◑ 13:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was gonna say, a Baby Pokémon isn't a 'specific entity', but it is a fictional race/species/subspecies. Like I say, you can put a representation of anything on a card, it doesn't become nonfiction because you write it down or print it out. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

@Mg and Equinox:

I've seen some good, yet somewhat controversial, reasons for deletion of Baby Pokémon. For example, as I mentioned in another discussion, there are people who seem to give far more weight to components of chess and playing cards as "mainstream, or very old, or something like that" and apparently would want to see Wiktionary devoid of specific RPGs and whatnot. To some extent, it's reasonable to assume that people would want to see Baby Pokémon deleted on these or similar grounds.

However, I do defend that distinction: the card is not fictional, so please don't push WT:FICTION over it. "Baby Pokémon" is probably trademarked, anyway, so WT:BRAND would apply.

The single definition of the entry is: "A Pokémon card (of Pokémon Trading Card Game) that may evolve into a Basic Pokémon card."

It's worded not as a type of character (i.e. a fictional race/species/subspecies, like the well-known common nouns werewolf or mermaid; or an Imperial Stormtrooper), but rather a component of a game: It mentions "card", "game" and a single rule. We have one sense of "king" for the monarch and three senses for games (chess, checkers and the playing card). The playing card "king", just like any "Baby Pokémon" card, is not a fictional character, in the sense that it is not someone with a role in a fictional story.

Whether we will want to define just the best-known components of games, or all components of all games, or all compoinents of only the best-known games (for example, by defining even the most obscure concepts of chess) or use grey areas like WT:BRAND (that may or may not justify the inclusion of some terms of specific game franchises) is a separate issue. --Daniel 22:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Mglovesfun: No, they are not. "Baby Pokemon" exists, to the best of my knowledge, exclusively within the card game. There are no books, video games, movies, TV shows, or stories of any kind that include "Baby Pokemon", afaik (excluding the meaning of just baby+Pokemon, of course). It refers to a category of card, used in a card game, and nothing more. I don't see how this could be at all different from the situation of jack, queen, etc. (None of the citations at Citations:Baby Pokémon are from in-universe, btw; they all refer to people playing the card game.) --Yair rand 14:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yair, do you then support having entries for all Magic: The Gathering cards, e.g. [1]? Or at least the capitalised "card types" [2]? Equinox ◑ 23:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

@Equinox: How is the trademark status of these terms? Shouldn't WT:BRAND apply to them all? While I don't know much about Magic, I assume it is indeed trademarked and therefore my best guess is that our restrictive policy would exclude most or all terms of that card game. The same holds true for Pokémon TCG. The initial question ("Can this meet WT:FICTION?"), and related statements about a fictional character or class of characters, are meaningless if we acknowledge that the card is real (not fictional). So, at least for now, I'd expect the entry to be kept per the lack of reasons for deletion, whereas I foresee that someone probably can elaborate better arguments to be discussed nonetheless. --Daniel 00:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, "Pokémon" (in "Baby Pokémon" or otherwise) is a registered trademark. It is inconceivable that the names of the many, many Magic cards are all registered trademarks; they might be written as non-registered ones (with the TM rather than (R)) but I haven't seen any evidence for this. Equinox ◑ 01:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

On the one hand, if jargon of Magic is not trademarked, then WT:BRAND does not apply and technically Wiktionary can freely cover terms specific to that card game (for example, by filling Planeswalker and others), just like we have a number of definitions for chess and playing cards and whatnot.

On the other hand, the lack of formal restrictive rules does not mean that the community would inherently endorse the preservation of entries for all untrademarked jargon of card games. Defining only a few terms of Pokémon TCG or Magic can be controversial enough, let alone engaging in the huge hypothetical task of "having entries for all Magic: The Gathering cards".

Deciding actual rules can be difficult, with grey areas and individual games to be considered. I am curious as to what would be the extent permissible for defining their jargon here, especially what to do with terms of poker as a mainstream game of playing cards; and terms of Tetris as a mainstream non-fiction electronic game.

The existence of entries like "Baby Pokémon", "Planeswalker" and "Battle Phase" (the latter is from Yu-Gi-Oh!) would naturally look inappropriate for someone who, for whatever reason, holds the belief that they shouldn't be in Wiktionary in the first place. I, however, would not object to having some of these terms, for feedback, contributions and discussions. Until big decisions are made by the community, I'd probably oppose any of these simple, catch-all solutions, among others: 1) indiscriminately adding all terms of Magic or another controversial game; or 2) indiscriminately deleting all terms of Magic or another controversial game. --Daniel 05:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This can probably be verified, but I'd RfD it, personally Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Input needed: This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

There's an even split above between those who think this fails FICTION (Liliana-60, Equinox) and those who think FICTION doesn't apply (Yair rand, Daniel Carrero). Mglovesfun agrees that it needs to meet FICTION but hasn't clearly taken a position on whether or not the citations do meet FICTION. Purplebackpack thinks it can be "verified" but should be RFDed. Those who think FICTION doesn't apply think BRAND does. Anyone (new or old) want to comment on whether the citations in the entry meet BRAND? - -sche (discuss) 21:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No proof that this company meets WT:COMPANY criteria. -- Liliana • 22:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It already has three citations. That would seem to be sufficient. SemperBlotto 22:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- And it survived RfD in March of last year. SemperBlotto 22:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- What? The citations don't fulfill any kind of formatting guidelines, and it is not clear where they came from. For all I know you might've just made them up. -- Liliana • 23:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  - "Greenpeace" is obviously attested even without recourse to citations in the entry: see google books:"Greenpeace". What you are looking for are citations meeting WT:COMPANY, but that is moot, as WT:COMPANY violates the consensus principle. --Dan Polansky 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
WT:COMPANY is unvoted-on and controversial. Other than that, this term is obviously attested, and has even three attesting quotations in the entry. I still maintain that WT:COMPANY should be removed from CFI. --Dan Polansky 23:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Dan Polansky, instead of complaining, why don't you start a vote on removing the company name criteria? -- Liliana • 23:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  - I might, but I would rather see the supporters of WT:COMPANY start a vote on accepting WT:COMPANY and lose it. You know of the supermajoritarian asymetry, right? AFAIK there is no consensual support for WT:COMPANY. The best information about such a consensus that we currently have can be found at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/2011/April#Poll:_Including_company_names, AFAIK. --Dan Polansky 23:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    - There is no such thing as a "reverse vote" that makes the opposite go into effect if the vote fails. Otherwise, the failure of the Serbo-Croatian vote would've meant that Serbo-Croatian as a header was banned from all of Wiktionary. -- Liliana • 23:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
      - I think you understand the problem. People should first agree to remove demonstrably controversial parts from CFI even if they agree with them, on the principle that CFI should track consensus. Until then, I see no point in me starting a vote. I do not take CFI as sacred; we should abide by CFI only to the extent to which it has consensual support. WT:COMPANY does not have consensual support, so we should not abide by it. The best procedure IMHO is to remove WT:COMPANY from CFI by a vote which even supporters of WT:COMPANY will support, and then the supporters of WT:COMPANY can try to get WT:COMPANY into CFI via a regular voted process rather than by an unvoted-on sneaking into CFI. I have seen no supporters of WT:COMPANY to agree to such a procedure, so I am not starting a vote. --Dan Polansky 23:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
        This kind of thinking only proves that you're scared of people accepting the company names rule in a vote, which would result in the deletion of all those precious company names you love so much. -- Liliana • 14:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
        If you believe that WT:COMPANY has consensual support, then it should be no problem for you to support its removal, so it can be voted into CFI via a fair regular process. If you do not support that fair process, chances are you suspect that WT:COMPANY cannot make it into CFI via a regular voting process. --Dan Polansky 16:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
        I would, but understand the fact that I have other wikis to attend and simply lack the time to set up a proper vote at the moment. -- Liliana • 20:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with comments by SemperBlotto (talk • contribs) and Dan Polansky (talk • contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the point in having this in a dictionary. The three citations don't even cover the usual (shaky) generic "the Marilyn Monroe of pop music" type of ground. Equinox ◑ 23:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a brand to me. DCDuring TALK 00:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

WT:BRAND: "A brand name for a physical product should be included if it has entered the lexicon." Greenpeace is not a physical product. Keep trying. --Dan Polansky 07:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

WT:BRAND doesn't apply; WT:COMPANY does. I suspect I would support removing the WT:COMPANY passage all together, but that's hypothetical as it's there now. So Greenpeace needs another attestable meaning. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Above, I've failed to realize that Greenpeace is not a company, so WT:COMPANY does not apply. WT:COMPANY says this: "Being a company name does not guarantee inclusion. To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested". --Dan Polansky 06:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Depends on your definition of "company". To me it would seem to be one. -- Liliana • 04:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  - Neither Wiktionary nor Merriam-Webster online have a definition of "company" by which Greenpeace is a company, unless you mean the sense "A group of individuals with a common purpose" with the example sentence "a company of actors", which AFAIK is not the sense used by WT:COMPANY. I understand WT:COMPANY as using "company" in one of the following two senses from Wiktionary: "An entity that manufactures or sells products (also known as goods), or provides services as a commercial venture. A corporation", "Any business, without respect to incorporation". Your personally invented broadened sense of "company" cannot have any bearing on a public regulation that does not define "company" and instead relies on the most prevalent relevant use of the term "company" by the language community. --Dan Polansky 08:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    - IMO Greenpeace is a business (Chambers: "a trade, profession or occupation"), because it is a capitalist entity that operates to achieve a goal, even if the goal is (possibly) ethical rather than commercial. They publish advertising; they hire and fire employees; they have a unifying brand name. Okay, they don't manufacture metal widgets, but neither does Google. Furthermore, part of their organisation is Greenpeace Ltd. = limited company = a company. Equinox ◑ 23:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
      - Non-profits are not businesses, by my understanding of the word "business". Organizing people together to achieve a common goal is a characteristic of a human organization, a term broader than business. What capitalist entity refers to I have little idea; the term is fairly uncommon. The talk of metal widgets is off-topic, as Wiktionary definition of "company" quoted be my above refers both to products and services, so Google nicely fits the definition of a company. It all comes down to whether non-profits are usually ranked as companies; I believe they are not. --Dan Polansky 09:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I suppose any real-world facts are irrelevant to our scholastic debates on our definition of the word "brand", but, FWIW:
- 1991 Mar-Apr, Mother Jones Magazine, page 86:
  But the international office in Amsterdam holds ultimate power through control of the Greenpeace trademark, which it licenses to the national offices.
- 2004, Rex Weyler, Greenpeace: how a group of journalists, ecologists and visionaries ...^[3], page 559:
  In the discussions about trademarks, it had been suggested that "Rainbow Warrior" should be registered. "This would be a mistake," I told McTaggart. "Greenpeace" was a legitimate trademark.
- 2009, Christopher Heath; Anselm Kamperman Sanders, Spares, repairs, and intellectual property rights: IEEM ...^[4], page 133:
  One of the issues was whether the use of the name 'GREEN PEACE' on the defendants' hang-tags, shopping bags, sales memos, credit card receipts, business cards, and mailing list application forms constituted 'use as a trademark'
- 2008, Avril Adrianne B. de Guzman, Greenpeace cyberadvocacy: Message strategies and the framing of ..., page 4:
  In 1995, brand experts placed Greenpeace in the league of Coca-Cola, Shell and IBM in terms of consumer brand awareness (Upsall & Worcester as cited in Jordan, 2001). "As a trademark, Greenpeace is right up there with Levi's
—This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) 00:06, 15 February 2012.
- Greenpeace may well be a brand (I don't know), but it is not a brand of physical product. But this I have already said in my post from 07:11, 12 February 2012 above; it suffices for you to read it again. You have a history of denying the "physical product" part of the CFI wording, accusing me of lawyering and literalism when I highlight the "physical product" part of the wording. So here I go again, highlighting what CFI actually says. Again, physical product is the keyword here; this is what I am pointing out with regard to WT:BRAND. --Dan Polansky 09:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  - [5]—msh210℠ (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
    - If you go to oami.europa.eu/CTMOnline/RequestManager, you can find the Trademark registration for Greenpeace in its full detail. Trademark Number 0900437 – registered 2006

Nice classification 41 – goods and services - Education, including educational services, providing of training, arranging and conducting of courses, training; publication, releasing, lending out and distribution of books, newspapers, magazines, CD-ROM's, video films and other publications, whether on data carriers or not; composing, producing, directing and executing of audiovisual programmes, among others via the Internet; film and video film production, arranging and conducting of congresses, seminars, readings and other educational activities; photographic, film and video reporting; organization of educational activities, among others concerning politics, political formation and training; arranging and conducting of workshops, courses and educational events with the intension to raise social consciousness about the environment and nature. -- ALGRIF talk 11:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Input needed: This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

I consider this to fail the current terms of BRAND (and thus fail RFV), which differ from those which were in effect when this RFV began. Anyone disagree? - -sche (discuss) 21:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. "All words in all languages" takes precedence - and this word has four good citations. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You have it backwards: lex specialis derogat legi generali. - -sche (discuss) 22:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Tagged but not currently listed; it was archived without being resolved. Previous discussion here. From the List of Oldest Tagged RFVs. Some senses already have some citations. - -sche (discuss) 07:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, times have changed since that discussion. It looks fine to me. Can we remove the tag now? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Nah, that's what happened last time (the tag was removed without the senses having been cited). It actually needs to be cited this time around. I'll see if I can cite it. - -sche (discuss) 21:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The part of the first definition that says "defines himself" seems a little odd. Also, the second citation of the first noun definition no longer exists. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I've cited as many senses as I could find, and de-tagged the ones with three citations as RFV-passed, and banished the others to the citations page as RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (Australian) Earth closet.
Seriously? Note the demonstrably non-durable citation. — Pingku^dimmi 12:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

There are hits for the word, but not necessarily for the Australian part: [6] Chuck Entz (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

To clarify: the word is used in Australia, but it doesn't seem to be particular to Australia. It's of English origin, and used worldwide Chuck Entz (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Examples from Google Books, though they differ in capitalization and/or punctuation: [7], [8], [9]. Also something from Commons showing the un-abbreviated version, though I don't know how to link to it without displaying it here(**now I do, thanks!**): Henry Moule's earth closet, improved version c1875. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I added four citations for e.c. meaning "earth closet," two from the nineteenth century. --BB12 (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, three citations. --BB12 (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Noun: "An unfavorable card or token, or undesirable or worthless item in any of several games or game shows (such as Let's Make a Deal)." And verb: "To give an undesirable or worthless item to." Equinox ◑ 18:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added five cites for the noun. Most of them aren't really natural flowing use of "zonk", but together I think they make a case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 08:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've modified the definition and added three citations. - -sche (discuss) 20:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There are currently three cites, but the first one is not really a use (It's a mention of the Sofa King brand slogan), and the second is not being used seriously, it's a deliberate reference to the controversy over the slogan. Ƿidsiþ 11:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a radio station and a band which have taken on this name, so it's caught on in at least a minor way. "I love you sofa king much!" on blogs. Don't know if that counts. kwami (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Arlaina Tibensky (2011) And Then Things Fall Apart, Jenny Hollowell (2010) Everything Lovely, Effortless, Safe, Avram Mednick (2010) Pattaya Hash. That should be enough. It is marginal; perhaps we should mark it as rare? kwami (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

But "Phở King delicious!" is probably out. I only found one citation of that in GBooks. kwami (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I would reserve the word "rare" for terms that were also rare on the Web as a whole. The punning use seems common enough on blogs. DCDuring TALK 12:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the first one is a use.

The current definition is too dependent on the proper noun use. "Sofa King" can be used as a generic euphemistic, filter-defeating homophone in a broader context. DCDuring TALK 12:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have heard of this, in fact more than once, I think. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The entry needs clean-up, but seems to have sufficient citations. - -sche (discuss) 05:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Has been detagged by Kwamikagami. - -sche (discuss) 20:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"A simple acquaintance especially a known person that is not actually held in high regard or considered to be a sincere friend." I only know it as "a friend on facebook". Mglovesfun (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Capitalisation looks dodgy too, since Facebook is written with capital F. Oh it's Lucifer. Right. Equinox ◑ 00:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Facebook logo has a lowercase f. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Boo yah! And it's typically not capitalized unless its academic writing!Lucifer (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. Look, it's capitalised in general Web results far more often than not: [10] Equinox ◑ 12:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, can we cite it with this meaning? It's often said that a lot of one's Facebook friends aren't really friends but rather acquaintances, but I don't think that justifies this definition. It's just a common idea, not a definition per se. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like calling something other than a definition simply because the term is disliked, all words in all languages and it's a hella set term.Lucifer (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Friend has this covered. Are there citations for "Facebook friend" capitalized or not that demonstrate this is worthy of inclusion? BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 22:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Supposed to be English. I don't think so. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Contributor cites and Italian-English dictionary in the references, hmm. Presumably if Italian, it's loaned directly from French. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems really in French and Italian, more common in Italian, even a search on books.google.fr gets more Italian hits than French ones, and zero hits in English. Humorously, a few of the French hits actually refer to a pregnant woman (that is, a "baby-carrier"). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have converted it to Italian (after a bit of research). SemperBlotto (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I unstroke the title because it might be a bit hasty. gbc returns some valid results:

sense 1 : "A porte enfant is one of Bianca Maria's favourite gifts"; "If Baby belongs to a rich family and has a nurse, he is placed in a porte-enfant (like that described in Babyhood, Vol. I., No. II, p. 337) and is carried out to walk"; "One bore a baby -- In a padded porte-enfant -- Tied with a sarsanet ribbon -- To her goose's wings". And in this modern brochure : "It can be used as a porte enfant and a rocking chair, also with rocking function."; as well as on this site, or this site.
sense 2 : "The antiheroic monster figure Abel Tiffauges is motivated by his double mission of fulfilling his destiny as a porte-enfant, the symbolic bearing of a child, as well as by his need to interpret his reality"

Note that sense 1 may be divided into two senses: the modern handheld carrycot and the primitive ribbon wrapping (as in the poem above), which this book defines as "a sort of dainty lace and ribbon-trimmed cushion on which very young babies in most Continental countries are bound."

I agree there are very few examples, but they deserve some more attention imho. — Xavier,

[edit] various Polish terms

The Polish sections of the following (see #headshot and #trance, above, and Talk:podcastować): HP, FIFA, MacBook, Tottenham, Wimbledon, CAF, CONCACAF, AFC, UEFA, Barcelona; also these Polish words: freestyle'owiec, freestyle'ować, fristajlowiec, fristajlować, esemesować. I will accept links to (and I will myself look for) uses on Usenet or in books; it is not necessary to bother actually adding citations to the entries. - -sche (discuss) 03:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

speedy keep the abbreviations. The other words still need cites, of course. -- Liliana • 00:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The entry for "FIFA" says it has singular and plural inflected forms like "FIF-om" and "Fifie". Really? "CAF", "CONCACAF" and "UEFA" similarly have inflected forms; in contrast, "AFC" calls itself indeclinable. - -sche (discuss) 00:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sense: "(pejorative, slang) A mean or belligerent person." I've never heard this word used in a negative way. Has anyone heard it used pejoratively? Ultimateria (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I have: "don't mess with that guy, he's a real badass". My impression is that the pejorative uses for such terms tend to come first, then evolve through a grudging respect phase before arriving at the "cool, in an unconventional way" stage. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Moved from RFD. This is a trademark and so needs to meet WT:BRAND standards. -- Liliana • 11:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Cited. Hope this is OK. — Xavier, 02:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I only like the Konrath quotation. The first use is actually on page 105, but it's also a bit ambiguous. Shipside might also be okay, but Ollila indicates it's a recording device. None of the others are even close, in my opinion. DAVilla 03:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get it. I have the feeling you are only discussing sense #3. For the record, sense #1 and #2 were the only ones that were originally challenged by this RFV. Sense #3 was added by me because I found usages (as a device) that wasn't matching #1 and #2.

Anyway, I see no problem discussing sense #3 here. You say that Ollila uses the word as a recording device. I agree. But, as the other two citations, it matches the definition I gave for sense #3: "A MiniDisc player or recorder". So, where is the problem exactly with sense #3? And what about senses #1 and #2 that were originally submitted for verification? — Xavier, 09:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know the third sense wasn't challenged (or perhaps I should say, that it hasn't been yet). Sorry, I had just assumed it was.

Yes, I read the quotes for all three. For those first two definitions as well, my opinion is that the quotations don't meet CFI. The Ollila excerpt is correctly categorized but doesn't count as one of three needed citations that use the term without clearly indicating what the product is, per WT:BRAND. DAVilla 21:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Contemptible black person. Cannot see any CFI-compliant usages referring to a person, only the SoP "nigger + nose", i.e. the nose of a black person. Equinox ◑ 00:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not a black person with a nose, it's mocking someone for having a characteristically african nose, or a large nose, or comparing them with such in the latter case if they only have remote black ancestry or none at all.Lucifer (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The definition says "A contemptible black person" which is what I am challenging. Equinox ◑ 10:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Cited, IMHO. This kind of metonymy is hardly unusual and not really entry-worthy, IMO. The definition gives two alternative definitions linked with "or". They seem distinct to me. DCDuring TALK 11:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Aren't those all mentions? —Ruakh_TALK 04:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If so, there has been error in previous discussions. I don't see how reported speech is the same as a mention. The mere existence of quotation marks has not been interpreted as indicating a mention. DCDuring TALK 11:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

And indeed, the mere existence of quotation marks does not indicate a mention. But those sentences don't even attempt to work "nigger nose" into the grammar of the sentence; in each case it's "called him 'nigger nose'" or "called me 'nigger nose'" or the like. If they were works of fiction, and we were confident that "nigger nose" was the entire utterance, we could say that fictional characters were using the term (which would count), but as it is, these books are simply claiming that unnamed other people have used this term; so even if we accept these claims (i.e., if we treat these books as reliable sources for these claims — an honor that we don't generally afford even to dictionaries), I think we'd have to give the quotations as " […] nigger nose […] " and metadata appropriate to the anonymous quotees. And personally, I don't really want to have three cites that are all identical, and that are all attributed to entities such as "someone's sister and other children". —Ruakh_TALK 12:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the 1998 citation might be valid, but I agree with Ruakh that the rest aren't. - -sche (discuss) 04:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a novel extension of the use-mention distinction to include reported speech. What is the principle behind this judgment? Can the principle(s) not be subjected to scrutiny?

Is it that all reported speech concerning a single word is a mention? Or is there something about some class of which this term is a member that makes it subject to different rules? DCDuring TALK 08:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Part of it is that the citations, especially the 1998 and 2001 citations (the former of which comes closer than the others to actually using the word as part of the sentence, although it still doesn't come very close), don't convey the suggested meaning "contemptible black person or person with a large or disliked nose". The 1942 citation supports a sense "one with a black nose [like a nigger's]". Perhaps the definition could be changed to {{n-g|An insult.}} or something like the def of other meaningless insults (cuntfucker, dipshit, etc)...? - -sche (discuss) 17:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That is logic I understand and agree with, in principle at least. A non-gloss definition would be perfect. After all, the "etymology" (components) of the term would clearly suggest what underlying meanings it might have, though apparently users and contributors might be confused by the polysemy. DCDuring TALK 19:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be interesting to have to find three cites meeting a strict conveying-a-sense standard for each sense and subsense of a term like marriage. DCDuring TALK 19:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "midget". This is supported by a single figurative citation, that doesn't fall under the main definition. —Michael Z. 2012-03-12 00:50 z

Rfv-sense "A member of a fictional, primitive race of teddy-bear-like creatures." The first quotation mentions tripping a walker, a reference to a specific scene in Return of the Jedi, and not "independent of reference to that universe" —Michael Z. 2012-04-01 17:13 z

Nope. See talk page. DAVilla 03:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I read that book. It is referring to any walking robots, not to walkers as they are seen in that movie. That's what makes the Ewok reference funny. DAVilla 03:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't say "robot," an English word, it says "walker," a trademark if LucasFilm Inc. —Michael Z. 2012-04-03 14:54 z

Google begs to differ: google:robot+walker shows numerous instances of "walker" being used to describe some generic non-Star-Wars walking contraption. It looks like Lucasfilm has trademarks on specific kinds of "walker", such as "scout walker" or "Imperial Walker", but not on the generic term itself. (google:walker+trademark+lucasfilm) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

We don't attest using Google, and citations of robot walker are just evidence that walker alone means "something that walks," and not "walking robot." But this is academic. The quotation describes a specific scene in the Ewok movie. It's not an independent use of the term. —Michael Z. 2012-04-03 16:28 z

We have Appendix:Star Wars for terms like this. Depending on on whether we attest that non-Star-Wars sense, we should move it there, or link to it from there. ~ Robin (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

@Michael -- The links to Google weren't intended as citable attestations, merely as refutation of your claim that Lucasfilm has a trademark on the generic term walker. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Anyway, "Ewoks" using a cable to trip a giant mechanical "walker" is not independent of Star Wars. —Michael Z. 2012-04-03 17:49 z

I'm certainly happy to concede that point. And, FWIW, the quote currently showing for the midget sense seems to be used less to mean midget in the broad sense, and more to mean a specific person who is a midget and who played a part as an Ewok in the Star Wars franchise. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't even realized that. —Michael Z. 2012-04-03 18:47 z

Why, because it says "Ewoks"? Then what the heck would be considered independent? I'm not conceding anything. The passage has nothing to do with Star Wars apart from that humorous reference. It's a completely legitimate quote, whatever your misguided opinions may be. DAVilla 03:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I shall then point out that "nothing to do with Star Wars apart from" is the same as "something to do with Star Wars." If the author wrote a humorous passage that depends on having seen Return of the Jedi, then it is not independent of Star Wars. —Michael Z. 2012-04-05 06:41 z

No, it's not the same as having something to do with Star Wars. The Robert Whiting quotation in CFI has nothing to do with Star Wars apart from the comparison to Darth Vader. Basically, in other words, it has nothing to do with Star Wars.

It's incorrect to conclude that the Darth Vader quotation is invalidated because understanding that metaphor requires knowledge of the character. Why would that conclusion be incorrect? Because the quotation is in CFI as an example of a valid citation! There's obviously going to be some connection between a statement using a term from a fictional universe and the fiction universe that it references. The point is that the citation does not discuss nor is embedded in the world of the fictional universe.

What my words meant, which you've tried to twist, is that there is a reference to Ewoks, with use of that very term, and nothing else to do with Star Wars. Daniel Wilson could have just written:

Tripping a walker the size of a house is difficult but not impossible. You will need high-tensile wire and suitably grounded posts.

This is his advice on, as the title says, how to survive a robot uprising. None of this specifically references Star Wars. It makes sense far outside of that fictional world. You do not have to consume any of Lucas's works to appreciate it, only to appreciate the next line, "ask you Ewok friends for help". DAVilla 22:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Davilla on this. The criteria exist to ensure that only terms which have come to be used outside of their fictional universes of origin are accepted into Wiktionary, and this term, at least in the 2005 citation, meets those criteria. - -sche (discuss) 22:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The criteria are specific: "Terms originating in fictional universes which have three citations in separate works, but which do not have three citations which are independent of reference to that universe may be included only in appendices of words from that universe, and not in the main dictionary space." Original emphasis.

The example isn't just independent use of the name Ewok. The entire description of the scene, and the use of "walker," are specific references to the movie. DAVilla wrote himself that the passage depends on these references for its humour.

Dudes, really! If you really think this is an English word, just a third quotation that clearly meet the letter or spirit of the guideline. You might have been able to do that several times over in the time you've spent arguing that this lame quotation is something that it isn't. The requirement is just three little little quotations. If you can't be bothered to find that, then maybe it isn't an English word.

By the way, the Stuart Heritage quotation seems to be from a website, and not any durable source. —Michael Z. 2012-04-10 16:25 z

FWIW, I managed to find a reference to robot "walkers" that predates Star Wars:

1976, Problemy upravleniia i teorii informatsii (published in Hungary), volume 5:
[…] dynamics of six-legged walkers, movement control system structure, […]

- -sche (discuss) 18:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What indicates that that doesn't just mean "something that walks?" If it said "dynamics of six-wheeled vehicles" that wouldn't prove that vehicle means "robot". (Incidentally, the Star Wars walkers are manned vehicles, not robots, in case that matters.) —Michael Z. 2012-04-03 18:47 z

It is a generic sense of "walker" = "something that walks" (incidentally, I will broaden our currently human-only entry on [[walker]] accordingly). My point is that the Star Wars franchise also used this generic sense; I'm reinforcing Eirikr's comment that Lucasfilm doesn't own the word "walker" and the use of that word in the 2005 citation is thus not (in itself) a reference to Star Wars. The use of "Ewok" is a reference to Star Wars, but I'm not sure whether the citation meets our standards of not otherwise being about Star Wars, or not. - -sche (discuss) 21:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "disagreeable person," "deep-voiced person." The alternative is to use all of the quotations to support the original definition "the Star Wars character," but in that case no citation can be considered independent, can it? —Michael Z. 2012-03-12 03:52 z

Got "disagreeable person" and added an entry for Jabba the Hut, too. No luck on the voice, but I wasn't thorough. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The first two disagreeable person quotations are near-duplicates by the same author, and not independent of Star Wars, as is evident from the note. —Michael Z. 2012-03-27 18:42 z

All of the "disagreeable person" quotations so far seem to refer to a tough employer or boss, and not to just any "disagreeable person". --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Does the "same author" issue violate "in at least three independent instances" of the CFI or something else? I don't think these (or perhaps just the first one) are independent of "Star Wars." The footnote makes it clear that the use was by people involved with "Star Wars," not something in the movie itself. Also, although I did not put them up, I earlier found other citations that were definitely outside of the scope of "disagreeable" such as immoral. Perhaps the meaning should be expanded. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

See Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Independent. The second quotation fails by both "by the same author" and "verbatim or near-verbatim quotation" criteria. The earlier edition is the exact same article, merely with changed real names like "Atari" to pseudonyms like "Ashibe Research Laboratory."

And neither is independent of the intellectual-property owner of Jabba the Hutt™, LucasFilm, through a direct mention.

Finally, these usages are all applying the proper name Jabba the Hutt as a nickname, in specific reference to the actual character from Star Wars. None of them supports the definition of "a Jabba the Hutt" being a disagreeable person. This also goes to the second sense's "looks like Jabba the Hutt," a references to the actual Jabba the Hutt. —Michael Z. 2012-04-01 01:26 z

CFI says the quotation has to be "independent of reference to that universe". Where does it say it has to be independent of the intellectual-property owner? That rule sounds made up to me. I do agree that they refer to the character though. For this CFI requires use "out of context in an attributive sense". Disagreeable, fat, or deep voice are the attributes. None of the quotations appear to be used in a context of anything to do with Star Wars apart from this reference. I propose that they be merged into a single sense defining the character. DAVilla 04:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

LucasFilm created and owns that universe. The note explicitly explains that the nickname came from and is associated with that universe.

Only three of the quotations use the name as an attributive proper noun: "Jabba the Hutt tide [. . .] Jabba the Hutt moment," "Jabba the Hutt torso," "Jabba the Hutt voice." The others refer non-generically to the specific entity.

By "defining the character," I guess you mean defining the term as the name of the character. This is disallowed by Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Names_of_specific_entities: "No individual person should be listed as a sense in any entry whose page title includes both a given name or diminutive and a family name or patronymic." [Updated] —Michael Z. 2012-04-03 15:25 z

What does it matter what the note says? We know where the nickname comes from with or without an explanation. This is not WT:BRAND; there is no prohibition against crediting the reference. Like your claim that it should be independent of the intellectual-property owner, this is another rule you've confused.

I've struck this because I'm not happy with the level of negativity in this discussion when there's no sense in fighting over it. There are two quotations from Allucquére Rosanne Stone. We should simply delete the later one that includes the note. Another citation is needed, regardless of anyone's opinion about the note. DAVilla 16:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No one said it had to be an attributive proper noun either. If your interpretation were correct, then the examples given of Darth Vader and Vulcan, which were included in the vote, would be invalidated. You cannot push your point of view with an interpretation that counters policy.

Do not quote me CFI when I authored the line. If you had read a little further you would have seen that fictional people and places are not governed by that section. You're oh for three, so why don't you spend a little more time reviewing CFI before you try applying it? DAVilla 03:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You may have written the line but you're not the king of it. It does not appear to say that fictional people and places are not governed by that section. Jabba the Hutt is both a term originating in a fictional universe and a name of a specific entity. —Michael Z. 2012-04-05 06:31 z

Okay, I can see the confusion. That wasn't my interpretation when it was written but we have to go by the text. The question then is if Jabba the Hutt is an "individual person". I would say no because he's a character, and not even a human character. Even if you think that bullet point applies, you'd still have to ask if Hutt is a patronymic. Again, I'd say no. Hutt is not the name of his father, it is the name of his race. DAVilla 21:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, we all have to go by concensus interpretation of the text (or in some cases consensus and to heck with the text).

But the guideline is about specific personal names, and not about any attribute of their referents, like race or species, or some arbitrary determination of which referent is real, mythological, or fictional. Sherlock Holmes, Gilgamesh the King, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Isaac son of Abraham, King Arthur, Bilbo Baggins, Lt. Commander Spock, and Winnie the Pooh are all specific names of persons, and ought to be treated as such according to our guidelines. —Michael Z. 2012-04-08 22:23 z

And 8=====D~~. Citations please. (And surely, surely it's not a punctuation mark. Symbol maybe?) Equinox ◑ 10:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

emoticon Lucifer (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be more equal signs?? SemperBlotto (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Haha, I usually write it with 8 equals signs but I frequently see it with the five, I guess not all men are created equal.Lucifer (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Can we get someone to do a usenet search on this?Lucifer (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Now tagged 8=====D~~ linking to this section.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

These emoticons exist. They're sort of like ASCII art since they're depictions using symbols. See http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=8%3D%3D%3DD~~~ and this page explaining them. There are many variants, but all represent the same thing. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Gilaki language. Seems like an ad hoc adaptation of Gilaki into Portuguese orthography. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 00:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy deletion, but it may well be worth keeping. Cites/formatting? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 03:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you mean Katakana rather than Romaji, in your change to the entry? - -sche (discuss) 03:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

God, yes, sorry; that was a stupid mistake. I've corrected the entry. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 04:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedia has a disambiguation page for it, see ja:w:テイラー. —Stephen ^(Talk) 15:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting that テイラー almost always means the name Taylor because it is a more modern transcription. The job of a taylor in the katakana fashion is usually テーラー (Google Image: テーラー, Google Image: テイラー). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "home". Tagged but not listed. The entry is linked-to from several places. - -sche (discuss) 23:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

POS is thoroughly mixed up for this entry- the literal sense is adverbial. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Okinawan. Tagged but not listed. Also linked-to from [[human]]. - -sche (discuss) 23:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 18:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "a convert to Islam" (noun), "to convert to Islam" (verb). IPs have repeatedly tried to remove these senses and been reverted. Both senses need context tags. Both senses derive from the argument, made by some Muslims, that all people are born Muslim, so those who "convert" really only "revert" (something which should be mentioned in the etymology, usage notes or context tags): but we need citations in which that notion isn't explained in the preceding paragraph, because books that use "revert" after explaining that notion are transparently only using the standard sense "to return, wholly or in part, to some preexistent form". - -sche (discuss) 00:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Cited the verb from three separate pro-Islam sources. That leaves the noun. Equinox ◑ 18:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! The quotations check out with regard to my test, above, and I was able to use the second journal to find one citation of the noun. - -sche (discuss) 05:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, now there are three citations for the noun, too, but two of them are from the same source (Islamic Society of North America), which isn't ideal. Equinox ◑ 23:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

google books:"a revert to Islam" has some more noun hits, if desired. —Ruakh_TALK 00:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to be surprised/corrected; contrary to my expecations, this does indeed seem to be used without explanation. RFV-passed. Thanks for citing both parts of speech, Equinox. - -sche (discuss) 21:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: Does anyone literally mean it as a person who will die soon (i.e. not joking or meaning "disaster" instead of "death")? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

In a word, yes. But it should say "a dead person", as will be a goner doesn't mean "will be a person who will die soon". Mglovesfun (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"Can't we stop it some way, Frank, as long as it's just beginning? He doesn't show it any other way yet. Won't he get well if we keep him away from the weed?" Jimmy's lips looked dry and his voice was husky. Wilson shook his head. "He's a goner if that's what it is. It may be a long time yet though."[11]

"He's a goner, George. He looks bad. He looks like a man in the last stages of--"[12]

I think it is not infrequently used of people who are merely doomed, not dead yet.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like the rfved sense is included within the "doomed" sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

A brand. DCDuring TALK 18:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't yet found it in English other than in italics or quotes. We should have it in some of Old French, Middle French, and French, whether or not we have it in English. DCDuring TALK 19:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Old French is listed with many citations here. However I'm not sure where to find citations for these two senses:

a period of wakefulness or partial wakefulness between periods of sleep.
the vivid sleep when one thinks one is still awake; lucid sleep

I'm going to add the definition it gives with a citation for 'dream'. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a pity the senses in question aren't attested; they're nice and useful. - -sche (discuss) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like Widsith (talk • contribs) to read the Godefroy entry and see if he interprets the citations differently to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense, the verb "having analogous feelings" (sic). It's plausible (look at the one citation I added, which Luciferwildcat had previously added to [[parkoured]]), but we'll need two more citations and a more intelligible definition. - -sche (discuss) 21:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Three senses, none of which I could find in Google Books or Groups. (If it does exist after all, should the plural not be shmen rather than shmans?) Equinox ◑ 21:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 02:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Can this be attested please? —Internoob 02:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added the entry for succisive that's in the NED [1ˢᵗ ed., 1919]; it quotes William Sclater's 1619 Exposition with Notes, upon the First Epistle to the Thessalonians and Henry Burton's 1629 Truth's Triumph over Trent, so that just leaves one more citation for us to find. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 03:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Supposedly Middle English for with, although with is Middle English for with. I just added an entry for the obsolete early-Modern English contraction w^th; perhaps the author meant that. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 04:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It was from a 19th c. reprint of a 15th c. book that does not show superscripts (even when expected/appropriate), so I wouldn't be surprised if you're right. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I added my reference. As a side note, I have seen at least 4 different spellings of with in Middle English texts. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It's listed in our oldest RFVs, but doesn't have an entry. The person who added the rfv said "English or Spanish?"; I'm not going to cite it right this second, but a Google Books search pretty clearly shows it used in English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

google books:"in Gringolandia" and google books:"en Gringolandia" show that it's used, both capitalised and uncapitalised, in both English and Spanish. I'll wave my hand at those cites and detag it soon if no-one objects. - -sche (discuss) 20:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Juno

I'm not familiar with these, and there's nothing obvious on Google Books (when I sift out the non-German books). - -sche (discuss) 08:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm from personal experience that both terms are widely used in spoken German. I don't know if I can dredge up Google Books hits, though, as the terms are usually used only in the spoken language, as the written forms Juni and Juli are less likely to be confused than the spoken forms. —An gr 21:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

What would you think of including the information in the Usage notes or Pronunciation section of Juli and Juni? If the terms are only spoken, not written, that might be most appropriate. - -sche (discuss) 05:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

They're primarily spoken, but I wouldn't say they're exclusively spoken. Certainly if I was transcribing speech or writing a narrative that contained dialogue I would want to spell Julei and Juno differently from Juli and Juni. The terms may be easier to find if you use common collocations like "im Juno" or "diesen Juno". Here's a book that uses Julei directly in its title, and here's a book that apparently uses "im Juno" when quoting a letter or telegram or something, but because of b.g.c.'s restricted "snippet view" I can't actually see it myself. —An gr 13:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: the craft of making various porcelain objects.

Added in diff, on 4 May 2009. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

-- Liliana • 00:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Present participle of withe#Verb ("to bind with withe#Nouns"). DCDuring TALK 01:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have (more or less) cited two senses of the English verb withe.

I noted mention of an etymology of with#Preposition that connects it with ancestors of English withe. That etymology doesn't fit with prevailing opinion.

There is a different etymology for a computing sense of withing relating to some way of associating two parts of an Ada program. That might be too specific to be includable, but I don't know. DCDuring TALK 03:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The fourth of the seven(!) etymology sections has three senses: which are supported by citations? (I will try to cite them and see on my own, but others are welcome to help.) - -sche (discuss) 03:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternative form of go around, with corresponding inflections such as went-around. I've never seen a phrasal verb behave like this. Equinox ◑ 09:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This does however have a noun sense, which I just added. -- Liliana • 23:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Needs 3 cites. — [Ric Laurent] — 21:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if it is cited, it is still SoP: AIDS + whore. -- Liliana • 22:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be cited, though I haven't checked the citations individually. Why would this be sum of parts? Which sense of AIDS and of whore? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It's well cited now but it's not SOP, it isn't used in any of the citations to describe a "prostitute" with "AIDS" but rather someone that "dirty" "unwanted" "gay" "diseased" "bitch" and "contemptible".Lucifer (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That it doesn't use the oldest or most literal sense of whore or even any sense that we yet have is not a sufficient argument. DCDuring TALK 23:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not used to refer to what the two words mean literally, and in fact it means something completely different. That is the definition of idiomatic. And that's just a fact.Lucifer (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to what you wrote not what you wish you'd written. DCDuring TALK 23:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

AIDS whore is defined as "nasty" that is very different than "late stage HIV prostitute" and that is idiomatic.Lucifer (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This collocation amounts to evidence supporting a sense whore ("contemptible person"), which should be easy to cite with other collocations as well as unmodified. DCDuring TALK 23:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The citations show in general it means dirty and directed at a disliked individual oftentimes of certain demographic groups.Lucifer (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

That would make it a lot like other terms of abuse constructed using the word whore. "Viking whore", "rotten ould whore", "idiot whore" are the examples in the citations at whore ("contemptible person"). Others that can be found include "cancer whore", "crack whore", "drug whore". There is a long history of the use of whore in compound insults without specific evidence that the target was a whore in any specific sense. DCDuring TALK 03:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Both crackwhore and AIDS whore are common set terms used a single word that mean more than the sum of parts.Lucifer (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Like I've said to you many times before, it is not enough for you to say "this must be kept, this is common, this means what I claim it means". You must provide evidence and not anecdotes. Equinox ◑ 02:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I said it means what the citations on the entry say it means, evidence that you could easily read honey.Lucifer (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The 2001 and 2006 citations seem crystal clear, and the others seem to line up with those. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "An apparatus which creates drag by pulling against a surface." Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 20:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

(the following comment was moved from the bottom of the page)
Rfv-sense
This can be verified. Any apparatus that creates traction or drag by pulling against a surface. In computer printer hardware, tractors are sprockets with which the continuous-form, z-form, sprocket-holed paper is pulled though the printer. —This unsigned comment was added by 41.135.83.135 (talk • contribs).

As in a tractor-feed printer. This is a "piece of machinery that pulls something," but it neither "creates drag" nor "pulls against a surface." That definition doesn't describe its function nor its method. —Michael Z. 2012-04-05 06:11 z

"Fox Sports Network" - tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 20:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The tagged has been removed by another editor (WF?). Restore it and reopen the RFV if you actually doubt the existence of the term. - -sche (discuss) 00:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Equinox ◑ 01:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Surely sense 1 is SoP ([[barely]] [[there]]), sense 2 is really the same sense, just figurative, and the third is likely just plain wrong. How can a woman's legs or cleavage be 'barely there'? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Poorly worded. They meant that (something) is revealing the legs or cleavage, and that (something) is "barely there" Chuck Entz (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought so; so it's the same as #2, which overlaps with #1, which is sum of parts (barely + there). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a sort of a play on two senses of bare/barely perhaps, but the play seems to me inherent in barely not in the phrase. DCDuring TALK 13:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Tagged and listed... see the discussion on the talk page. But no action was ever taken per that discussion: so, can we cite this, or should we bin it? - -sche (discuss) 02:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I used to be an MLB fan until the UK channel that broadcast it cut it. I watched baseball on TV for about 10 years, and I've never heard of this. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

May need a change in definition per the talkpage. Perhaps (noun) "(baseball) A situation in which the number two is relevant in many ways". May be citeable then (see the talkpage).—msh210℠ (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I only find 1 google hit. --Cova (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

One Google Book hit you mean; that one seems to be valid, but as you say, the only one. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly an error for harquebuze? Equinox ◑ 13:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

And it's not archaic either. The book was published in 1998. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 00:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

meaning the Internet. It refers to a network of stuff in the brain. --Cova (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hrm. The Wikipedia link goes to reticular formation, not reticular information. Equinox ◑ 20:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

See [13]. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

See these 6 bgc hits for "r. information" and "r. formation" on the same page. DCDuring TALK 21:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Aha, so it's probably in+formation, not "info". - -sche (discuss) 21:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't find a medical/biological definition of such an "in-formation" at OneLook, which has a few medical dictionaries. Of course, trying to find "information" or "in-formation" in this sense seems quite challenging. The occurrences of "reticular information" in the biology sense include many that are references to "reticular data". It is hard to find something with enough context to make a definition. DCDuring TALK 22:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I think "information" just refers to normal information, or data, making this SoP. "Reticulospinal tracts deep in the white spinal columns transmit important autonomic and reticular information that is essential for survival." Mglovesfun's link, above, suggests that this was added in relation to that Wikipedia article which was deleted as unsubstantiated. Equinox ◑ 22:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It would have been cool to find information = "in-formation" in scientific use. There were apparent uses of reticular information that seemed to fit "reticular in-formation". But that might suggest that biological "reticular information" would be SoP with the new definition of information = "in-formation". I give up on being the wiktionary discoverer of this. DCDuring TALK 22:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

"The use of inappropriate statistics to reflect a desired result (usually misleading, or omitting critical assumptions.)" The current citation doesn't really back this up, it just comes across as a metaphor. I'm not sure if this should be at RFD, as if it is just a metaphor rather than an idiom, it may not meet CFI (that is, WT:CFI#Idiomaticity). Mglovesfun (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The meaning seems about right. I think it is in widespread use in this sense. It should be at RfD, IMO. DCDuring TALK 13:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Also numbers game, numbers games. DCDuring TALK 13:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

A few examples from the British Hansard:

1987, Jeff Rooker, "Housing and Homelessness", Parliamentary Debates, British House of Commons:

I made it clear in a recent letter to the Minister, to which I do not expect him to reply tonight, that we will not play the numbers game of setting targets.

1985, "Interpretation", Parliamentary Debates, British House of Commons:

Mr. John Powley (Norwich, South): The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was careful to say that at any one time no more than four GLC officers were present in the Committee. He did not say that only four had ever been present. Is it not possible that, through the long hours, relays of four different people at different times have been involved in the argument?
Mr. Martin Stevens: That is what is called playing the numbers game. I do no more than thank my hon. Friend for his kind intervention.

1985, Jeff Rooker, "Inner Cities", Parliamentary Debates, British House of Commons:

The Secretary of State was quick to mention the problems of the 1960s and the 1970s. He criticised the quick-build policies pursued then. He later threw in the 1950s as well. That was when the numbers game was all. We see today the results of playing the numbers game.

1969, Eric Ogden, "Government Departments (Staffing)", Parliamentary Debates, British House of Commons:

Is it not as misleading to apply a simple numbers game to the Civil Service as it is to the police?

At least in the specific context of politics, it seems to be pretty well attested. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

(Addendum I personally think it's more than simply the sum of its parts - the Rooker quote from 1985 in particular definitely seems to be giving it a meaning beyond simply "a game involving numbers").Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Your cites are not for the actual term in question which is number game, not numbers game. Citations really belong in the entry, in your case [[numbers game]], preferably, IMO, under the sense to which they apply or on the corresponding citations page. The idiomaticity question may revolve around whether there is some value to pointing out that this is almost always a pejorative term that does not really refer to any specific real phenomenon in its widespread use. Personally, I think it is still SoP as there is a broad use of game#Noun in a pejorative sense. DCDuring TALK 16:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

and перка, Serbo-Croatian for "feather". Tagged but not listed. Several pages link to it; don't forget to remove it from those if it fails RFV. - -sche (discuss) 22:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

An uncited PoV definition. Is it attestable with this defintion? DCDuring TALK 14:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's a citation that looks like it's specifically non-religious: http://books.google.com/books?id=zC6u20RcEeIC&pg=PA254&dq=%22moral+Mafia%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pQRwT56HN6qviQepxvH-BQ&ved=0CF8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22moral%20Mafia%22&f=false

And here is one that means religion: http://books.google.com/books?id=JSRqvtkhbHoC&pg=PA177&dq=%22moral+Mafia%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MgVwT_SbN6akiAfU-oGMBg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=%22moral%20Mafia%22&f=false

BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that there is anything idiomatic in the usage, though it is conceivable. This usage seems parallel to collocations found at COCA of Mafia/mafia with digital, fossil-fuel, geriatric, literary, military, and nuclear, for which the constructed meaning is something "a mafia-like entity in the X arena", where X is some appropriate adjective. This is distinct from those collocations which have to do with attributes of the members, often ethnic. DCDuring TALK 18:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If mafia is redefined, then I can see this could just be the SOP. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

-- Liliana • 06:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I browsed Google for hits and found that the users of the term "fairy-tale hair" do not associate it only with hair that reaches to the gound. In fact, the definition "Any exceptionally beautiful hairdo for a woman* would be closer to the meaning than our disputed definition. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a real term with a very specific sense, but I have only ever encountered it online so far, or among hair enthusiants. I am familiar with this term as a technical term used in forums devoted to hair care, where it means hair that has never been cut. There is also the term fairy-tale ends, to designate ends of hair that are pristine. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "goggles"; the sense has been present in the entry from the beginning; it was tagged in 2009 but not listed. To be distinguished (by having a singular form) from "spectacles, glasses", which is listed on lunettes as plural-only. - -sche (discuss) 06:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hm, it looks like the "eyeglasses" sense, which I just noticed is French, is also attested in English: Citations:lunettes. Goggles for swimming I haven't found yet. - -sche (discuss) 06:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"The Moon or any moon." Requires citations in English, and uncapitalised; compare capped Luna. Equinox ◑ 01:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually started looking for citations of this sense several days ago (before it was added!), when I started considering it as a possible WOTD. My intention was to add the sense if I could find citations to support it... but I never found the citations to support it. Perhaps someone else will have better luck. - -sche (discuss) 02:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a little sketchy, but do you think it counts as a citation?

- 2006, Linda Rogers, Joe Rosenblatt: Essays on his works^[14], page 85:
  How else would you interpret the desperate invocation to the Moon, voiced by a half-sick Pierrot Lunaire, half lycanthropist: "moons moons / luna LUNA / LUNA MOON lovely luna / everybody's inevitable essence../ luna birth / the flypaper man cries for a moon / hungry for a moon...?"

--Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If we could find a third citation, I'd accept it, though I'd tag it as rare, possibly nonstandard. - -sche (discuss) 18:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"plural of pinyin". Seems not attestable. -- Liliana • 12:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

pinyines is Spanish, let it be clarified, although it's not attestable in any language. In English, "Pinyin" or "pinyin" seems to have a meaning "a romanization (such as gou)", of which "pinyins" is the plural used at academic conferences. - -sche (discuss) 18:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Evidently also French, because all I can find is this: [15]. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No, in French the plural form is, if any, pinyins. It is ordinarily invariable though. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 22:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the meaning is much more general than the one given. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This entry was created by IP user Special:Contributions/2.217.178.246, whose contrib list makes them look very much like the latest IP reassignment for our magic-obsessed Japanophile user. If so, this user is known for a high volume of edits, and a generally low level of lexicographic skill. (I cringe in anticipation of the ensuing crapflood of poor-quality work that will need to be sorted through and cleaned up.) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

But steely-eyed missile man isn't one of his (or hers). Mglovesfun (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Does this actually exist? All the listed derived terms stem from physio-, and no examples come to my mind right now which would be formed from just phys-. -- Liliana • 12:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Same for physi- I think, I can't think of anything that exclude the -o-. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly physiurgy (physi- + -urgy) and physiatrics. -- Liliana • 15:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Monophysite? --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

While trying to track down the Ancient Greek in the etymology (I'm not so sure it's correct), I discovered that this is just a derivative of a term in Appendix:English unattested phobias, and is very thin in actual usage- perhaps not attested enough for CFI. Is this any more worthy of mainspace than its parent? Chuck Entz (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This looks at best to be an alternative spelling of imbalance. I would say misspelling, but I don't know by what criterion other than no lemming having paved its way at OneLook. DCDuring TALK 18:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I've made the English section a {{misspelling of}}-entry. The Spanish section should be checked. - -sche (discuss) 06:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"An exclamation of excitement, boredom, or spontaneity." i.e. no actual meaning. Probably an Internet invention by one or two people. Cites? Equinox ◑ 21:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I found two on Google Books searching on "keek" "exclaimed": [[16]] and [[17]]. I found one on Usenet (Google Groups) [[18]], but it is nonsense, spam or something. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

At least one of those might be using the other etymology of "keek", i.e. might be exclaiming "look!" - -sche (discuss) 06:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The other is a children's fantasy book and appears to be simply made up for fun. I see no reason to keep this. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 18:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

[edit] ( ).( )

[edit] ( * )( * )

[edit] ( . )( . )

In the same vein as 8=====D, above. Oh, they're all plausible, but how can we search for such chars? - -sche (discuss) 22:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we create an appendix for emoticons? --Hekaheka (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

(Things in an appendix should still ideally be verifiable.) Equinox ◑ 18:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

These have got to, probably on usenet or some porn site. I had trouble finding some but a lot of search engines wont allow it. Little help?Lucifer (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I feel like we can trust that these are verifiable enough (if only from non-durable websites) to include in an appendix, I just don't know if we can cite them well enough (durably) to keep them in the main namespace. - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Difficulty of finding them using a search engine is not the same as nonexistence; indeed, the plausibility of their existence, which you admit, -sche, should arguably imply we keep them even if, due to technical difficulties, we cannot cite them. Moreover, such plausibility, especially when coupled with the difficulty of search, makes me wonder why these were brought to RFV altogether.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It's just three little quotations. If we really can't find that, then how can we be so confidant that these are verifiable? —Michael Z. 2012-04-10 03:40 z

I've withdrawn my RFV of ( . )( . ), because I've seen it before. I haven't seen the others before. I'll keep looking. - -sche (discuss) 03:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I still want to see each of these cited as a term, because I don't think they are terms. I may be able to find three durable examples of 3-line ASCII-art kitties and circus clowns, but that doesn't mean these pictures belong in a dictionary. Restoring the RFV. —Michael Z. 2012-04-11 06:14 z

Dude, don't make me create an entry for

    __            _       / _|          | |     | |_ _   _  ___| | __  |  _| | | |/ __| |/ /  | | | |_| | (__|   <   |_|  \__,_|\___|_|\_\

A picture of boobs is just a picture of boobs. —Michael Z. 2012-04-11 06:26 z

Sheesh, from the edit summary, I thought this was something in Ogham. :o -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think since these terms are hard to search for based on the characters that make them up we should hold off and give them an extra long period of time to find the sources especially since various editors have been able to say they have spotted them not we should not enter the ///___ version of fuck because it is not a common emoticon, and in any regards it is more of a drawing or alternate font of fuck and we already have an entry for it. But we have ) and ( etc.Lucifer (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind allowing a long period. But is there any evidence that these are used as words rather than just ASCII art pictures? —Michael Z. 2012-04-17 20:46 z

"(idiomatic) to sacrifice one's own life for a noble and loyal cause". Not evident from Google Books, where most matches (except for one rather opaque metaphor) seem to refer to literal suicide by train. Equinox ◑ 18:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Note diff. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Despite Ullman's removal of the RFV, he gave no explanation for the removal, there are no citations, and this is a sense that I'm certainly not familiar with. Perhaps there's some back story that I'm unaware of? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

IMO, It might mean "to commit suicide" or "to meaninglessly waste effort fighting the inevitable", but not the sense given. But it just seems like a live metaphor, not moribund enough to be an idiom. DCDuring TALK 18:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought it had a figurative sense (and would have thought that it had had that sense for a couple decades, at least), probably the one DCDuring describes... but so far, I find the same thing as Equinox on Google Books: literal uses only. - -sche (discuss) 18:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I have added the requested citations but I'm still not satisfied: they do not seem to match the sense given. It might be a mere metaphor but, judging by gbooks results, not an uncommon one if you add "to jump in front of a moving train" and "to stand in front of a moving train". So, I guess this expression may have its place here. Apart from this, all of those quotes are from 2009 and two of them seem to belong to the financial jargon. — Xavier, 22:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I doubt this meets our Criteria for Inclusion, specifically our requirement that terms have citations from more than one year ago, in durably archived media. It seems to be a neologism, and our CFI are specifically "meant to filter out words that may appear and see brief use, but then never be used again". - -sche (discuss) 01:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Please don't take this personally, Anatoli. I just think our CFI specifically exclude these newly-coined terms. - -sche (discuss) 01:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Single-word coinages are often a different case from multiple-word phrases, and outright coinages are different from translations. It is usually a mistake for anyone who does not speak a language to try to judge the validity of a term in that language, as it is for someone who doesn't know the language to try to argue with fluent, educated speakers about the spelling, forms, usages, and pronunciations. Most other languages are more conservative than English, and those who know a language well will usually agree on whether to accept or reject a given term. —Stephen ^(Talk) 06:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Funny enough, nothing in that statement says a single thing about WT:CFI. We don't try and judge the validity of a term; we try and discover if it meets CFI, whether or not it is "valid" or "invalid" in some sense.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that the definition is bad, as I cannot understand the meaning of the word from this definition (pink slime has several senses). Lmaltier (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not a definition, it's a translation. English terms are defined, foreign terms are translated. —Stephen ^(Talk) 06:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's useful. We shouldn't say that 唱片 means "record". That may be a translation, but out of context it doesn't tell the reader what 唱片 means. Heck, we should fix all those definitions that just say cat to make it clear whether the word applies to all members of the feline family, and whether it applies especially to the domesticated cat. розовая слизь needs to say enough to make it clear what it signifies in Russian, even if it takes a full definition to get there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That's how bilingual dictionaries work. It is extremely useful. I've been a professional translator all my life and I've used thousands of bilingual dictionaries, and they are very useful. A Russian-Russian dictionary gives definitions of Russian words; an English-English dictionary gives definitions of English words; a Russian-English dictionary gives translations of Russian words. I almost never use monolingual dictionaries that give definitions, I only use bilingual dictionaries that give translations. I would not waste my time trying to use a bilingual dictionary that gives definitions instead of translations, which is why all bilingual dictionaries give translations instead of definitions. —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That's how paper bilingual dictionaries and their immediate descendents worked. Among its values is an never ending supply of humor as novice users are given insufficient guidance to the use of language they aren't familiar with.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That's like saying novice surgeons who are given insufficient guidance to perform heart transplants in their freshman year of college. Novices translate the examples from their grammar textbooks in the classroom for their teachers, they don't do professional work. Not only is it how paper bilingual dictionaries worked, it's how digital bilingual dictionaries continue to work and how translators choose and use their dictionaries. Listen, I have tried to explain it to you and I am wasting my breath on you. You have no training or experience in the field and what you are saying is nonsense. I'm not going to discuss it with you any further. —Stephen ^(Talk) 09:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if you two are talking over each other. What we need (and currently lack the technological infrastructure to feasibly implement) is a way to specify translations, so that we can simply translate a foreign word, and have the user know which sense of the English translation we meant. For the time being, we can use short glosses, such as "record (disc)". -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 10:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Any of you heard of {{gloss}}? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it could be improved, but I'm hardly loosing sleep over it; it's as good as half the definitions on Wiktionary. It does literally mean "pink" "slime", as clicking on the individual words shows you, and if you look at the quotation, it shows you that it applies to the food sense.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

We could informally sit on this for a year and come back to it then.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Whenever I add a Spanish term I try to add every sense of it in the royal spanish academie to our page for it with (what sense it is): so that people will know each and every context of the term.Lucifer (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Created this page, then realised that my attestations weren't attestations at all, but just "We wish this word was still used" sites. Appears in quite a few collections of Victorian dialect as Herefordshire slang - Halliwell-Phillips, Wright, Cornewall-Lewis - and seems to be at least common enough to have developed a folk etymology (according to this dictionary, which also says that "dromedary" once meant the same thing). So, do any real uses of the word exist, or is this doomed to be unattestable? Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The single citation doesn't use the lemma, and the link appears to be broken. The best I could find is a direct reference to the Sanitarium ad, here. — Pingku^dimmi 14:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

See eat one's Wheaties. DCDuring TALK 14:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I can find cites for the UK/Irish version, to have had one's Weetabix (same product, very slightly different brand names), would they do? (Going to post here in the meantime, rather than putting in the article).

2012, Rob Brown, A Three Weetabix Man, The Grocer.

It's a good job Giles Turrell has had his Weetabix this morning.

2011, Rod Gilmour and Alan Tyers, England v India: fourth ODI as it happened, The Daily Telegraph

Excellent stuff from Finn. He's definitely had his Weetabix today: steaming in once again.

That said, I wouldn't object to the page being moved to "have had one's Weet-Bix" / "have had one's Weetabix". The today part doesn't seem to be vital - it's often replaced with "this morning"/"that morning"/"yesterday" or simply skipped altogether. Smurrayinchester (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Called a noun, defined as verb: "To search for nourishment, either by fishing, hunting, shopping, etc. to survive." Not in OneLook or Century, ergo recent or fanciful. DCDuring TALK 14:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

User's only contribution, and present only (as far as I can tell) as a surname. Sounds to me to be better suited for RFD (if not {{delete}}). --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I like to and IMO Wiktionary should give something not patently ridiculous a chance. A month should be long enough. We should try to capture any legitimate emergent use. I'm unwilling to trust opinion, even of the Solons contributing here. DCDuring TALK 11:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I also poked around, and didn't see a thing. If it can be cited, it will take superhuman effort. Calling all Solons... --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of Solonic response, I checked out Google Groups and found indications but not sufficient yet for attestation. The form foodening seems to be the most promising. I'm not sure about the exact sense. It seems more like "provisioning" than "searching for". See Citations:fooden. DCDuring TALK 12:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks sort of like an attempt to form something analogous to words like strengthen from strength or hearten from heart (see -en- Etymology 3) Chuck Entz (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

An eyebiting word. FWIW, I did a quick look-see and found one poorly written blog that supports the meaning as given here. Otherwise, the way that I understand the word is not quite the same tho it could be stretched a bit to that meaning. For me it has three meanings ... to give good, nourishment — to provision (from this witt, one could stretch to look for food ... soothfast, one can say that we're going to the foodcourt to fooden ... in the witt of a pubcrawl ... go from one food seller to another.). It also means to produce (as in the trees fooden (produce) fruit). Mostly its means a feast. Fooden does need an entry. I'm not sure that this is it tho.--AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"Sexually promiscuous (of either gender)" was added as a definition of gay recently. I suspect that even if there is a citation or two, they can be interpreted as a use of another sense.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Can it really? Being promiscuous and being homosexual are not the same thing. On the other hand there seemed to be quite many "homosexual" senses. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I probably should wait to see the citations before questioning them; there may be some perfectly clear citations here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added some citations that I think cover this. I also found a nice citation that points to the origin of this sense at [19]. But at this point, the meaning is still along the lines of "filled with joy." Is there a way to include this to illustrate how the meaning changed? BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 10:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Entered by an IP. The changes in sound and grammar in Old Saxon would have given luva and that's what I find in my dictionary too. This form is not in it at all. —CodeCa t 13:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Only thing I can find at all: http://archive.org/stream/verslagenenmede28lettgoog#page/n131/mode/2up – 126, middle. Maybe a major confusion of love and live and cases?Korn (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe... The source you found mentions that luvu is the dative of luva, which is correct, but that makes this a case form rather than a lemma. However, it is about toponyms, and I highly doubt a word meaning 'love' would be a common suffix for place names. The only definition of 'luva' they give is 'woon' (a rare word for residence, domicile), which doesn't make its origin any clearer as I don't know of any Germanic word that both has that that meaning and could have produced 'luva' and 'luvu' in Old Saxon (if it exists, it would have been homonymous with the 'love' sense already in Proto-Germanic). In any case, it doesn't answer any questions really... —CodeCa t 00:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Our three cites are not durably archived and do not span a year. —Ruakh_TALK 11:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The word was coined 13 March 2011, so it looks like a prime candidate for LOP. I can't find any durable cites. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

What does "durably archived" mean, what's a LOP, and what's a durable cite?

1. They have to be in something non-transient like printed material, or archived Google Groups; see Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Attestation. 2. WT:LOP, a list of made-up words that don't get into the main dictionary. 3. Any citation meeting the description in point 1. Equinox ◑ 23:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (nonstandard) Middle English.

I can see how someone would add a definition like this. However, I do not believe the definition is correct in that it doesn't mean specifically Middle English. Consider the following:

Many people refer to Old English as the language of Shakespeare. However, he lived long after the Middle English period, and what is actually meant is more like Early Modern English (although I wouldn't support a definition like this either, because...)
...most of you have heard of stuff like "ye olde Englishe". In almost all cases, this isn't specifically Middle English either, just modern English with some archaicisms thrown in. Very few people actually bother to switch the vocabulary to match the one being used in the earlier centuries.

Considering these, I don't think the definition can stand a verification. -- Liliana • 21:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It just seems like a mistake. I remember someone telling me that Shakespeare was Old English. It isn't but it is [[old]] [[English]]. In the same way that I might mistake a crow for a raven, we don't need a definition at crow that says 'raven'. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like is should be "Early Modern English". The site [20] gives a fairly good description of the evolution of English over the last 1000 years. I suggest we change the definition to - (Non-standard) Early Modern English, as typified by Shakespeare.--Dmol (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I noticed old doesn't have 'archaic' as any of the definitions, even though I'd consider 'old English' to mean 'archaic english' in this context. —CodeCa t 22:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the definition to (Non-standard) Early Modern English, as typified by Shakespeare - as the Middle English was demonstrably wrong. I'll leave the rfv there until we reach consensus on the exact wording.--Dmol (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not non-standard, it's incorrect. Shouldn't this read "proscribed"? DAVilla 22:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Proscibed seems right, judging by the definition we give it in our glossary. Any comments on the use of the Shakespeare mention. That seems to be most peoples misunderstanding of it.--Dmol (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like a miscapitalization of "old English," but with not a single quotation to show the usage, I'm only speculating about what the subject of this conversation is. Delete. —Michael Z. 2012-04-10 03:52 z

The citation's Dmol has added so far for me, demonstrate how invalid this is. Surely we can't go around trying to document every attestable mistake. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly the point. It IS a mistake to refer to Early Modern English as Old English, but the cites prove that it is widespread. Hence the "proscribed" tag suggested already--Dmol (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The cites do not prove this. Arguably, only one of them actually uses the term incorrectly, and the only a valid durable quotation uses it right. —Michael Z. 2012-04-10 14:16 z

Still, I think people are just as likely to mistakenly call Chaucer "old English" as Shakespeare, so the proscribed definition should probably include Middle English as well as EME. —An gr 11:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I find it a bit like having a sense at frog that says "(proscribed) Toad." and a sense at toad that says "(proscribed) Frog." Besides at the most basic level, it's not even cited per WT:CFI#Attestation yet. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"A selection of excerpts Chaucer's work - in the original Old English!". —An gr 08:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

frog and toad certainly do need work on the definitions; according to Wikipedia, toad is an ill-defined subset of frog, not used by scientists.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten the definitions, acknowledging that Old English is a technical term. Still lacks proper citations. —Michael Z. 2012-04-10 14:28 z

I'm not sure that I'm remembering this correctly, but I believe that some older dictionaries used "Anglo-Saxon" to mean "Old English" (as we now define it) and "Old English" to refer to "Middle English" (as we now define it). I think even an early version of either the OED or Webster's did this. I do know that a great deal of language terminology pertaining to the Germanic languages has undergone much flux and shift in the past hundred years of linguistics. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Just checked: the OED's definition is something like "an older form of English, spec. English pre-1150," with a note about historical usage as you describe it. Their definition includes the l.c. usage old English, of course. —Michael Z. 2012-04-13 15:57 z

EncycloPetey is right. In the 1913 Webster Dictionary (often cited in wikt), the etymologies note "Old English" (OE) for what we now call "Middle English"; it notes "Anglo-Saxon" (AS) for what we now call "Old English". Many older books refer to fore-ME as AS rather than OE and some, such as Webster, refer to ME as OE. I am of two minds about it myself. I float between calling it OE and AS. In a broader sense, I often see the term "Old English" noted, by the those who don't know better, to mean anything before c1900. Fans of steampunk often talk about Victorian era English as "old English". By the same token, I'v seen folks refer to Shakespeare both as "Middle English" and "Old English". "Old" and "Middle" English are not good descriptions. Soothfast, the terms are somewhat misleading. --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] セレネ

Rfv-sense -- If this were a woman's given name from English, I'd expect the katakana rendering to be セリーン (serīn), in line with how I'd expect the name "Selene" to be pronounced in English. FWIW, I've never come across this name in Japanese. Anyone else? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't appear in the fairly exhaustive JMnedict Japanese name dictionary, which isn't a good sign. Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't expect it to. That leads me to what I realize now is a side-question -- what's the policy on the katakana renderings of non-Japanese names, which セレネ etc. clearly is? Things like マイケル (Maikeru, "Michael")? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, out of the hundreds if not thousands of people I've met in Japan, nobody had a name even close. I've never heard of anything like it. It doesn't really sound Japanese if you will, not even as an non-traditional name inspired by Western names.

I don't know of any policy about renderings of Western names. I'd feel pretty comfortable with a name like マイケル, because there's really only one way to render "Michael" correctly. My name seems to have two spellings in katakana, but for that matter it has two spellings in English too. JA WP might be a good resource for such widely known names written consistently ja:w:Category:英語の人名 As a small detail, maybe an entry like マイケル should link to Michael rather than using {{given name}}, since every マイケル is a foreigner, a "Michael", not someone with a name that came from "Michael" but isn't a Michael anymore, and マイケル is not a name that parents usually consider for their children, any more than Western parents would be likely to choose "Ryūji" --Haplology (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There are only five male names under Category:ja:English_male_given_names and two under Category:ja:English_female_given_names, so it's a good time to think of a policy. I think all possible renderings should be given. Under John, "Jon" is given as an alternative form, etc. (Since Michael can also be rendered as ミヒャエル when derived from the Bible (w:ja:ミヒャエル), I'm adding that to the Michael translations.) BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Should the noun form be unhyphenated (that is, "near field")? The adjective is correctly hyphenated as it is used attributively. — Paul G (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The unhyphenated form dominates (and I suppose is more strictly correct, although there are so many counter-examples to English hyphenation rules I wonder why we bother calling them rules), but near-field is certainly verifiable. I've put a few citations for both senses on citations:near-field. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks good; almost any two word term can exist as a hyphenate. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: to add water to alcoholic spirit to adjust its proof. Is this correct? it is almost an antonym of the second sense "to purify or refine, especially by distillation". --Hekaheka (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed...? I thought this was listed. Ah, well. Notice Dan Polansky's good research, which is on the talk page. - -sche (discuss) 08:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a phrase like this, but it's hard to come up with a good lemma form due to the myriad of variations which are each only sparsely attestable per our CFI. -- Liliana • 11:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "peckerwood". The sense has one quotation, but that quotation seems like a mention. - -sche (discuss) 20:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Replaced with better cites. Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I think there are one or two senses of peckerwood, missing in our entry, possibly attestable: a prison slang meaning and a self-identification of some members of a US racist subculture, one or both possibly mostly Southern. It is mentioned in books about prison culture and about skin-head-style racism in the US. Once attested the corresponding senses of wood would appear to belong to a separate etymology as a back-formation from peckerwood. DCDuring TALK 22:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I tried to add the prison slang meaning based on the uses of peckerwood I saw as I cited featherwood. Do you think there's still something missing? - -sche (discuss) 23:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it is used in all of the senses of peckerwood that can apply to a person. I'm not sure that we can attest each individual sense because it would take boiling the ocean. Perhaps the best we can do is direct folks to [[peckerwood]] with the hint "of a person". I'm not sure that we shouldn't remove some of the context labels that do not apply. An alternative approach would be to cite "authority" on the grounds that the usage is colloquial.

Also, I wonder whether the meaning of this is confounded with that of peckerhead ("dickhead"). DCDuring TALK 01:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't find this in my Old Saxon dictionary, nor is it given in any of the common Dutch etymology dictionaries (which show Old Saxon as a cognate whenever it is attested). Its Middle Low German descendant is listed though, so this is another word that seems to have existed, but not written down at the time. Added by User:Stardsen who I suspect is the IP from earlier RFV requests. He's been adding a lot of Old Saxon, but his formatting leaves a lot to be desired (I've had to clean up almost every entry in some way). —CodeCa t 21:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

His formatting is getting better. As for attestation, I have no idea. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, apparently not attested in Old Saxon in underived form, even though it must have existed. It is attested in derived verbs (gifōlian) and as a Middle Low German descendant (vōlen). —CodeCa t 22:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

And again, not attested in uncompounded form... —CodeCa t 22:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

This entry gives the impression that this is the everyday British equivalent of "chalk", which is not true at all. "Chalk" is the spelling used in the UK just as it is in the US.

The OED gives "chaulk" and "chaulke" as obsolete forms of "chalk". As this term is obsolete, it should not be given full treatment and certainly should not have a pronunciation (least of all an American pronunciation if this word was obsolete before America existed).

The article also claims Wikipedia has an article on "chaulk", but it does not.

If, however, citations show this to be extant, we can list it as a variant spelling.

— Paul G (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

@Paul G, how confident are you that this doesn't exist? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Chaulk might be a useful entry. It is not too rare as a last name. I replaced the etymology with a reference to chalk as there was nothing about the difference in spelling and eliminated the WP link. I suppose a link to WP's Chalk article might be OK. If the pronunciation was thought to be different we might want it, though we don't have, say, the EME pronunciation of chalk. DCDuring TALK 12:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

According to Prosfilaes (Wiktionary:Tea_room#Israelite), the word "archaic" refers to "words that are in use only by people deliberately trying to affect an old feel," which does not seem to match "chaulk." The definition of "archaic" needs reworking at the glossary. What do you think about this case? BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've never found it easy to gauge intent in a typical text, one not written by a master. "Obsolete" implies that it would not be understood correctly, which doesn't seem to fit this very well.

The cites I've found are not supportive of "archaic by intent". Perhaps "dated". Also see here a mention in Notes and Queries. DCDuring TALK 01:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

obsolete says: "no longer in use; gone into disuse; disused or neglected (often by preference for something newer, which replaces the subject)" and the glossary says: " indicates a term no longer in use, no longer likely to be understood." For dated, the glossary says: "still in use, but generally only by older people, and considered unfashionable or superseded, particularly by younger people." My vote is for obsolete, though if more modern citations like the 1985 can be find, I think "rare" would be more appropriate. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think our glossary's definition of "archaic" is accurate: "No longer in general use, but still found in some contemporary texts (such as Bible translations) and generally understood (but rarely used) by educated people. For example, thee and thou are archaic pronouns, having been completely superseded by you. Archaic is a stronger term than dated, but not as strong as obsolete." As DCDuring notes, it can be hard to gauge intent: does a writer intend to create an "old feel"? It is easier to determine, from searching a corpus, whether or not the term is still in use in a few texts, but is generally unused (the test our current def entails). - -sche (discuss) 06:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems accurate, but still lacking if intent is involved. Also, the definition includes terms that should be labeled as historical ("Means included for historical information; the thing it refers to is not in current use or no longer exists; e.g. blueshirt, Czechoslovakia. This does not mean the same as "obsolete"; while the thing referred to is obsolete, the word that refers to it is extant.") BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The evidence of one-time relatively widespread use is mostly indirect: the not uncommon last name and some presence in place names. It is rare in print, especially as a verb, in which form it may not even be attestable. It is probably not obsolete because it is so close to the current spelling. DCDuring TALK 11:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It's harder to judge intent, but that's what offering a definition demands of us. Certainly "obsolete" requires us to determine "no longer likely to be understood", and in the cases I think about archaic, it's not that hard to tell that the author is no longer writing in a modern mode.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Intent is the worst possible indicator. It might be usable for something literary, where it is reasonable to assume intent. The few uses in books do not signal intent. If we found any uses in groups I'd say that proves intent, but I'd rather say that the effect of the spelling would be archaic if it were used, whether or not it is actually used. In this case one could make the inference based on the parallels with similar spellings of other words ending in "alk". DCDuring TALK 14:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The chaulk spelling is abundant at Google Groups (which includes Usenet), but a bit less than 1% as frequent as chalk. It doesn't seem archaic in intent. At more than 4,000 occurrences there (including the proper name), it doesn't seem rare to me, not that we have any criteria for "rare" (or for "common" as in "common misspelling"). DCDuring TALK 15:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Perhaps we could refer to it as {{context|now nonstandard}} or {{context|obsolete|now only nonstandard}}? - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen this spelling, despite reading loads of British books and newspapers. Would have guessed it was obsolete. Equinox ◑ 21:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Former Mormon. Nothing obvious on Google book search (with or without a capital letter). SemperBlotto (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably needs a move at best, since the given citation uses a capital F: Formon. Equinox ◑ 21:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything on Google Books or Groups. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thimble-collecting. Doesn't look CFI-attestable to me. Equinox ◑ 01:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

digitabulist passes. It seems a shame to not include -ism since it is almost certainly used, given the existence of digitabulist, but I cannot find citations for -ism. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure digitabulist would pass: it is included in some books, but always accompanied by a definition. They tend to be mentions, not uses. Compare all those phobias that appear in lists but never in conversation. Equinox ◑ 10:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

On [21], the "Elephants Jump" and the "Grove" citations seem to fit. Searching on the Internet, this word does seem to be in use by thimble collectors, but the only third reference I can find is use as an e-mail address: [22]. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussion: Talk:Amtrak.

I've archived the old discussion, which had petered out anyway, to the talk page: I'm starting a new listing because our rules have now been updated (by the BRAND votes), and I think the new rules apply to this entry. In any case, this should be cited to the relevant standards (BRAND? COMPANY), or deleted as is long overdue. - -sche (discuss) 04:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussion: Talk:Citibank.

Like Amtrak. - -sche (discuss) 04:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussion: Talk:McDonald's.

Like Amtrak. - -sche (discuss) 04:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Are these four somehow special? We have hordes of others that are cited only scantily or not at all: Ford, Chevrolet, Chrysler, Oldsmobile, SAAB, Volvo, Mercedes-Benz, Fiat, Cadillac, Peugeot, Pepsi... --Hekaheka (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

These were special only in that they were previously tagged and still not yet resolved. I'm sure someone will RFV all of the ones you listed shortly. (Liliana, would you like to do the honours?) Some may pass, others (Peugeot) will probably fail. - -sche (discuss) 17:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Protologism? Just one hit for "leanwashed" on Google book search. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "a female hemp plant". - -sche (discuss) 03:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I see a lot of hits for "carl hemp" (and carl-hemp and carle-hemp), but none for just "carl." There are a lot of hits, though, so they might be out there.

I see "carl hemp" defined both as the female and male hemp plant, so I think that should get an entry. Many of the hits have formulations like "carl, or male hemp," so "carl" could be given an adjective entry, but since this is limited to hemp, I think an entry for "carl hemp" would be better. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "The text prompt presented to the user in a command line interface." (see the usex.) Tagged but not listed. If this is obviously valid, I don't mind someone detagging it without going to the bother of formatting citations. - -sche (discuss) 03:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Definitions one and two look identical to me. Is there any meaningful difference being drawn? BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sense 2 refers to the actual prompt, such as "c:\windows\>". Equinox ◑ 11:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that is different. It seems odd to have three definitions for what is nearly the same thing. Is it possible to compress them? My vote is to detag. Whether they can be compressed or not, I think all three uses are widespread. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The definitions are similar but still distinct. The first refers to the system of typing commands itself (a command line interface), the second refers to the prompt at which one types, and the third is what one types at it. —CodeCa t 17:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Detagged. Kept. - -sche (discuss) 21:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Latin. Tagged by one of our Latin experts, EncycloPetey, but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 03:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why he did that? It's in Lewis & Short. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've added three citations from Latin Wikisource - thousands more to choose from. Somebody else can translate them if they want. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
This is why it was listed. The issue isn't whether the verb as a whole can be verified, but whether certain verb forms listed in the conjugation table can be. —Angr 08:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that's all too difficult for me (only la-1). But if anyone would like to supply an example of an inflected form that shouldn't be there, I'll see if I can find citations for it. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually only needs one citation, but nothing wrong with three, of course. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem was brought up at [[23]], pointing out that the particular form horreo does not seem to appear in Latin. The citations added only support other forms, not the lemma form, which is the particular form called into question. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, we have kept Gothic entries before (not unanimously) which only had attested inflected forms, not attested lemma forms... but only when the inflected forms allowed the lemma form to be deduced with reasonable certainty. - -sche (discuss) 01:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like another manifestation of the normalized spellings issue (going beyond normalizing a single form to normalizing the paradigm). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The way Wiktionary is structured, it makes things very difficult if we don't have a lemma. How do we define the inflected forms? "Third-person singular present tense of a verb the citation form of which is unattested: he is frightful"? - -sche (discuss) 04:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There are Latin verbs that never have a first-person form, and the lemma is diffeent for those verbs. The verb pluit ("it rains") is such a verb, and its lemma is not the usual one for that reason. Although the form of the first-person can be deduced, it wasn't used and its translation would be nonsensical. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

But horreo is not one of those verbs. I find the exact form horreo in use here, here, here, and here, for example. I thought the issue brought up on the feedback page was that certain passive forms weren't attested. —An gr 06:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the RFV tag to an RFC tag. The lemma is attested (as Angr shows!); if certain passive forms are unattested, they should be removed. If this requires redesigning the inflection template,... that's still not an RFV issue. - -sche (discuss) 21:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Some evidence exists, but not much. Could we have three proper citations please. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The CFI-compliant citations I found were not referring to the beef remnants but (humorously) to spam and similar products. Equinox ◑ 11:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope - and the editor promoting all the related additions here is doing it for [24] reasons as the terms are more than adequately defined in the enWiki article on "Pink Slime" All should be deleted as being here as "not really definitions" in the first place. Collect (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles don't replace Wiktionary entries, if the terms are valid, they can have entries here, no matter who created them for what supposed reason. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The "definition" used here is one of a neologism at best, not in common usage, certainly not in usage for even a year, and with a pointy definition in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It is cited as having been coined for this usage in 2008 by the USDA scientist that also coined pink slime. Wiktionary covers all words in all languages. Collect has followed me here from Wikipedia and seems to have a pro-LFTB agenda.Lucifer (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Not in common usage is not a valid deletion reason; do you propose we delete every definition with a {{rare}} tag? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If a neologism has not been noted without "scare quotes" in any newspaper or other reliable source, then yes - it is absolutely "not common" at all. Unless, of course, this is 1984. Collect (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This project catalogues uncommon terms as well and it is cited as being used with and without scare quotes, nevertheless the scare quotes really quite irrelevant anyways, with or without the citations show that it is used. The scare quotes are used to state that the publication does not endorse the term or that is a newer term. Also it doesn't have to be used in a newspaper, it can be used on usenet as well or a book.Lucifer (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Why should "scare quotes" matter? Have a look at WT:CFI -- if a term meets these criteria, it's got a place here. I don't see anything about scare quotes at WT:CFI. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyway... what Collect is getting at is that this is a neologism that is very unlikely to meet our Criteria for Inclusion, specifically the criterion that words be in use for at least a year. The recent (<1 year) awareness of pink slime makes it unlikely this can be attested except in the different sense Equinox refers to. - -sche (discuss) 18:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

But this is not true, pink slime has exploded in the media this year but the term has been used by Jamie Oliver's program in 2011 and also in the news in 2010 and earlier, in fact both pink slime and soylent pink were coined by the USDA scientists that did not approve of it but were overruled in 2008 and this is cited.Lucifer (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

At this moment, no, the 'pink slime' sense is not cited: the 2008 citation is not durable; every other citation is from 2012. - -sche (discuss) 00:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"At least a year" is fine by me. Rarity and scare quotes, however, are beside the point for CFI, which was my point here. :) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

What Collect should have said, was that citations with a term in quotes tend to be mentions (where a word stands for itself) rather than uses (where a word conveys its defined meaning). In most of our citations under the "pink slime" definition, "soylent pink" means the phrase "soylent pink", not pink slime. So far, only one counts for CFI. ~ Robin (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Two of them are without quotes, one is not a mention just quotesed.Lucifer (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

So anyone have access to the USDA memos that the non-durable 2008 citation references, if so then we do have a 2008 verifiable and durable citation.Lucifer (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Collect has removed the sense, correctly noting that it fails RFV. - -sche (discuss) 22:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

"To occupy." How would this be used? Equinox ◑ 16:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"The person was possessed by the devil". "occupy" is synonymous here. Collect (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC) ("Occupy" is "to take possession of" MW). Collect (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems redundant to the preceding sense, "To take control of someone's body or mind, especially in a supernatural manner", in that case. - -sche (discuss) 18:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and taking possession is not synonymous with (already) possessing. You wouldn't say "the army possessed the city yesterday" (referring to a specific objective they achieved). Equinox ◑ 20:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The correct def should likely be "to take or retain control" as it is not an act of a single instant in time, but one of a continuation of a state. Collect (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

In former times, possess was definitely used in an instantaneous aspect:

1623, Shakespeare, Twelfth Night, Act II Scene III,

Sir To. Possess us, possess us; tell us something of him.
Mar. Marry, sir, sometimes he is a kind of puritan.
http://www.bartleby.com/70/2323.html#66

Is this purely historical, or are there instances of possess being used in this way more recently? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Take seems to involve more or less a single instant, whereas retain does not. DCDuring TALK 22:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"Possess" is a continuing act -- that is an item once taken and not given back is still "possessed." Collect (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

But not in all use cases, as illustrated by the Shakespeare quote, and as remaining in certain modern usages -- "to be possessed of something", for instance, is an extension of the line from Sir Toby -- "possess us" in terms of something like "take us into your confidence, let us know something". In this use, possess refers to the change in state from not knowing, to knowing -- from not having the information, to having it. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "(transitive) To conquer somewhere."

Conquest and occupation are obviously distinguishable. Is there usage in which occupy means "to conquer" and not merely "to take possession or control of"? DCDuring TALK 17:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm, one can say a power "conquered but did/could not occupy" a place... perhaps we can look for "occupied but did/could not hold"? Interestingly, that gets one (non-durable) hit, a biography of John Byron: "Royalist commander and Governor of Chester. […] Defeated in skirmish at Brackley (Aug. 1642); occupied, but could not hold, Oxford and Worcester (1642); at Edgehill, took the cavalry reserve into the charge against orders (1642)". It also gets two durable hits, which I've placed here. There may be a better interpretation of those citations, though, than as using the sense in question ("conquer"). - -sche (discuss) 18:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There is overlap in the usage and some synonym groups might include both. I just couldn't defend the definition "conquer". I think translators of less than, say, EN-3 could be seriously misled. DCDuring TALK 19:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree; the wording needs to be greatly refined so as not to mislead. - -sche (discuss) 18:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved (by merging the sense into a pre-existing one). Note also this discussion. - -sche (discuss) 22:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 20:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I cited one sense and commented out a few unlikely senses. I think that perhaps the remaining senses ought to be merged, because I don't think I can cite those, too. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense, in the Spanish section, "coyote (Mexican paying to be smuggled illegally into the United States of America)". Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 20:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

See [25] and [26] for examples where "pollo" appears to be used for the people paying to be smuggled. Defining "pollo" as "coyote" is wrong, though. If you look at the definition for "coyote" (in English or Spanish) it says it means the person who smuggles people, not the person paying. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "A negligent person." Tagged but not listed. Probably attested. - -sche (discuss) 21:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Cited, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 21:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Struck (as passed). - -sche (discuss) 02:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

RFV-sense "Having too high an opinion of oneself; arrogant, supercilious." Tagged in this edit and discussed on the talk page, but not listed here. - -sche (discuss) 21:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Other dictionaries have both a neutral and a pejorative sense of the meaning I'd summarize as "high self-esteem". DCDuring TALK 22:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added a quote from the King James Bible. "proud" as a pejorative seems to be the default in that Bible. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 21:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Tagged in this edit but not listed here. RFV of the Old Frisian section; it's supposedly a verb meaning "prepare". - -sche (discuss) 21:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 22:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "(Geordie, pejorative) A homosexual man." I haven't RFVed Geordie terms before because I haven't wanted to 'pick on' dialects, but Wiktionarians have deleted many dialectal terms by Top Cat 14 (talk • contribs) because they were found not to meet CFI. - -sche (discuss) 02:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It's used by a Geordie character in the BBC sitcom Auf Wiedersehen, Pet, (2002, "Bridge Over Troubled Waters", Auf Wiedersehen, Pet: "He's not! He can't be! There's never been a huckle in the Osbourne family and we can trace our lineage all the way back to the Second World War."), but there don't seem to be any useful results in books or Usenet. There're quite a few uses on Newcastle FC blogs/forums, but I imagine they won't be considered durably archived. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the definition was added to insult somebody with that last name. It is my last name and I don't want this dictionary to decide that my last name means a "homosexual man". There is not a single other dictionary that is so crude as to claim that my name means a homosexual man. I have never met a person with the name Huckle that was a homosexual. It is entirely ridiculous to have all the people named Huckle change their last name. How would you like it if people voted to make your family name mean something that was off color. Just because one crude person decides to use somebodies name in a rude way doesn't make it a new definition for a word. Otherwise I'd be able to make the name of everybody who I don't appreciate something crude on this site. But I'd probably be sued for that action.

Yeah, how would all the people feel if Dick suddenly meant something crude.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of this exercise is the find out if there really are people out there really using this word in that way. If someone just made this up, it will fail the Request For Verification and the entry will be deleted. Unfortunately, we are a descriptive dictionary, so we have to tell about the words people actually use, and the meanings they actually give to them. Human nature being what it is, there are some really awful words out there, and other, perfectly good, words that are given really bad meanings. We can't tell people what they can and can't say- we can only document what's really out there. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of dictionaries of Geordie slang (i.e. slang used in and around the British town of Newcastle-upon-Tyne) already include "huckle" meaning homosexual. It does seem to be in fairly wide use in the town (wide enough that it was used in a popular sitcom broadcast nationwide) - we're not voting to make "huckle" mean "gay man", we're trying to find evidence that this has already happened. No-one is suggesting that everyone called "Huckle" is gay, or that all Huckles should change their last name, any more than Dick van Dyke or Tyson Gay have to (and it's unlikely the word will ever be used outside North East England. On the topic of citing this word, incidentally, can I simply point to the Google Groups search for "a huckle" + newcastle and say it's clearly in fairly widespread use in Newcastle even if, being a word that is very localised and apparently quite offensive, it hasn't been used in print much? Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(Incidentally, I don't think it was done to insult anyone called Huckle - "huckle" seems to have been an old word for a small hook ("huck" being an old or dialectal pronunciation, and -le meaning something small), and more generally a term for things that are bent (Google books for instance has plenty of books that use "huckle-back" to mean "hunchback"). "bent" is still a fairly common insult for gay people in the UK, and it seems like this is how huckle came to mean gay.) Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You got it, I can see that this dictionary is full of shit, so as a Huckle, who uses many words that I claim to know the definition of and are used by all "huckles" to describe objects and places, I'll redefine the hell out of this bullshit dictionary. Common words I enjoy using with made up definitions include: George Bush, Cheney, Tony Blair, Queen Elizabeth, Murray, Chuck, Entz, Geordie, Newcastle, and British. An example I say something like : Another George Bush wannabee colluded with a Cheney to blair the heck out of a Queen Elizabeth who loved Murrays to chuck entz into a gerodies newcastle British style. I'll start redefining those words immediately. You welcome you bunch of British Murrays.

Rfv-sense: (obsolete) A brand of phonograph that introduced disk records. If it's what I think it is, it needs cites in accordance with WT:BRAND. -- Liliana • 11:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This was originally a trademark, but I'm more used to seeing it in lower case in modern use. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious entry, originally added by known-problematic IP user. google books:"角神"+は generates over 8K hits, but most only show these kanji in other compounds. A couple that use this term clearly on its own seem to be referencing something other than the Wiccan god (no surprise given the very limited Wiccan exposure in Japan). This source gives a reading in furigana of kakugami, different from the tsunokami given at the 角神 entry.

Anyone else able to find anything more compelling? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Moved to 有角神. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Being in Unicode is not a free pass, and this letter has to meet RFV like everything else. Since nothing I know uses it, this is very unlikely. -- Liliana • 20:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone got the enormous Unicode book that describes how/where each character is used in writing? Equinox ◑ 00:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

this? But it only mentions use for a few characters. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 00:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Everything in the Unicode book is online now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't find any information on what languages it's used in, if any, either. I can only find other sites that say they don't know, either! - -sche (discuss) 00:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, if this is a pure Unicode invention with no real world usage, there's no reason to keep it. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't point to an actual use, but it was encoded because ISO 233 uses it as a Latin transliteration for the Arabic waw with sukun.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Woah, where did you get that gem from? It's totally missing from Wikipedia! -- Liliana • 22:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I asked on the Unicode list, and someone who was around in 1991 looked at the paper documents. Classic "not everything is on the Internet yet" case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Lo and behold, this does note that sukuns are rarely transliterated, but that ISO-233 does use a ring above to transliterate them when necessary. - -sche (discuss) 01:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I read the whole Unicode conversation, after it got featured on someone's MSDN blog. From this, we can conclude that the entire range of U+1E00-U+1E9A is used for various transliteration systems around the world (as opposed to being part of natural languages). -- Liliana • 17:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not true; ḃ and a number of other dotted characters in that range are used for the old orthography of Irish; they all map to bh, etc. in the new orthography. Another example is ẁ, used in mẁg. Those are listed in the PDF; a quick search turns up that ḻ, which is labeled as being for Indic transliteration, is being used in Seri and Lillooet and probably others (underlines being a very easy "diacritic" to add on typewriters when these orthographies were being created). All it does say is that the whole range was not in character sets that Unicode originally saw a need to map to one-to-one. A lot of them may be for transliteration, but I don't think we can conclude that for the unlabeled ones without research, and even those encoded for transliteration may see use in orthographies in natural use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

All I can find in Google Books is the name of a company. Equinox ◑ 00:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "A community that is not defined by physical boundaries but by the interests of its members." Sounds unlikely. I think it's an overextension of the first sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you could use "virtual community" to refer to a collection of individuals or groups of people who surf, knit or hunt rabbits and do not necessarily communicate with each other over the Internet. That's perhaps along the lines of the first definition of virtual. But in that case, I think the second definition fails due to SOP. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Three citations for a real food product please. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This is simply an extension of an enWiki debate with POINTy entries here, alas. Collect (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary is not Wikipedia. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

@collect, @eirikr utlendi: Soylent Green and soylent have absolutely nothing to do with pink slime or any "debate" on wikipedia. Please avoid personal attacks and irrelevant commentary. Verification is only meant to discuss the validity of any citations for an entry and nothing more.Lucifer (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, verification is what I'm happy to wait for. I'm a bit confused about you calling me out for personal attacks or irrelevant commentary? I don't recall making any such. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 03:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminded to the two of you and in general and the WINW seemed out of place FWIW.Lucifer (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting word. The origin seems to be the book "Make Room! Make Room!" (if so, that should be added to the etymology) and is a blend of "soya" and "lentil." In the movie "Soylent Green" (evidently not the book), soylent turns out to be made from human meat (after originally being made from plankton). Because of the scarcity of food, soylent steaks are in great demand.

So there is potential for soylent to be a vegan food, a mystery meat and an unpleasant food. In the citation provided, "soylent" appears not to be cheap vegan food, but food that is poor-tasting or somehow synthetic: "Both dishes are an artificially flavored, perfectly balance nutritional supplement.... a cup of green liquid.... Chance walked away, sulking. This certainly isn't Momma's home cooking."

This word seems to be used multiple times, particularly in science fiction. In the story "Cholent", for example, it seems to mean "nasty food": "You can make your soylent or whatever..."' "Cholent!" came back the angry correction.

Here is another science fiction book where it means "nasty food": "I'm talking real Megalopolis cuisine. Not that soylent stuff they feed us at school."

In this memoir, the word is used to mean "nasty food": "My mother's upstairs in a coma.... Tried to force-feed her some green, soylent product."

Here is a mystery using "soylent" to refer to pea-soup green in color: "...it looks like pea soup. Soylent green."

Two other books that seem to have different meanings:

[27]: "Soylent Oil!" Perhaps this means "synthetic." I'm not sure.
[28]: "But can we make it Soylent now..."
[29]: "Ethan is a great speaker, he is teethed in soylent lime today,..." - not sure what this means at all

I would particularly like to know what the "Soylent Oil" meaning is, but either way, I think this should be redefined along the lines of unpleasant/undesirable food that has been processed to the point its ingredients cannot be discerned. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

motion I believe we now have it verified and well developed and we should delist it.Lucifer (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Those citations are awful. The first one is a use of it as a fictional brand name - fine to cite as its coinage, but not as its use. The second isn't a use of the word soylent but of soylent green, as a direct reference to the movie, and the third is the same. None of these verify its use as "bland vegan food", they only show that people reference the movie Soylent Green (and the lesser known novel it's based on). Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit Having checked the actual citations page, the 2003 citation seems like it may be legit (although I think it's just another reference to the book, possibly using it to mean "food made of humans" rather than "bland vegan food"), all the others are just direct references to soylent green. 2006 is especially bad - it's simply taken from a review of Make Room! Make Room! which is quoting the book, so it's not even an independent use. I'm not sure these citations have been properly checked - it seems like simply every passage including the word "soylent" has been copypastaed from a Google Book search, regardless of whether it uses the word soylent in the right way or not. Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the citations generally seem to point to the book/movie, not the term in general. I don't feel comfortable with the "soylent (color)" examples. I think the citations I provided demonstrate the common usage. Also, I disagree with the definition as rewritten. See for example, the citation above: "I'm talking real Megalopolis cuisine. Not that soylent stuff they feed us at school." One more thing, the etymology says it's a blend, but if the term is from the book, that should be mentioned, too :) --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The original book uses the futuristic contraction as a common noun – p 24 makes it clear that soylent steaks means "soybean and lentil steaks."

In the film screenplay, it is the proper name of Soylent corporation, and the brand name of its products, Soylent Green, Soylent Red, and Soylent Yellow – we learn that "Quick-energy yellow Soylent made of genuine soybean," but there is no real connection to the etymology of the name.

Subsequent uses are mostly allusions to the movie that imitate the brand names for their indeterminate quality. It's perhaps a kind of placeholder word if anything. —Michael Z. 2012-04-22 21:45 z

I would call it a suitably-creepy futuristic update on humorous food terms like mystery meat. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a dictionary-only word to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There are three citations now. Except in one case, the word is always defined. Two more borderline citations are: [30] and [31].

- -sche (discuss) 03:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a great find, but unfortunately I don't think it can be verified before 2012. Words have to span at least a year before they can be added to Wiktionary. I did the following Google Books search:

"white slime" "meat"

with the dates set between 2000 and 2011. I didn't see anything that fit into this meaning. Is there a way to set a timer on Wiktionary to search again in April 2013 to see if the word is still in use? It appears 3 April is the earliest appearance [32]. Something slightly earlier might be found, but waiting until April 2013 is probably the best shot for this word :) --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I have read it has been a term thrown around for quite some time and is nothing new, I think if we dig a bit more we can find it, perhaps on some organic/health food magazines?Lucifer (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That seems possible, but I used "organic food" in a GB and got nothing. Without evidence, I would think it's a derivative of "pink slime," which was coined in 2002 but was only popularized this month. Barring another find, could you put a note on your own page to check next April? That would surely be the easiest way to check on it :) --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 04:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary has the Citations: namespace for terms like this (and, I add, #розовая слизь)... terms that have begun to be attested, but which do not meet the "spanning a year" criteria. - -sche (discuss) 05:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's sit on it then but I am confident we can find something from earlier.Lucifer (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 02:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-senses relating to Cheshire.

These senses were added by Aristidebruant (talk • contribs). I've only ever heard of Cestrian being used to mean someone from Chester, and the only evidence I can find of its use to mean someone or something from Cheshire in general is a school in Trafford called "North Cestrian Grammar School", and that apparently took its name from Latin as a way of getting around rules on naming schools, rather than taking its name from the English word. Can anyone verify this sense? Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems likely that if Cestrian is used for the city, it could easily be used for the county. Would it be possible to just generalize to any geographical name of Chester? Here are some citations:

[33] (this looks strong)
[34] (probably)
[35] (likely)
[36] (probably)
[37] (perhaps the city)
[38] (the country county)
[39] (the US)

--BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

-Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

English only. Wikipedia article is actually a redirect. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

"(computing, nonstandard) A superset of computer software composed of computer viruses, trojans, and worms." Note this is entered as a separate sense from the non-standard plural of virus (usual dictionary plural: viruses). Equinox ◑ 13:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The rfv sense was the original one, with the "plural of virus" one added in the second edit by a different IP. Since the rfv sense is obviously also the plural of one possible sense of virus, this looks more accidental than intentional. Also, aren't trojans and worms just particular types of viruses, not members of "A superset" with them? Chuck Entz (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

By the definition at computer virus, trojans aren't viruses; trojans don't propagate, at least not in the general sense. According to w:Computer worm, the difference between a worm and a virus is that the virus attaches itself to an existing program and a worm doesn't; I'd accept that, though our definition doesn't show it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: An act of self-pleasure. (masturbation).

Could be, but not in my experience. There is possibly a missing sense of ego trip or self-indulgence for this term. DCDuring TALK 14:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

English section. I'm seeing PERSTAT but not perstat.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like there might be some interference from the Latin perstat, which seems to mean "(this condition) persists."

--BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we move this entry to WT:RFM. The English section ought to be PERSTAT or a CamelCase version of the same. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added the medical sense to [[perstat]] and moved the military sense to [[PERSTAT]]. - -sche (discuss) 02:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Fictional creatures and their language, from books made recently popular by TV series. Needs to meet WT:FICTION. Equinox ◑ 15:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Poor man's street hockey, with frozen horse dung. I suspect a hoax. Equinox ◑ 15:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

According to dictionary.com "horsey hockey" means "horse dung" [40]. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Well here's someone describing it, but doesn't specifically call it "horse hockey": http://www.hhsm.ca/4a_custpage_75433.html

Just to save rest of folks from the trouble of checking: the writer uses the term "road hockey" of the game. --Hekaheka (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"(proscribed) A person whose parents are deceased." Really? Equinox ◑ 16:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Surely not. I have never come across that usage in my long life. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think something like, "My parents are dead, so I guess I'm an adult now," sounds likely, but I don't think it should get an entry without some clear evidence. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 01:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I found a citation: [41]: "I'm an adult now, my parents are gone." I don't think this works, but perhaps this is what the definer was thinking of. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Presumably a child whose parents are deceased, as if it were an adult, they'd already be an adult. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It still sounds acceptable to me. It's metaphorical, along the lines of the eldest son being told he's the man in the family (and sitting at the head of the table) after the father passes away. I think it needs solid evidence, but I don't think it's particularly unusual. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

... but it's just the normal meaning of the word, with an implication that the child has now to behave like an adult, even if he or she isn't technically adult yet. As such, this so-called "sense" does not deserve a separate entry. It's definitely not a synonym for orphan! Dbfirs 15:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Needs citations per WT:FICTION. Dominic·t 21:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A location the middle of the Atlantic Really? -- Liliana • 23:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Good tag. Also, the adjective shouldn't have comparative and superlative forms.--BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, really. It's used both in literal ways — for example, the "Mid-Atlantic Ridge" really is a mid-ocean ridge in the Atlantic Ocean — and in figurative or idiomatic ways — for example, "Mid-Atlantic English" (or a "Mid-Atlantic accent") is a variety (or accent) of English that combines elements of British English and American English (or of British and American accents). But we're also missing some key senses: in the U.S., the Mid-Atlantic states are the states on the Eastern Seaboard that are south of New England but north of . . . whatever the states south of them are called. —Ruakh_TALK 01:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll be darned. "In the Mid-Atlantic" gets quite a bit of action; a lot of times, it seems to be short for "Mid-Atlantic region." --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Cited — very thoroughly, if I do say so myself — but I'm not sure how to handle the capitalization. This sense is usually uncapitalized, and the other sense is usually yes-capitalized, but there are plenty of exceptions in both directions. —Ruakh_TALK 15:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thoroughly. Why not put each set of full senses under its most common spelling and add the other spelling as a definiens? That might be better than {{form of|alternative capitalization of}}. I suppose it isn't consistent with the approach we use in more normal situations, but perhaps we should try something out before trying to get consistent.

I think recognizing and documenting differential preference for one capitalization rather than another is a not-uncommon aspect of supporting names of specific entities. Whether in general the game is worth the candle for Wiktionary, I don't know. DCDuring TALK 16:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Those are nice citations. I have one quibble, about the 2002 citation for meaning 2-4. I think it should actually be under meaning 1. The speaker, Juliet, is mentioned as being in Rhode Island here. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "later life". Presumably meaning old age. Really? Sounds unlikely to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's real. Cited. I also stuck an archaic gloss on it, because I don't think it's used this way any more. Equinox ◑ 20:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't buy afterlife being a proper noun, as we claim. There can be afterlives (plural) and it isn't capitalised, and it just doesn't feel proper, like (say) Paris. Equinox ◑ 20:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Uncited. By the way, this sense is usually written as after life or after-life. —Ruakh_TALK 21:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The usage in the cites doesn't mean old age, it just means "later in life", or the part of life that came "after". It's really SOP, but with an odd way of using "after". Chuck Entz (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: "The usage in the cites doesn't mean old age": Keep in mind that Mglovesfun made his presumption before Equinox added the cites. Re: "It's really SOP": The term "SOP" doesn't apply to single-word forms. Sometimes we debate whether a given form is really a single word (is "yesterday's" a word, or is it the word "yesterday" plus a clitic "-'s"?), or whether a single-word form is really correct (is "hisown" a word, or is it just an error for "his own"?), but once we've accepted that a given form is a single word, and not an error, "SOP" simply doesn't apply. —Ruakh_TALK 16:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This appears in Moby-Dick, but as after life, not afterlife. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"Filled with glum." Not in Webster 1913, which only has the burnt/scorched sense. Also I'm not aware of glum being a noun. Equinox ◑ 20:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Webster 1913 has "3. (Med.) Having much heat in the constitution and little serum in the blood. [Obs.] Hence: Atrabilious; sallow; gloomy" and MWOnline has "archaic : of a gloomy appearance or disposition". DCDuring TALK 22:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

::Found this sentence: "In the asexual sporangium, the spores enclose random samples of nuclei taken from a preexisting pool and contain from the beginning the definitive number of […] ". Let's not waste more effort, delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this attached to the right topic? Chuck Entz (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Well 'filled with glum' doesn't actually mean anything. We are missing the classic sense of adust as describing humours, which is very common in mediaeval medicine. Maybe that's what they were getting at? Anyway I'll delete this and write a new one. Ƿidsiþ 06:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

"Glum" would be a phonetically perfectly-logical way for a non-native speaker to spell "gloom" Chuck Entz (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

More tiresome Luciferwildcat stuff. Ƿidsiþ 06:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Tiresome, yes, but are you sure it's Luciferwildcat? He would have to be editing as both an IP and a logged-in user within the space of a minute or two. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it has Lucifer written all over it (and the IP has previously edited Spanish terms). SemperBlotto (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder whether WT:COALMINE motivated this. DCDuring TALK 11:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Well if attested it would allow for nigger ass, but here we're disputing niggerass. Curiously it does mean what I'd consider the most obvious meaning, a black person, but a person with a large ass (rear, derriere) chiefly African American, so I guess it can refer to whites, Hispanics, Asians (etc.) too. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes I created it, and I used to get called niggerass all the time as a kid by the black kids cause I had a bubble butt.Lucifer (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a citation [42] that shows it is just a derogatory term for a black person, regardless of the size of their derrière. That is the only citation on Google Books. Many, more cites for "nigger ass." --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

@Lucifer presumably you don't know if it's niggerass, nigger-ass or nigger ass as they never wrote it down for you. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

They sure didn'tLucifer (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopetey wrote in his friendly tone that I should "not regroup senses for English entries, as your knowledge of English does not seem adequate to distinguish different senses". Therefore I need to ask the rest of the community whether you also think that the senses 2 and 11 on one hand and 10 and 24 on the other listed for drift actually constitute two senses instead of four:

2. A place, also known as a ford, along a river where the water is shallow enough to permit oxen or sheep to be driven to the opposite side.

11. (South Africa) a ford in a river.

10. A collection of loose earth and rocks, or boulders, which have been distributed over large portions of the earth's surface, especially in latitudes north of forty degrees, by the agency of ice.

24. (geology) The material left behind by the retreat of continental glaciers, which buries former river valleys and creates young river valleys.

--Hekaheka (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with you on this one. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I generally agree with the combination of the senses. But I wonder whether "drift" is used in a non-technical sense as well as a technical sense. I always wonder about definitions of a phenomenon that include stories of the origins of a phenomenon, whether those stories are based on science or folklore. DCDuring TALK 12:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe EncycloPetey doesn't consider "a place, also known as a ford" and "a ford" to be the same definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

If it's real, I wonder whether it's due to a misunderstanding of sleep-drunk ("in a drowsy state, similar to drunkenness, immediately after being awakened from deep sleep"), or whether it arose independently? —Ruakh_TALK 21:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I added three citations. The second and third are actually hyphenated, but they are between lines, so it's not possible to tell whether they are intended as a single word or not. The 1963 citation is clear, though, and GB has plenty of other citations. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

They're definitely sleep-drunk. It's no coincidence that a search for "sleepdrunk", written solid, mostly pulls up cases across a line-break: it's because "sleep-drunk" is so well attested, and "sleepdrunk" so poorly attested, that the cases of "sleep-drunk" spanning a line-break greatly outnumber the cases of "sleepdrunk". And I'm not convinced that the first cite is in the RFV'd sense. —Ruakh_TALK 11:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that none of them support this definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, right, yes, I agree. (I just focused on the first cite because it was the only cite for sleepdrunk.) —Ruakh_TALK 11:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I do agree the definition needs to be revised slightly. I've never heard this word before, so would rather someone familiar with it do that. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It's probably possible to cite this as a verb meaning "betray" — I've already started, though I know not which etymology that sense has — but I suspect the meaning "clothe" is limited to Middle English, and the meaning "distort" may be limited to Scots (see Talk:bewry). Note that the one quotation already in the entry under the "clothe" sense is Middle English. - -sche (discuss) 19:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, it could be that bewry in the witt of betray is an error for bewray. Anent clothe ... my thesaurus for clothe gives this: a valley clothed in conifers: cover, blanket, carpet; envelop, swathe. — So it means to cover which is what bewry means. One could say to a naked person: Bewry yourself! ... Meaning either "cover" or "clothe". I think you're being nitpicky, but yu won't hurt my feelings if yu take "clothe" out.--AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: A brand of Australian lager. Needs citations meeting WT:BRAND. -- Liliana • 19:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

There's widespread use of the expression "wouldn't give a xxxx for anything else". This was originally the advertising slogan, but it's escaped in to the wild.--Dmol (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The page to the right has quite a few citations of that phrase, if they can be accepted as referring to the beer.

- -sche (discuss) 06:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reworked the entry so that the beer is mentioned in the etymology, and the sense which the citations support, namely "fuck", is the definition. - -sche (discuss) 21:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense 2x:

"(Scotland, US) A party or entertainment given to friends upon newly entering a house; a housewarming." as distinct from "(Scotland, US, dated) A party or other celebration held to mark someone entering a new home, especially the arrival of a bride at her new home; a wedding reception.", and
"(ambitransitive) To go in; enter." (currently supported by only a mention of Joyce)

The citations I've found and put on the talk page may support a more specific noun sense of infaring, or might support a more specific verb sense. - -sche (discuss) 20:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

How is "A housewarming" a different sense from "A housewarming, especially one thrown for a bride?" anyway? Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I hav to agree that the meanings sound alike and could be put together. Otherwise, I'm not sure what the RFV is for ... looks like a good entry to me.--AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

@Smurray: it's theoretically possible to cite them separately: find some books which speak of housewarmings for brides and of housewarmings for other people, using "infare" only for the former (or which define it as they use it); next, find other books which use "infare" broadly. However, the word doesn't seem to be used broadly. I've combined the noun senses; they pass. The verb is still uncited. - -sche (discuss) 03:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense 2x:

"proof, more or less decisive, for an opinion or a conclusion"
"(obsolete) due exercise of the reasoning faculty"

Tagged a couple years ago but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 20:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

2. seems to be referring to its use in premodern philosophy / theology (and discussions about them), which should be well-attested. It's quite hard to verify because it's difficult to distinguish from the "rational thinking" definition, but the distinction does hold. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "(transitive, archaic) To cause something to descend to the ground (to drop it); especially to cause a tree to descend to the ground by cutting it down (felling it)". Tagged but not listed. There is one quotation under this sense, though it may or may not support this sense. - -sche (discuss) 20:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked around and could not find anybody who explained this Shakespearean use of "fell," but the OED includes it as a citation under the meaning of fall: "To let fall, drop; to shed (tears); to cast, shed (leaves); to bring down (a weapon, the hand, etc.)." As English is losing the few vt/vi pairs it has (rise/raise, lie/lay, fall/fell), "fall a tree" seems likely instead of "fell (a tree)." --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the rfved sense itself is an error for fell, but, as you say, this may have evolved from an error to a nonstandard usage out in the real world. The Shakespeare quote is different: instead of cause to fall it seems to be allow to fall. If the rfv fails, maybe we can replace the sense with the one suggested by the Shakespeare quote and the OED passage. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The Shakespeare quote seems clearly to mean "bring down (a weapon)." It's labelled as archaic, though citations can probably be found that are more modern for various meanings, including "fell (a tree)" which sounds obsolete to me. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

RFV of etymology 1. Given how difficult it was to find modern English citations of note, I wonder if this is Middle-English-only. - -sche (discuss) 22:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

RFV of etymologies 2 "message, noise" and 3 "clamp used in castrating horses". The copy of Century I'm looking at has etyl 2 with three Middle English quotations, but does not have etyl 3 at all. OTOH, it has an etyl 4 that we lack (but that I can't find citations of), "alternative form of clam". - -sche (discuss) 01:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yu should drop a note on my wall. It's just a fluke that I happen to see this. As it is, the net is out at my house and I'm on borrowed time at the moment ... but I know that "message, noise" is a common gloss for it in texts about medieval poetry when the word comes up. I'll find one for yu later. If yu want to slap a "Middle English" header on it if that is what is bothering yu, then be my guest. Too many ghits on glam (after 1930) just to see if it made it past 1500.

For the clamp, it's found at Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia, Dictionary Supplement, Vol. XI, page 0526. On another note while yu're on that page: giv, n and v, a simplified spelling of give. … I put that here so that yu won't hav to look up the same page again when I make the entry for "giv". BTW, I'm not in in love with the clamp meaning. I only put it in because I found it by accident. It won't hurt my feelings any if yu take it out.--AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"The exchange, in turns, of swats, usually with a paddle and to the buttocks, either as a macho dare or imposed as a 'self-inflicted' corporal punishment or as part of a fraternity-type hazing." Distinct from a singular swat (sense 1). Probably added by Verbo/Fastifex since it originally went on about bare buttocks. Equinox ◑ 12:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Countable or uncountable? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There are some GB hits that imply this.

[43] - I was paddled more than any other freshman in the house―but I remember the sportsmanship of several upperclassmen who traded swats with me on different occasions.
[44] - A "New Deal" was called for and the calamity averted, however, by the actives trading "swats" among themselves.
[45] - You paddled me, but you wouldn't trade swats.

I can easily imagine a fraternity tradition of trading swats being called "the swats," but I don't find an explicit statement of this. At the least, it should be noted that this is used only in the plural. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

But... these seem to back up "a hard stroke, hit or blow, e.g., as part of a spanking". Mglovesfun (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree. All I'm saying is that you can see that the meaning in question can easily grow from this. It's only one step from instituting the practice of "trading swats" to people saying "I did swats with Jack." Looking for forms of "do swats" or "swats with" in a student paper might turn something up. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, that would be swats. I'm not really sure what this definition is even supposed to mean, and without wanting to prejudice the discussion, Verbo/Fastifex wrote a lot of stuff in poor English (though not sure what his first language is; his French and Dutch entries also had a lot of problems) that has failed RFV or RFD, so much that he got permanently banned for disruptive edits. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "To protest against those favoring increasing economic power of the US federal government." - -sche (discuss) 19:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I cited it, but I'm not sure they're all acceptable. What do you think? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Two of them are for [[tea bag]]. Is it possible to find another of "tea bag", or two more of "teabag"? I'm looking on Google Groups (Usenet), but uses there seem to be of the sex sense or another sense we're missing(?). - -sche (discuss) 01:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Searching with terms like "Tea Party" or the names of prominent political commentators cuts down on the sexual material.--Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I fully cited tea bag#Verb and made teabag into an alternate form. It still needs two more cites. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice work citing tea bag. :) - -sche (discuss) 06:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

teabag: RFV-failed; tea bag: RFV-passed. :) - -sche (discuss) 04:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Almost non-existent in Google Books and Groups. Also, should "Penta" be capitalised? Is it a trademark of some kind? Equinox ◑ 23:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it refers to w:the Pentagon? —CodeCa t 23:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a tool for evaluating proposals. Penta Chart Description[46] as used by NASA:

The Penta Chart format is a one page summary of a technology proposal. GCT needs to review many concepts and technologies. Having a standard summary page which emphasizes the technical context of an idea is useful and helps GCT to review of many ideas quickly and efficiently. The Penta chart format asks that a technology be described in terms of the problem/need it addresses and asks for a summary of the status quo in how the problem is addressed today. In the introduction and description of the idea, the Penta Chart asks for a description of the insight achieved which make this idea attractive. The proposer is asked to provide a description of the concept along with a summary of the benefits of its approach. If a development program is pursued, the Penta chart format asks for the goals that would be achieved.

A sample Penta Chart can be downloaded here[47]. I think the name comes from the number of fields or "boxes" in the chart. The description and example are from NASA but other organizations use the tool as well. The headlines of the fields vary by organization and kind of proposals evaluated. --Hekaheka (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Conceptually and linguistically, it is an extension of quad chart (which looks attestable), having five rather than four sections. It just doesn't seem to have left much trace in attestation space. pentachart is visible on the web. (Why isn't it a quinta chart/quintachart?) DCDuring TALK 12:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

One hit on Google Books. Would like to hear input from the Japanese editors here. I don't speak the language, but I can't see how this can be an idiom - where's the verb? ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a verbless idiom, something like femme fatale. 傾城傾国 is a synonym - "woman so glamorous as to bring ruin to a country (castle) as its king (lord) is captivated by her beauty".

Dictionary entries: 傾城の美人 and 傾城傾国. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 23:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not know this expression, but I disagree with the literal translation and suspect the definition itself could be better. --BB12 (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Just judging from its parts, the literal meaning should be "a city/castle-toppling beauty", with 傾城 already having an entry. As I understand it, の here just means that the part before it modifies the part after it Chuck Entz (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The definition is exactly as in Glosbe dictionary. Yes, it can be improved by removing the verb. It's more like a noun. The synonym 傾城傾国 appears in the free dictionary EDICT, added by volunteers. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 00:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Chuck Entz, the entry is Chinese, not Japanese. Both 傾城 and 傾国 in Japanese on their own is not just beauty but may also mean courtesan, prostitute, concubine. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 00:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm finding 傾国 as a syn for 傾城, but I'm not finding 傾城傾国 as a single term in any of my JA sources to hand. I'll have a go at reworking 傾城の美人. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There are examples of 傾城傾国 in Google Books and in online dictionaries or in simple Google searches. It also appears as two separate expressions, often used together and also less commonly in Chinese. Vietnamese Wiki thinks 傾城傾国 is Chinese (it probably is, originally or as 傾城與傾國 "qīngchéng yǔ qīngguó") and Vietnamese has an equivalent Sino-Vietnamese term: khuynh thành khuynh quốc (傾城傾國) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 01:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not denying that the term exists, I'm just not sure it's used in Japanese as an integral term. google books:"傾城傾国"+は generates 365 hits (adding the は to filter for Japanese), but enough of these hits have punctuation in the middle to suggest that this string is considered to be two separate terms that are sometimes used in conjunction. Given also that this term is not included in any of the JA-JA dictionaries I have access to at the moment, such as Kotobank, Weblio, Eijiro, or my dead-tree copies of Shogakukan and Daijirin, whereas all but Eijiro have 傾城 and 傾国 as discrete entries, I'm inclined to think that 傾城傾国 is not a set phrase in Japanese. Jim Breen's online EDICT for JA-EN does have 傾城傾国, but also 傾国傾城, which again suggests to me that this is two separate two-kanji terms that are sometimes used in conjunction.

FWIW, Daijirin gives the origin of both 傾城 and 傾国 as the line 一顧傾人城、再顧傾人国 from the w:Book of Han, in Table of nobles from families of the imperial consorts Biographies of the Empresses and Imperial Affines (#18 #97 in the table in the WP article); Shogakukan says almost the same, but without mentioning the specific part of the Book of Han. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 02:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Edited to fix source. Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 02:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

傾城の美人 is a common phrase but probably a sum of parts by the Wiktionary standard. You can say 傾城の美女, 傾国の美人, 傾国の美女, 傾城傾国の美人, 傾城傾国の美女 quite arbitrarily. Note that 傾城 used alone is different from that in 傾城の美人. The former means a extremely beautiful woman or a courtesan and the latter means "enough to ruin the castle" used only to describe a beautiful woman. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Even if it's real, the quotes need cleaning up. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added a bunch of cites to the entry's citations page. I also rewrote the original definition, and added a second sense. Regarding the two citations originally given, the first (Soul Searching Confessions) was okay, but the second ("Black music & jazz review: Volume 3 1980") only contains references to a music group called Eargasm. Astral (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe it's in the song No Diggity by Blackstreet, but I guess that's a spoken citation, not a written one. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Songs are permanently recorded media and seem to qualify. See WT:CFI "Other recorded media such as audio and video are also acceptable." --BB12 (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll add it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It's already cited, so I won't. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Sense given looks like a protologism to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Might as well add sexposition to that, which that entry specifically says was coined last year.. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

RFV for the sense "(botany) Having the form of a cyme." — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A cyme is a type of inflorescence, so all you have to do is search on cymoid inflorescence in Google Books to get 76 hits, albeit in rather specialized scientific jargon. There's also a geological sense, though I don't know whether it overlaps with the architectural one or not Chuck Entz (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I see 29 hits for the exact phrase "cymoid inflorescence", 500+ hits for cymoid + inflorescence. I'll RFV-pass it without making anyone format the citations and actually add them to the entry, if there are no objections. - -sche (discuss) 03:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Struck as kept. - -sche (discuss) 04:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "A public house, at which accommodation was once commonly provided, but now only rarely." It doesn't sound very implausible, but I don't quite understand it, or, if I do, I'm not sure it's different from the main sense. The citation doesn't seem to be describing something particularly different, and many early hotels were indistinguishable from inns anyway. It's labelled "chiefly New Zealand, Australia", so if anyone from there wants to weigh in... Ƿidsiþ 11:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Our current definition says: "(uncountable) Operations performed on teeth by dentists, such as drilling teeth, filling cavities, and placing crowns and bridges." Other dictionaries seem to define dentistry as science.

dictionary.com: "the profession or science dealing with the prevention and treatment of diseases and malformations of the teeth, gums, and oral cavity, and the removal, correction, and replacement of decayed, damaged, or lost parts, including such operations as the filling and crowning of teeth, the straightening of teeth, and the construction of artificial dentures."
dictionary.com/Collins: "the branch of medical science concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of diseases and disorders of the teeth and gums"
dictionary.com/Medical Dictionary: "The science concerned with the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases of the teeth, gums, and related structures of the mouth and including the repair or replacement of defective teeth."
dictionary.com: "The branch of medicine that deals with the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of diseases of the teeth, gums, and other structures of the mouth."
The Free Dictionary: "The science concerned with the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of diseases of the teeth, gums, and related structures of the mouth and including the repair or replacement of defective teeth."
Wikipedia: "branch of medicine that is involved in the study, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of diseases, disorders and conditions of the oral cavity, maxillofacial area and the adjacent and associated structures and their impact on the human body."
Our Appendix:Glossary of dental terms: "The study, diagnosis and treatment of diseases of teeth and surrounding tissues."

Should we rewrite our definition or perhaps add another sense? --Hekaheka (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

So, you're disputing both definitions. Are you happy for this entry to be deleted if it's not cited? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course I'm not happy with deletion. I agree that "dentistry" is a word (!) that we should have. That's why this is in RFV. My question is, whether the sense "operations performed by dentist" is a) correct, i.e. actually used, and b) sufficient, as other dictionaries seem to define it differently. --Hekaheka (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It actually could be deleted after a month if not cited, especially if we don't consider these definitions 'in clear widespread use' because they're not accurate. It would be a bit of a farce. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You make me feel that I have done something wrong when I brought up this issue here. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This seems to me to be as good a forum as any for addressing poor definitions. The one-month pseudo-deadline puts some benign pressure on facing and resolving such problems.

MWOnline takes a somewhat different approach to the above: "the art or profession of a dentist" (linked in their entry).

As dentistry is derived (synchronically at least) from dentist, it seems proper to push the main burden to [[dentist]].
To say that dentistry is a science requires adding a sense that defines it as an engineering discipline or a profession.
If someone not schooled in the "science" of dentistry were extracting teeth, filling cavities, and making false teeth, wouldn't en-N speakers still call the practice dentistry?

IOW, the "science" definitions all seem like PoV pushing. DCDuring TALK 16:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Some more POV pushing is to be found in the names of major institutions in this field: Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Adelaide School of Dentistry and University of Toronto Faculty of Dentistry to name a few. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, they don't call themselves Schools of Dental Science, just as (most) business schools don't have the gall to claim to teach "business science" or law schools "legal science". If you are saying that dentistry is a field of study, that is as true as saying that hospitality, business, engineering, animal husbandry and forestry are fields of study. There may be something that people call "dental science", but the main meaning of dentistry doesn't seem to me to be that. If we can show that dentistry is used to refer to both the profession or practice and a "science", then we should have two senses. DCDuring TALK 23:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Some bollocks about internet slang or something. Ƿidsiþ 06:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well apparently people use it on Facebook and other sites (I haven't yet, but I've seen many people use it) and it's not a typo. Here's an example: "crey how do I even study for this test omg." Here's some other links as well: UrbanDict, Quora, and this one on Tumblr where it's used as a tag name, but I think this tag includes both the "crey" as "cry" and the shortened form of "crazy" ("cray" or "crey" as used in "That shit cray"). Btw, this entry (crey) was originally created in 2008, when it was probably relatively new. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, it seems to be used to intentionally make fun of the actual "cry" and the seriousness of its usage/context. From UrbanDict. From what I think, "crey" is a purposeful misspelling to imitate the immaturity of younger kids when the person is faced with unfortunate events, except maybe using the actual word as a substitute for the sound or just to further de-emphasize the seriousness when "cry" is used. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but we need some valid citations for the entry. Ƿidsiþ 06:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if any books or reliable sites have mentioned it, since it's only used online and among younger people (teenagers and kids) at times of distress or unfortunate events (before deadlines, tests, unlucky events, etc.) - M0rphzone (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I reverted an IP who added a comment about it not being a word, but a quick search turned up next to nothing except a different definition in English and what looks like the same definition for Scots. Are the current definitions attestable for English, or do we need to add the other definition and move these to a Scots one? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Entered as Spanish, not Latin. Spanish Wiktionary has a link to an entry in an old dictionary, and Google mostly has references to an episode of Lost. Is this an actual Spanish term, or is it just a Latin phrase (which, by the way, looks too SOP to merit its own entry)? Chuck Entz (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It is only Latin, it's not Spanish. I think it's a set phrase in Latin and should have an entry. The Spanish Wiktionary link refers to the RAE dictionary, which explains that it is a Latin locution and gives its meaning in Spanish. From the parts, one might think it means "from eternity", but what does "from eternity" mean? —Stephen ^(Talk) 11:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It does not quite mean "from eternity". The Latin word for eternity is aeternitas, but aeternus is an adjective, meaning that in this case it must be a substantive ("from the endless thing"). That translation, however, makes no sense to me. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It also has an entry for English, as I have found it in my 1976 W 3rd NWID. Speednat (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

@Μετάknowledge: It seems pretty comparable to English since always or since forever. —Ruakh_TALK 20:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the sense 5, "A nonstandard way of pronouncing", really distinct from the previous sense, "the manner of speaking or pronouncing"? The example phrase seems to illustrated the previous sense just as well. — Paul G (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Everyone has a "manner of speaking or pronouncing", but not everyone has an accent. Defining exactly who has an accent and who doesn't is very subjective, and loaded with cultural biases- but most people would agree that such a thing exists.

I wouldn't use nonstandard, myself, since that brings to mind things like ain't and irregardless that prescriptivists love to hate- and having an accent can often be very positive and prestigious, with the implication the speaker is better than normal in some respect. I would say it's a "manner of speaking or pronouncing" that's recognizably distinct from what's considered normal. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone has an accent? In an area where most or all speakers share this accent, people don't tend notice their particular accent, but they still have it, even if it's just General American or Received Pronunciation. I think the distinction that the definitions are trying to make is accent as in "He spoke with an American accent" (sense 4) and "He spoke with a heavy accent" (without further context, sense 5). That said, I personally would reword sense 5 to "Any manner of speaking noticeably distinct from the speaker's own", which would explain the "I don't have an accent!" issue. Either that, or I'd delete that sense, and add a usage note that people often don't use "accent" to describe their own manner of speech. Smurrayinchester (talk) 05:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the speakers own speech is always the defining characteristic, it may also just be based on the relatively standard and most unmarked form of pronunciation. For example what one would call 'RP' or 'General American' could be the standard from which anything significantly different is perceived as an accent. —CodeCa t 16:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

... but then people where I live would regard both 'RP' and 'General American' as "foreign accents". Dbfirs 13:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

True, but CodeCat is right that it has to do with a relative standard, not just with the speaker's own accent. For example, my parents both speak English with very noticeable Israeli accents (though all Americans agree that my mother actually sounds French, dunno why), and they would never contemplate using "he speaks English without an accent" to mean "he speaks English with an Israeli accent". The standard is locally defined, of course — for me an RP speaker "has an accent", whereas a GenAm speaker does not — but it's not strictly individual. —Ruakh_TALK 15:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

What about intentional accents where people copy supposed accents, such as people parodying or faking a British accent when making a joke about British people or related to a British topic? Or any other people saying things in stereotypical accents or fake accents, which would be a "nonstandard way of pronunciation", except "the manner of speaking or pronouncing" also works as well. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense noun; I'm pretty sure it's only an adjective. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Cited. - -sche (discuss) 01:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Neologism, not found in dictionaries. Maro 00:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It might be attested, though. Are these [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] using the word in to mean steering wheel? - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought that acutes were only used in transcriptions of Old English, and not in original texts. But... I oppose speedy delete on these grounds as whatever WT:About Old English says it can't overrule WT:CFI and if this is in a 'contemporaneous' text, it would pass. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We have thizz, which is a slang term for ecstacy. I don't think it's much of a stretch to use it as a verb. A quick look at Google Books for thiz with one z turns up mostly eye dialect for this. I suspect that the one-z spelling is a very rare variant, and I doubt it will prove attestable. The two-z variant already has 2 cites and there are plenty more out there- though perhaps only enough for the noun sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that inflected forms like thizzes, thizzing, and thizzed are ambiguous as to whether the bare stem should be spelled thiz or thizz, so the current citations for the verb thizz could just as easily be for the verb thiz. —An gr 22:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

While "thizz," as a slang term for "Ecstasy," turned up a couple of times on Google Books, I could only find one use of the spelling "thiz":

2008, "Students Suspended Over 'Ecstacy Pose'", KRCA.com, 1 May 2008:
But Shad Canestrino from the Lodi Police Department said the gesture represents the words "thiz" or "thizzin'," which are slang terms for Ecstasy, or MDMA.

Astral (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

A fictional multipurpose object in Dr Seuss's The Lorax (which, incidentally, is excellent). I don't see this passing WT:FICTION though. Equinox ◑ 21:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It might be doable. I don't have time now, but I'll try to deal with that bye-the-bye. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A verification request for the "thneed"?
Is this a real word, one of which we have need?
With adjectives, adverbs, and nouns we're replete;
But lacking this word can our work be complete?
Our duty to document use I won't shirk,
but surely its source is one quite well known work,
But if that's not enough for us to keep and prize it,
Might I suggest that we appendicize it?
Cheers! bd2412 T 03:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. Bravo. Ƿidsiþ 07:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Earlier took the tl;dr approach and only read the last line and passed this by; thank you Ƿidsiþ for your comment, as it prompted me to read Chuck's full post, and I certainly feel in a better mood for it. :) Yay for good, fun writing. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless bd2412 has the same first name as I do, I think you've got the wrong person. Still, if I'm going to be complimented in error, I guess it's nice to be erroneously complimented for something as good as this... Chuck Entz (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That's what I get for posting so late. I'm sure I saw your name just before writing the above post, but it must have been in a different thread. Thanks then to bd2412 for the good writing, and thanks to Chuck for being a good sport. Cheers! -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to find this word in other meaning than a surname (Narożniak). Etymologically it's correct, the stem -roż- is derived from róg ("corner"), so the meaning could be correct, but I suppose it was used as a surname only. Maro 22:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Patented material used in a soldering tool. Seems to be a WT:BRAND and should probably be at capitalised Athalite. However, I see nothing in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 23:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense (Australian, slang, automotive) Driving up and down the main street of a town, repeatedly, for show and to see what's happening.

The link for the existing citation is broken. Perhaps a neologism coined by Chris Lilley for Angry Boys? — Pingku^dimmi 05:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: adverb. Is this just the use of an adjective? The door had been left ajar could be the same as the door had been left open or the flame had been left extinguished, where each thing is just an adjective, is that right? —Internoob 22:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's possible to read it either way, but the OED views it as only adverbial. Militating against its being an adjective, perhaps, is the scarcity of attributive use (like 'the ajar door', which exists, but sounds very wrong to me). Ƿidsiþ 07:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I find "the ajar door" just as bad as you, but that's pretty common for adjectives with the prefix a- where that represents an original preposition; compare "the asleep child", "his askew hat", "the statue's akimbo arms", "an askance glance". (Also "in awake life": it turns out that the a- there didn't start life as a preposition, but it seems to have picked up this pattern by analogy.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "a scholar or learned person". I'm not convinced this is used in such a way as to be different from sense 1, 'learned person in India, Hindu scholar', or sense 4, 'professed expert in a particular field'. Ƿidsiþ 07:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you clarify a bit what sense 4 means? Specifically — in "professed expert", does "professed" mean "self-professed", or "professed by the speaker", or "professed by anyone"? In the first and third cases, I think we should make that more explicit; in the second case, I think we should simply remove "professed". Either way, I think that will help clarify what would be necessary for this sense to be different from sense 4. —Ruakh_TALK 11:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it means 'self-professed' – I read it as covering such cases as sports pundits etc. on television. Ƿidsiþ 12:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've now changed our def to read "self-professed". —Ruakh_TALK 14:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Move to RfD: This seems more like an RfD matter than an RfV matter. Any of the three sentences in the nomination can very easily be verified; the question of whether they are redundant or not is an RfD Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense. Are some whelks really called purples? Certainly the imperial purple dye comes from them, but wouldn't that be purple whelks, not just purples? Spinning Spark 15:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The OED has, as its fifth noun sense:- "5. Any of several Mediterranean gastropod molluscs of the families Muricidae and Thaididae which yielded the dye Tyrian purple (cf. sense B. 4). Also: any of various other molluscs belonging (esp. formerly) to the genus Purpura (family Thaididae); esp. the common dog whelk, Nucella lapillus." SemperBlotto (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything that matches the current definition. See also: WT:RFD#inhibiting hormone. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Here are some citations that seem to work, based on a search using Somatostatin:

That said, this seems to be SOP to me. If tomorrow, someone comes up with a hormone that inhibits X (where X is not a hormone), I think it would be natural to also call that an inhibiting hormone. --BB12 (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The RfD discussion contains examples that show not only hormones, but bodily processes (which may or may not be hormone-controlled), cells, etc can be inhibited.

I think that valid citations for this should not be of the use of X-inhibiting + hormone. I would argue that such uses are prima facie evidence that inhibiting hormone is not a set phrase, contradicting one argument for inclusion. DCDuring TALK 13:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It is common English slang in Singarpore-produced movie "INotStupid", etc. 58.83.252.59 07:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

A (to B):"Good idea! Lim pei like(s) it very much."

B (to A):"Lim Pei?"

C (to B):"'Lim pei' means your father."

A (to B):"No, 'lim pei' is 'I'; 'I' is 'lim pei'".

58.83.252.59 08:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

All you have to do is provide evidence - point us to some books, newspapers or other permanently archived source that uses the term. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

A movie is as evidential as a book - both are 'published material. 58.83.252.59 09:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That is a good citation, but three citations are needed. I looked at the Singaporean cultural Usenet group, but did not find anything under lim pei, limpei, limbei or limbei. I also looked at Google Books and the Straits Times but did not find anything. --BB12 (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, to some degree it is codeswitching, but it's ok to say it's an English word rather than a Chinese phrase because if you speak that word in English everybody will understand. Similar phrase include lim lau peh (from Hokkien "你老爸" lin lau peh), lim pek (lin peh), so it's also possible if you find some other forms. 58.83.252.59 10:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, evidence rather than anecdotes please. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Google searches for "lim pei want", "lim pei like", "lim pei don't", etc. return hits, so this seems to be genuine Singlish slang. Editors unfamiliar with Singaporean culture are at a disadvantage when it comes to knowing where to look for acceptable cites, but if you can remember any other Singaporean movies, TV shows, or magazine articles in which this term has been used, that would help, 58.83.252.59. We'd need at least two more quotes in addition to the one from I Not Stupid to attest this term. Astral (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The criteria for Wiktionary (WT:CFI) basically require three citations in published materials or Usenet. It seems like this might not yet meet those criteria. --BB12 (talk) 07:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

ISBN 1617353841. "But lim peh ha li kong?". 58.83.252.44 15:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

According to WT:CFI "Other recorded media such as audio and video are also acceptable, provided they are of verifiable origin and are durably archived." I'm not sure how this works for non-written materials, do we need a durably archived transcript? Can we include audio files on citation pages? I don't see why not. It's much trickier than it first appears if you want to do it really well, but if you want to do it just 'ok' that's easy enough; if it sounds like the word it's supposed to be verifying and it's in the right context, assume it is. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I say this not so much in general as a reply to Astral's "We'd need at least two more quotes in addition to the one from I Not Stupid to attest this term." Well we don't have the I Not Stupid one yet, someone would need to add it, and back it up with evidence. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Audio files don't have spelling, and they don't have italics, so it doesn't have that cue that it's a foreign word. (Including of foreign words in English that were italicized in the original seems to be controversial, which makes Usenet a useful source sometimes because it doesn't have italics.) I used a TV show cite for sancocho recently; maybe I should note someplace other than an HTML comment that it was copied from a subtitle, and hence spelling questions and italics aren't issues.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Aside from potential copyright issues, the disadvantage of using audio clips in lieu of text quotes is that it would make the cites in question inaccessible to hearing-impaired Wiktionary readers, and also that some cites are difficult to make out from the original audio, but are confirmed by DVD captions, official lyric sheets, etc. For example, the Breakfast Club cite I included in doobage is difficult to make out from the film's audio because Judd Nelson mutters the line, but what he says is revealed by the captions. Most DVDs and Blu-rays released today have captions. It's not as convenient as searching Google Books, but chances are that at least one Wiktionary editor has access to the audio or video media containing a cite. Since the anon quoted I Not Stupid above, I thought this was the case. Astral (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Note - the correct usage should be "lim pei like it", not "lim pei likes it". And the best translation is "I, as your father, like it" not "your father, i.e. me, likes it". See INotStupid 45:00~45:30.
References:

ISBN 1617353841. Page 137. "But lim peh ha li kong?". Translation: But I tell you
INotStupid 45:00~45:30 the some version has English subtitle. 58.83.252.40 16:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What is this book ISBN 1617353841? Where can we see it? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You can search Amazon or Abebooks by ISBN. But it will cost you to actually read "Critical Qualitative Research in Second Language Studies: Agency and Advocacy (Contemporary Language Education)" SemperBlotto (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

So it's a mention not a use? Also "But lim peh ha li kong?" isn't English anyway is it? Note that despite all the discussion, lim pei has zero citations. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Just watched that part of the film. Thing is, the whole film is in English and I guess what you call 'Hokkien'. You're right that it does appear in an English sentence, but I'm not sure that makes it English per se. A bit like if I say "the French word for house is 'maison'" I've said 'maison' in an English sentence. FWIW unless there are two other citations, it doesn't matter anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The whole movie is in English, Singlish, Mandarin, Sindarin, and Singaporean Hokkien (Singaporean) English, Singlish (C.S.E.), (Singaporean) Mandarin, Singdarin (C.S.M.), and (Singaporean) Hokkien.
It's is so clear that when Mr. Khoo say "lim pei like it" he is speaking that naturally and not using it as a qoute (i.e. different from quoting French word 'maison' in English) while when he say "'Lim Pei' is 'I' and 'I' is 'Lim Pei'" he is quote it like "'I' is a pronoun" (i.e. identical to quoting French word 'maison' in English) that I can't imagine why you have this question.
ISBN 1617353841 can be previewed in Google Books. It's not a mention but a use, since it's in a whole material. And you can see that it is English.
"Lim peh" and "lim pei" are different spelling of one word, i.e., like "color" and "colour". They should be seen identical. 123.125.157.17 18:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems it can be previewed on Google Books... but lim pei does not feature in that preview. Anyway the book is called "Critical Qualitative Research in Second Language Studies: Agency and Advocacy", why are you so reluctant to link to it or to call it by its name. Are you hoping that nobody will actually check the book if you don't give it's name? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The cite is part of a fictional online conversation invented by the author, but based on actual usage, "to examine the place of Singlish amid the sociocultural realities of English oracy acquisition". Here is the quote:

I find Singlish extremely sexist. How many popular Singlish expletives treat women's bodies as violently and disrespectfully! Lietenant Kilat says it's all part of the "male-bonding culture" But (and pardon my Singlish) lim peh ka li kong. "kan ni na bu chao chee bye!"

Yours faithfully,

Miss Feminist

The italics would seem to indicate that she does not consider it English. Spinning Spark 00:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

However she mentioned "and pardon my Singlish", i.e., 'she consider it Singlish (i.e. Colloquial Singaporean English) though she may not consider Singlish English. In Wikipedia, Singlish is considered either a creole or a dialect of English. Whatever it is, the word may be listed under some entry in Wiktionary, because all languages are equal. 58.83.252.37 05:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Plus, italic may either be quoting or emphasizing. It may be English. 58.83.252.37 05:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused how this could be considered English if the only people who could be expected to understand it live in Singapore. Wouldn't that, at best, make it Singlish or some variant thereof? Frankly, it seems more like a slangy form of code switching. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

PS -- Last I knew, Sindarin was a conlang invented by Tolkien. I assume you mean "Singaporean Mandarin"? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I mean Singdarin (sorry for misspelling), i.e., Colloquial Singaporean Mandarin. 58.83.252.37 05:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Singlish is a dialect of English, is it not?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

My impression is that Singlish is even less English than Spanglish is -- i.e., whereas Spanglish is a blend of English and Spanish where the terms from each language function as they do in the source language, Singlish is more of a pidgin or patois or creole of many different languages where the terms from each language function within the separate paradigm of Singlish grammar and morphology. The EN WT entry at Singlish characterizes it as a creole and the EN WP article does likewise. Other online articles such as [56] or [57], also describe Singlish as a creole. Meanwhile, other articles also describe it as a dialect, suggesting that this is an unsettled question. However, the prevalence of Malaysian and Chinese vocabulary and the divergence in morphology for at least the English vocabulary leads me to lean more towards viewing Singlish as an English-based creole rather than a dialect of English. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Two side issues in contention are: A) whether this is a pronoun, and B) whether it's first person. It's quite normal in English for parents to refer to themselves in the third person in certain contexts, as in "Pay attention when your mother is talking to you, young man!". Semantically, it may be the speaker referring to him- or herself, but first person and third person are used here in the context of grammar, which doesn't always have to match reality. It stretches credibility to claim that "lim pei" is both a 1st person and a 3rd person pronoun. I suspect the "1st person" and "3rd person" distinction has everything to do with context, and nothing to do with the lim pei itself. Likewise, the fact that a phrase can be used like a pronoun doesn't make it one. Pronouns and nouns are interchangeable (within certain limits), which is where the "pro" in pronoun comes from.

I believe the underlying problem is misunderstanding the nature of translation: translation is a way of transferring meaning between languages, not grammar. A literal translation can come close to showing the grammar of the source language (or dialect, in this case), but it never really achieves it- and this doesn't look like a literal translation. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The "Critical Qualitative Research in Second Language Studies: Agency and Advocacy" is indeed a mention, or not English; see w:Use-mention distinction. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You are gaming the rule. The whole letter was mentioned in the book but the phrase was used in the letter, which was mentioned in the book. So it is a permenantely archived use. 58.83.252.37 05:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think people should use American English or British English logic to understand Singlish (C.S.E./S.C.E.) because when Singaporeans speak C.S.E. they use Colloquial Singaporean English logic, i.e., a mix of British English logic, Hokkien logic and Malay logic. So their understanding of "first person" may be different to either American English or Chinese. 58.83.252.37 05:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not English anyway, so the use/mention distinction is moot. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The quotes given so far don't use the term "first person", so it isn't a question of their understanding of "first person". You're applying an English term, so ordinary English logic (I'm not British, so I wouldn't call it "British English logic") is inherent in its definition. Creating special rules that don't apply anywhere else, and redefining terms to fit your analysis doesn't really work: it doesn't change the reality of things, it just gets in the way of communication. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It is English. The author emphasis "and pardon my Singlish", that is, s/he considered it Colloquial Singaporean English.--58.83.252.66 10:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I have to admit that I didn't quite get the exact meaning of "ordinary English logic"? Would you mind to clarify it? IMHO English people believe British English ordinary, Indians believe Indian English ordinary, and Singarporean believe C.S.E. ordinary. --58.83.252.66 10:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard a doorstep called a stoop. The normal old and dialectal meaning is a gatepost or pillar, but I can imagine someone using a fallen gatepost as a doorstep and correctly calling it a stoop, and this usage then being misunderstood. Dbfirs 13:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It's common in New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Connecticut (at least). It comes from Dutch stoep and it means a small porch. —Stephen ^(Talk) 13:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I heard this growing up in northern Virginia, and at university in Indiana -- "We're having a barbecue on the back stoop; d'you want to come over?" -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

See w:Stoop (architecture). There's also a character called "stoop kid" on the show Hey Arnold. - -sche (discuss) 18:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

@Dbfirs, I see you're in the UK. Maybe this is a pondian difference? I think Dutch might have had more impact on slang in the US than in the UK, what with New Amsterdam and all. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It's narrower than pondian. Here in Southern California where I live and grew up, no one uses it, though we're exposed enough to eastern US usage to know what it means. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't questioning the North American usage derived from the Dutch. The sense I was challenging has had a UK tag, and the word "stoop" (from Old Norse stolpe) was in use in the UK long before the Dutch went to America. Might the "doorstep" sense be American? I don't think it is British unless the American Dutch usage has crept back across the Atlantic with a twist in meaning. The questionable addition was made by an anon editor from Arizona who seems to have come across the expression "Doorstop sandwich" and constructed an imaginary British etymology for "stop/step" from "stoep". If no-one objects, and if Americans do use "stoop" to mean "doorstep", then I'll just remove the UK tag and leave the sense open as to region. I suspect we can find someone from somewhere who has confused step with stoop in print. Dbfirs 17:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

... I've removed both tags and left the definition (since it is a small logical step from porch steps to doorstep), but if anyone finds citations that clearly show a meaning of threshold or doorstep (as opposed to steps or porch), then please add them. Dbfirs 22:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Defined as a type of science fiction (e.g. steampunk), but I think it is a type of punk music. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Methinks the initial contributing editor was a touch confused, and didn't do their homework very well. Sure enough, google:"industrial+punk" generates tons of hits that appear to be mostly about music, which is also the context in which I first heard the term. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Created as a verb based on a single sentence in a Robert Heinlein book. I changed it to a noun to fit how it was actually used, but I still have doubts as to whether it meets CFI in any form. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Oddly, the version of the sentence in our entry is very different from the version in my copy of the book, which is also the version that google books:"Istanbul twist" pulls up (in two different editions, neither of which is the same edition as my copy). I can't decide if our entry used a genuinely different version, or if the contributor did a shockingly bad job copying the quotation, or what. But either way . . . The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress might count as a well-known work; but then, if this is the only place that the term appears, then it probably counts as a term originating in a fictional universe? And technically the quotation is structured as a mention rather than a use, but it's an extremely use-y mention. —Ruakh_TALK 01:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it qualifies. In addition to the Heinlein, here are to Usenet citations:

--BB12 (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The first is good. But the second citation is discussing the book, so it doesn't pass WT:CFI#Fictional universes. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 16:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Modern English? Really? -- Liliana • 12:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

How can a 2006 citation back up Obsolete spelling of the? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I have modified the context to reflect this, but it still needs 2 non-enm cites. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 13:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Abrahamize

The former has but two bgc hits; the latter has none. I found this post, about as old as the entry, to be rather funny: [60]. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (computing, rare) To be put into a development request process. -- Liliana • 21:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

123abc -- Liliana • 21:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense:

3. (cultural anthropology) A now-defunct theory that all primitive cultures worshipped the Sun and its movements and patterns.

4. An obsession with the Sun and its movements and patterns.

I don't find these in other dictionaries, nor was I able to locate supporting quotes. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The correct names to go with these definitions would almost certainly be heliotheism and heliophilia. The first is attested, while the second is used almost exclusive with respect to sun-loving plants. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Heliotheism is belief in sun-worship. The belief that everyone used to believe that is not likely to be the same word (if there is one)> Spinning Spark 23:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

A lot of mentions out there, but that won't cite it. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 13:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

2009 "That is the most interesting delusion I've come across since reading up on galeanthropy," said Sophie.[61]
1967 Thus, in this city of several great institutions of learning Galeanthropy and Incubus came to life behind every lamp post, and for all I know these revenants may yet linger in many good Philadelphians who likewise ponder and act upon the notion that cats...[62]
2008 kindred--golden-garlanded black-slit galeanthropic eyeballs cared nothing.[63]

Spinning Spark 20:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC) to 20:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but the 2008 cite is for galeanthropic, not galeanthropy IMO. So one more is needed (and they all need to be added to the entry). --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I dare you. Just cite it and I will be in shock for days on end. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. See w:ja:チャーゴグガゴグマンチャウグガゴグチャウバナガンガマウグ. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Great, and now, any citations? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The obvious question: Is it really Japanese, or is it merely a foreign place name rendered in katakana? Chuck Entz (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

GIYF. According to the Japanese Wikipedia article, the name appeared in a Japanese TV program in 2004. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If we can have an entry on the lake, Chaubunagungamaug, I see no reason why we could not have entries on all attested translations of that placename. bd2412 T 17:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Emphasis on "attested". -- Liliana • 18:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, last I checked we still need evidence rather than just discussion over the validity of the term. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

How about Google Maps .jp? http://www.google.co.jp/m/maps?q=&ll=42.042154,-71.843033&spn=0.036078,0.067291&oi=nojs

-- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This one too (see above). --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem. See w:ja:チャウバナガンガマウグ湖. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that the Japanese Wikipedia article only cites English language sources. The katakana rendering seems to be the work of one of its editors, although I'd need a Japanese atlas (or trivia book) to know for sure. Smurrayinchester (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

How about Google Maps .jp? http://www.google.co.jp/m/maps?q=&ll=42.042154,-71.843033&spn=0.036078,0.067291&oi=nojs

-- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Being owned and hosted by Google is probably as close to durable as an internet resource is going to get. Not entirely sure whether it's a use or a mention, but putting a word on a map seems to be a use (a map with a picture of the UK and a dot marked "London" is surely as much of a use as "London is in the south east of England", right?). Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It hardly sounds like a use to me, but I would count it - if you can find all 3 citations. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-senses:

(intransitive, slang) To be angry.
(transitive, slang) To forget or not care about
Screw that!

The first one I've never heard of, so it would be something like "I am screwing" to mean "I am angry". The second one seems like a pure mistake. In screw that, the screwing doesn't refer to the person but to the object (screw the Mets, screw Manchester United, etc.). Mglovesfun (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

A books search for '"I screwed it" -"I screwed it up"' (i.e., everything with the phrase "I screwed it", but not "I screwed it up") found nothing at all that made sense as "I forgot it" or "I did not care about it". I think that can be simply deleted as a mistake. I didn't check all the 25,000 results for '"He screwed" -"he screwed up"', but in the first 20 pages, I found nothing. There is another sense of screw up we don't seem to have, which is a reflexive use meaning "work oneself up", as used in Lord of the Rings, here, and here. It's possible this is where the sense came from, but I think it's more likely to be nonsense based on a misunderstanding of "screw" as a swearword. Smurrayinchester (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What perfect passive participle? Lysdexia (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I've corrected the etymology. For future reference, RfV is the place to ask for verification of the existence of a word or meaning of a word. The place to question the accuracy of an etymology is the Etymology scriptorium. —An gr 07:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm used to seeing the verb form as 躊躇う (ためらう, tamerau), rather than 躊躇い (ためらい, tamerai) + する (suru). I was surprised to see a conjugation table using suru over at Jim Breen's site, but then again the site also has a chart for tamerau, and both have been auto-generated, so I'm not sure how much stock to put in this.

Googling results, weeding out many of our echoes:

google web:"躊躇いする" -wiki -wikipedia -glosbe -wapedia -ordbok -- 106 hits
google web:"ためらいする" -wiki -wikipedia -glosbe -wapedia -ordbok -- 145 hits
google web:"躊躇う" -wiki -wikipedia -glosbe -wapedia -ordbok -- over 800K hits
google web:"ためらう" -wiki -wikipedia -glosbe -wapedia -ordbok -- nearly 2.5M hits

Can any native-J editors weigh in? Is tamerai suru valid Japanese, or is it a lexicographer's error for tamerau? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't say *ためらいする. It is very likely to be a mispronunciation of 躊躇する (chūcho suru). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Takasugi-san. That confirms my suspicions. I appreciate the native-J perspective. (Now to see if we have 躊躇...) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Protologism? Used by a single author? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The term was recognized in various publications as a "new word of the year", or reasonable equivalent. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/24/weekinreview/24barrett.html I am not religious, and I had not heard of either Rushnell, or godwink, until I came across a related MFD. I did a google search and seemed to find the term widely re-used. What did you find with your google search? Geo Swan (talk) 08:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You may not be aware of WT:CFI#Attestation. A simple Google search means nothing, you can get hits for absolute nonsense on Google. Mglovesfun (talk)

Here a few: the original coining, plus some independent uses. The single word form is hard to attest, but "God wink", in various forms of capitalisation/hyphenation is easier:

2002, SQuire D. Rushnell (sic), When God Winks: How the Power of Coincidence Guides Your Life, ISBN 0743467078:
When we carry ourselves as far as we can and feel we can go no further, that's when we should be on the lookout for a God Wink. It's coming.
2007, James B. Twitchell, Shopping for God, ISBN 0743292871, page 105:
In its most vulgarized and solipsistic state, epiphany is what currently is marketed as a God wink. Here the believer is encouraged to take some coincidence, like winning the lottery or recovering from sickness, as evidence of a higher power at work.
2009, Ed Gungor, What Bothers Me Most About Christianity, ISBN 1416592555, page 117:
A giant hand? That's the kind of stuff that makes people of faith smile — maybe a God wink? How fun.
2010, Pat Stempfy, Who Says Dogs Don't Talk?, ISBN 1936107503:
The image was warm and comforting. I understood that Harley was giving us a symbol, while at the same time we were receiving together the sacred symbols of Reiki. This experience was another godwink for Harley and me.
2011, Stephen G. Post, The Hidden Gifts of Helping, ISBN 0470887818:
Still, at the time, I was dearly in need of a God-wink or two. And, as so often happens, I had to wait for them.

Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It does seem that this spelling may not be citable. Until it is, we might have a redirect to a citable form, apparently God wink. The ambiguity of spelling is certainly suggestive that it is or is becoming idiomatic. The context in which its meaning is lexically understood rather than constructed from its parts may be quite limited. DCDuring TALK 14:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to placing this entry at god wink. Geo Swan (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Godwink seems to be the spelling SQuire uses, but outside his books God wink prevails (apparently "godwink" is a trademark of SQuire's...). I dug up two more godwinks, so it's probably attestable (as long as one use by him is acceptable), but I don't know which should be the alternative form of which.

2006, SQuire D. Rushnell (sic), When God Winks at You: How God Speaks Directly to You Through the Power of Coincidence, page 15:

For several moments of disbelief and absolute wonder, he stared at the godwink he held in his hands!

2011, Edie Weinstein, The Bliss Mistress Guide to Transforming the Ordinary Into the Extraordinary, ISBN 1452537682, page 86:

What qualifies this as an interesting Godwink is that in 1987, when each of us got married, we had outdoor weddings officiated by the same minister!

Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Here are two more citations:

A remarkable "coincidence"--a godwink--had reunited a long lost mother and daughter. What are the odds of that? [64]

THI$ I$ YOUR GODWINK [65] --BB12 (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@BB12: The first groups citation is quoting Rushnell, isn't it?

@SMW: I'd make the more common one the main form. From the evidence the "trademarked" form is the source. DCDuring TALK 22:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, thank you! --BB12 (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@DCDuring I think he only came up with one word form some time around 2006 - possibly for copyright reasons. His earlier books use "God Wink". Pages created. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

RFV on the Adjective meaning. I can't find evidence that any such adjective exists in Irish. In phrases like lucht taistil ("travelers"), costas taistil ("traveling expenses"), and gníomhaire taistil ("travel agent"), it's the genitive singular of the noun taisteal ("travel"), but not an adjective. —An gr 21:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Based on the edit by J. Lunau, of which the edit summary was "Requests for deletion - no official German word according to „Rat für deutsche Rechtschreibung", see page 31 of this document: http://rechtschreibrat.ids-mannheim.de/download/regeln2006.pdf". He/she tagged it with {{rfc}}, which I'd imagine was a typo for rfv. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of German hits on Google book search, but many use the old Gothic script. I have only a babel 0.5 de rating so don't feel comfortable supplying the quotations. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I shouldn't have listed this; I will remove this section in a day or so. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion moved to WT:BP#humor / humour.

2nd sense.Lucifer (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Found two (both "state of kif", both 1960s, one of them italicised). Any more? Equinox ◑ 09:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds a bit dated or as if it part of a collocation, is there any precedent for state of whiskey/pale ale/alcohol/opium for example?Lucifer (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

1974 "when the kif wears out" makes three. Cited. Equinox ◑ 21:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Good enough.Lucifer (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No, one's italicized as foreign.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about "when the kif wears out". People also say "when the alcohol wears out"; does that mean that they're using alcohol to refer to the state of alcohol intoxication? —Ruakh_TALK 16:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, wears out sounds very odd to me -- this implies that something is wearing down or otherwise degrading to the point of no longer being usable, such as clothing or tools. For intoxicating effects, wears off would seem to be much more appropriate. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but the cite really does have "out". —Ruakh_TALK 17:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, it does. However, I'm not sure of its usefulness as an example of common English. A quick comparison of search results suggests that this usage is less than mainstream:
- google web:"when the alcohol wears out": 21 hits
- google web:"when the alcohol wears off": 166,000 hits
So while wears out shows up in this use, it is much less common. A quick glance through the 21 googits for wears out shows about six echoes, and what appears to be slightly-less-than-fluent English grammar in the 15 remaining hits, suggesting that this use might be a non-native or uneducated mistake for wears off. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just missing your point, but — we're not looking for "an example of common English", we're looking for evidence that kif has been used in reference to a state of kif intoxication. (And I don't think that this cite's author is non-native or uneducated. Maybe dialectal?) —Ruakh_TALK 17:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Addendum: Though I kind of wonder if the meaning here might be runs out rather than wears off? The sentence might make more sense that way — the idea being that the soup kettle becomes a minor point when put alongside a kif shortage — but without more context, it's hard to be sure. —Ruakh_TALK 17:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Apologies, I certainly could have been clearer -- my (attempt at a) point was that wears out generally isn't used to mean "a state of intoxication dissipates". The 1974 cite reads to me more like runs out (gets used up) than wears out (degrades from regular use) or wears off (the effect dissipates). -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The Latin declension table of phlegma was just edited by me. Note that I have basically no knowledge of Latin, but before editing, declensions like phlegmai, phlegmaibus, phlegmaa, and phlegmae were showing up. Not only did they seem non-Latin-ish, but they were linking to pages phlegmati, phlegmatibus, phlegmata, and phlegmate, with the t's. Even worse, these pages have their own problem — in phlegmati, for example, the word in bold is spelled as phlegmai. This is very confusing; I'm not sure if this is a Latin peculiarity where the t is optional or something (even in that case, writing phlegmati/phlegmai would be better IMO), and if it's not, I'm not sure whether this happens in other Latin entries too or not. Could someone with knowledge of Latin explain this? Wyverald (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a Greek loanword in Latin. The -t- should be there in all cases except nominative/accusative/vocative singular. (Why anyone would want to address phlegm in the vocative singular, I don't know, but the form exists just in case.) —An gr 09:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I have manually fixed all the inflected terms, and the lemma page looks right now. They were created by bot after the human typo entered the lemma page. Thank you for pointing that out, Wyverald. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 14:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

"The easiest person to deceive is oneself." That is not what it means, surely. Equinox ◑ 16:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

From what I remember of the Polonius speech to his son from which this comes (in Hamlet) it was just a load of truisms and empty waffle that didn't actually mean anything of substance. It could well be an RfD. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
This may be hard to cite. Most hits on Google Books that isn't about Shakespeare uses it as a title, either for a book or a chapter. Here's one use, which suggests it means "Do what you feel is right". This book about film criticism suggests the same (though it's a mention, not a use), as does the Lifeseeker song "Gone Guru]":

You've got to shine, to thine own self be true.

They can't tell you what to do when you've gone guru."

None of the hits I found seemed to be about lying to oneself. Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The current definition is definitely off base. I think a more accurate definition of this phrase's modern usage would be "do not engage in self-deception"/"be yourself."

1977, The Psychological and Social Impact of Physical Disability (eds. Robert P Marinelli and Arthur E. Dell Orto), Springer Publishing Co. (1977), ISBN 9780826122100, page 306:

"To thine own self be true," I saw, was what produced vitality, confidence, and genuine expression in one's interpersonal relations.

1986, Gary Diedrichs, "Bewitched", Orange Coast, August 1986:

Know thyself. To thine own self be true. For the man or woman who can confront the demon within, there is a hopeful prognosis.

1995, Paula C. Rust, Bisexuality and the Challenge to Lesbian Politics: Sex, Loyalty, and Revolution, New York University Press (1995), ISBN 081477444X, page 51:

Several of these women said simply, "to each her own," while others like Sue were only slighty more verbose: "Each of us has a right and a responsibility 'to thine own self be true.' Another person's sexual preference is not my business or concern."

2004, James M. Morris & Andrea L. Kross, Historical Dictionary of Utopianism, Scarecrow Press (2004), ISBN 0810849127, page 262:

"To thine own self be true" whatever the consequences was taken as the principle of true freedom and humanity by the romantics.

2012, Mark D. White, "The Sound and the Fury Behind 'One More Day'", in Spider-Man and Philosophy: The Web of Inquiry (ed. Jonathan J. Sanford), John Wiley & Sons (2012), ISBN 9780470575604, page 241:

As Shakespeare wrote, "To thine own self be true," at least according to what kind of person you believe yourself to be.

Astral (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Not only does it need cleanup - it needs citations. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

An extremely messy entry, and it might not be citable anyway. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I found only two citations, both from the same author, same book, but different year. --BB12 (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Same sentence, in fact. —An gr 06:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Whoops! I was looking at the sentence before, which is different. --BB12 (talk) 06:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is a modern English word, and I certainly don't think it's a direct continuation of the Old English word. Rather, I think this is a German (and perhaps Yiddish) word which has been quoted in a few English texts. Of the citations I have been able to verify, both are of it in a German sense. In the cite Hughes 1900, the "gewiss" is a reply to the German word "Quinten" scrawled on a manuscript, and the full quote of Sinclair 1953 is "Um Gottes Willen, Lanny! You are gewiss?", which appears in italics in the original book and is said by a Jewish-German immigrant who peppers her speech with German phrases. I can't see the exact quote in Proud New Flags, but from what I can tell, it looks like that book has a character/characters who speak Denglish too ("Ach, dear Mamma in Heaven!"). Are there any examples of "gewiss" being used in a context where it's fairly clear it's being used in English, not in broken German/Yiddish? Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

(Edit: I misread the etymology section - the entry does make clear that any modern use, if it exists, is as a loanword from German) Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The same could be said of many foreign words ... Should apres be taken out of English? How about chaise longue? They're not English words per se but are often noted in a manner that the writer expects the person to know what they means.

1906, Margaret Potter, "Death Joy", in The Genius^[66], edition Digitized, Fiction, Gutenberg Project, published 2007:
"There is—no other way? She—she has got to submit to the knife?" /"Gewiss! Nor can we promise—recovery—even so. Without it—two weeks—a month, perhaps!" he shrugged, helplessly.

Here the word gewiss is noted in without italics yet gnädige Frau and chaise-longue (a bit earlier on the page) are in italics betokening that they are foreign words. I think that you'll find more German/Yiddish terms in play in the US owing to the great tale of folk who are of German or Jewish heritage. You'll also find many ex-soldiers with German wives or who served in Germany as I did, who are much more familiar with many of these words than the myriad of French words and expressions floating about in English as if they were English (Franglish?).

My point is, that authors often note these words without translation or italics. If you take out gewiss then you should also take out apres and many other French expressions that are often thrown out just to add flavor for they gewiss (or wisly) are less English than gewiss!

So that is the conundrum isn't it? Should all foreign expressions noted like apres, avant-garde, asf be put under their respected language headers or should they be considered English? We can do that here at wikt whereas M-W or the OED has totally separate wordbooks for foreign tungs so if they find these words noted in English, they mix these words in their English wordbooks as well. The OED recently added abuela and abuelita to English while we hav abuela under Spanish. As a speaker of Spanish, I can't see a time when I would note abuela outside of a Spanish/Hispanic context ... Does that bar it from being listed as English if noted in English writings? Seemingly not to the OED.

If we take off the English headers for these foreign words, should we then put the English quotes under the foreign language header to show that the words are also found in English writings?

We should do it one way or the other ... leave gewiss under English or take apres, avante-garde, asf out. I'll be offline again for at least week. Still no net at the house. --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the point I was making is that avant garde is unequivocally understood as an English word. The sentence "I went to an avant garde art exhibition" is unmistakeably English. Similarly, although you might be thought of as pretentious, "apres" can describe/suffix anything taken after another thing, regardless of whether it's a French thing or not - "apres-dinner", "apres-movie", "apres-surgery". On the other hand, although most English speakers would understand "We're off to Deutschland on holiday", most people would agree that I've simply used the German word for effect, and would be unlikely to describe it as an English word - no-one would ever say "The railway line passes through the Netherlands, Belgium and Deutschland". I suppose the test is: does the word carry any currency at all when divorced from its specific linguistic context? Any afternoon nap could be called a siesta, but the only time an English speaker would call breakfast desayuno is in a very Spanish context (eg this article about breakfast in Mexico). abuela, and similar words like oma, are more on the fence, but news agencies use both these words without gloss in formal English sentences, and they're are used by people who don't otherwise use the language at all (cf. a friend of mine who speaks no German, but calls his grandparents oma and opa because those are the titles his family, with distant German roots, has always used). I don't think that "gewiss" could ever be used divorced of Germanness - I doubt anyone who did not know German would know this word or use it in a conversation (the Yiddish equivalent, incidentally, is "gevis", which I can't find any examples of in English at all). The fact that German is closer to English than French is has no bearing on this, incidentally. It doesn't matter how closely or distantly related languages are, if a word has currency in a language, it's part of its vocabulary, and if it doesn't, it's not. boomerang, bungalow, paprika and powwow are all English words, despite being from languages with very little relation to English. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(One more point - if we have a foreign word with very limited English use only the section for its native language, that might cause our users a little confusion, but if we list a word with an English tag when it should only be listed in its native language - especially without giving a tag like "rare" - we risk making them falsely believe they'll understood if they just throw the word into conversation when odds are they won't, which is a far bigger problem.) Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree ... avante garde may be understood by you, but to be honest ... I hav no idea what an "avant garde art exhibition" would be like. Avant-garde tells me nothing here. OTOH, gewiss is understood by me and perhaps not by you. (BTW, likely the reason you can't find gevis is that the w is said as a v ... so gewiss would be said as gevis.) Same with apres ... If you were to say "apres-movie", folks I know would look at you and say "Huh?" And even if they did know what it meant and you said it seriously (not in a mocking manner of being a showoff), they would think you to be snob showing out that you know some French words. They don't think of apres as an English word ... I don't.

As I pointed out, in The Genius, not only was gewiss not glossed, it wasn't even italicized ... while chaise-longue is italicized betokening it "foreignness". If I recall rightly, the Upton Sinclair Lanny Budd series won some kind of award. So it's eath-seen that, at least when these books were in print, that a word like gewiss was well-known enuff that they didn't feel the need to gloss it.

So, what it comes down to is not whether these words are truly English ... they're not (tho anyone who knows iwis, wis, or wisly would see the akinship much faster than someone who didn't kno what avant-garde meant) ... avant-garde is not English despite your feelings about it. It is a pure French phrase that is known by some. Now, considering how many English speakers there are, that some is a lot. But the same goes for gewiss ... It is known by some (and that some would be a lot of folks) ... and, as I said before, given the large number of folk of German descendants and German immigrants, it may very well be more well known. Almost any soldier who was posted to Germany during the Cold War picked up many German words that are not in widespread use but still known. I still call the subway the U-bahn. We even hav the Englishened version of nichts - nix. Eath-seen, the authors felt the word gewiss was well-known.

It's not only German and French but we also hav nyet. My guess is that more folks know what nyet means than avant-garde. Most folks don't note it outside of movies and books but there is an entry for it and I don't hav a problem with it.

It's not so much whether these words are English ... it's whether they are noted in English writings. If someone doesn't know what nyet, gewiss, or apres means, then they can grab a wordbook and look it up. Here at wikt, we hav the choice of headers to put on it. I'd hav no problem with putting them under their respectiv languages and inputting the byspels of how they are noted in English ... but we should do it across the board. If avant-garde and nyet fall under English, then gewiss has enuff history and usage to do the same. OK, my time is up. I truly am off here til next week. --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Avant-garde is English. It's not comparable. Take a look a google books:avant-garde; it's used over and over in flowing English, not in any character's voices, to refer to things Spanish, English, Egyptian, Russian, Chicagoan, New Yorker, etc. The question is indeed are these words in English. Under the adverb section at gewiss, the first is clearly not a cite in English, and the next three seem to be a German word tossed into English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Added 4 citations to Adjective; 2 to adverb. Leasnam (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, most of these citations look like English books quoting German texts, especially philosophy texts. Admittedly, if "gewiss" has a special meaning in philosophy (like, say übermensch), I'd give it a pass, but it doesn't look like it does. The citation in The Lie Became Great is about a German quote: "Trotz alle Schwierigkeiten [sic!] die uns unser Blechbeschlag bereitet, ist er gewiss keine Falschung". In Abe and Mawruss, Abe is a German speaker who does not speak much English ("And did that teller learn me English, Mawruss? Oser a stück"), and the gewiss is in italics like the rest of his Germanisms. The Schopenhauer and Llewelyn quotes are both explaining a German pun on the word "Gewissen". The last cite is italics (and immediately glosses the meaning), and the book is quoting from works of Heidegger, who was a German writer. I honestly want "gewiss" to turn out to be a word used in English, but all these cites show is that it's a word German speakers use. (You also added an Upton Sinclair cite - we already had that very same citation, two entries up.) Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would tend to agree. The word has not made a far-enough in-road into standard English usage. And the entry does make it look as though it was a full-fledged English word, which at this point in time it "gewiss" is not. It is a foreign word often used/appearing in English texts. I tried. Leasnam (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I must apologize for my hasty writing. Til I get the net back up at the house (looks like at least another month), I'm hindered by a lack of time so I'm throwing these thoughts out off the cuff.

Let's back up and look at the criteria for inclusion:

A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means.

Further, if needed, … Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year …

Clearly, under these rules, gewiss can and should be added under English.

But you bring up a worthy point for a talk. Maybe this isn't the place for it but here we are.

Now, as I understand it, you're naysaying it is for that it is being noted to add a German "taste" or "flavor" to the writing therefore, it doesn't belong under an English heading even tho it is found in sundry English writings.

What I'm trying to point out is that this reason for exclusion doesn't exist; there isn't such a sub-clause against inclusion … at least not that I'v seen. If there is, then it needs to be applied across the board.

The English word for avant garde is vanguard. When folks use avant garde, apres/après, au revoir, asf they do so merely to add that French "flavor". The same goes for nyet (Russian), mirabile dictu (Latin), purda/purdah (Persian) and many, many other words like these that fall under the English heading but aren't truly English. None of these are English words themselves but are found in English writings either in academic writings in context of the region or time period (historical); or in more general writings to add "flavor" to the writing with a reasonable expectation that a reader will understand them.

So, if we're going to start tightening the entry requirements so that these words don't go under the broader English heading (words found and noted in English writings), then it should apply across the board. Avant garde, apres, au revoir, asf should be under French; nyet under Russian, purdah under Persian, mirabile dictu under Latin, asf.

So I guess the broader frain is whether the English heading is only for "English" words or is it a broader heading for words found in English writings or can be noted in English writings, with a reasonable expectation of understanding. I go with the latter, but if it is the former, then a rule needs to be written but be aware that you're opening up a can of subjectiv worms. --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Every time you claim that "avant garde" is not English, you hurt your case. There are 8,000 books in English on Worldcat using this word in the title. Again, the context of the word does not support your claim that it adds a French flavor to the text; it is the general word used in many fields where vanguard would be the wrong word to use. Even in the more general case, you're failing to understand the opinions of those you're arguing against; your definition of what makes a word English is not the only one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Again ... we're viewing this from our subjectiv sides ... to me, I hav yet to see avant garde noted where it wasn't for a special "flavor". For me, it's nothing more than a snob word. Vanguard wouldn't be "wrong" to swap for avant garde, it just wouldn't sound so "pleasant" to those who prefer "avant garde"; it wouldn't hav that "special air of sophistication" (that flavor). The meaning wouldn't change, only the snob appeal. Again ... that is my subjectiv view.

I think it's hypocritical to claim that a pure French phrase like avant garde and the sundry other byspels that I wrote (and they are only the tip of the iceberg) belong under English while gewiss does not. It shows a bias. I'm only saying that what is good for one is good for all. Gewiss is found in English works ... unglossed ... unitalicized ... and meets the minimum criteria as set forth.

I'm not failing to understand their viewpoint ... I'm disagreeing with it in context of what has alreddy happened. They're trying to shut the barn door when most of the herd is alreddy out in the pasture. This talk seems to come up see talk:avant la lettre every so often and it boils down to the same two stances. By the stance taken on gewiss, then avant la lettre shouldn't be under English either. Here is a phrase that I'v never heard of ... but yet it is under English because some hav. What I'm saying, is that if this the stance that one wants to take, then there are a lot ... and I mean a whole lot ... of words that need to be reclassified. The citations for gewiss are more than numerous enuff to meet the criteria as written! See y'all next week!--AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Certainly with respect to music, "avant-garde" is the normal term for the genre; calling it "vanguard music" would be wrong, as that isn't what it's called. There's nothing snobbish about it. —An gr 13:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

What phrases you have and haven't heard of seems rather orthogonal to the question of whether something is English or not. Whether they are snobbish or have that "special air of sophistication" is likewise irrelevant.

Definitions are basically arbitrary. Your definition of which words are English is not the only possible definition, and arguing that our (equally arbitrary) definition is "wrong" doesn't help.

gewiss is certainly borderline. But the first citations under adjective and under adverb are clearly not English to me, and the second under adjective is not using it as a word but using it to explain the German word Gewissen. After those have been removed, the rest are borderline; The Saturday Evening Post one clearly feels like code-switching.

This isn't a standard rule, but one of my rules is "does not including it make it hard for our user?" Москва (once claimed as English) will be found by English readers under Russian; nyet, on the other hand, won't, since Russian isn't written in the Latin script. If the spelling has undergone mutation, then we probably need an English entry. In this case, users will find gewiss under German with the same meaning.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

And a user will find many foreign words and phrases under their respectiv languages with the same meaning but yet we list them under English for that they are found in English writings. But if that is how we want to do it, then we must be truthful and it apply it across the board. Take out the knives and let the bloodletting begin! There are many questionable words and phrases in addition to those I'v alreddy mentioned. I'm a veteran but I'v never heard état major noted in the US military. I'v never heard a wittol called a mari complaisant. Even the usage note for preux chevalier says: Often italicized as a foreign borrowing. Well Duh! That may be because it is! L'ultime_avertissement/ultime_avertissement is not only italicized but usually glossed as well. I can go on and on.

Anent spelling and Latin script, there's no need to make that distinction either if we're going to go this route. At one time gewiss would hav been written as gewiß, would that mean that earlier it would hav been acceptable but now that the Germans are dropping the ß, then it's no longer acceptable? Nyet could be redirected to нет. There's no loss of meaning if avant garde is only under French. So on and so forth.

It's not that any of these words are English, they are not, but they are found in English writings. So what we are truly doing is keeping an inventory of words found in English writings. (And therefore I find the ME/"modern" English split, unique to wikt, to be rather silly but that is another soapbox.)

That fits the rules by which we make entries. Under those rules, gewiss is good to go. It meets and even surpasses the criteria as written! I don't know how many times I need to say that. The shade that is trying to be made here doesn't exist under the rules as written and if it did, then there is a wide swathe that needs to be cut thru the wordbook. That's a hella subjectiv and two-edge sword. Do yu truly want to go there? AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

If anyone else finds any of that interesting, speak up and I will respond. I don't think further response to AnWulf on my part will be productive.

As for the Middle English / Modern English thing, that you would say that it is unique to wikt is itself rather silly; at the least, it comes from ISO 639 (the standard list of languages), which lists enm, English, Middle (1100-1500), as a separate language.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Although a different topic, since we're touching on it I may as well interject: I would have to somewhat agree with AnWulf (not on gewiss=English), but on the Middle English-English divide. To me, though we treat Middle English as a separate language, it really is the same language in a different period. Periods of the same language, when they are adjacent to one another should be given special consideration and somewhat relaxed rules. Truthfully, using the division date as being 1470, English speakers on 12/31/1469 did not wake up on 1/1/1470 speaking a new language. And let's say, for instance, that there is a word, attested only 3 times: once in 1468, once in 1469, and a third time in 1471, what do we do with it? Here it would rfv-fail for both MidEng and ModEng, but the word certainly existed in English! Of course, Old English would be considered a different language from Modern English, as there is no blending/blurring line between the two. But for languages blending into the next stage, I think we should at least allow some bending of the rules for words which are straddled upon the line. Leasnam (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to his claim that wikt was unique in this. Personally, I can see the argument that gewiss is English; it's the issue that there is one unique definition for a word being English, and thus we include non-English words under English, rather than CFI and Wiktionarians including only English words in English sections, using a rather broad definition of English words, that I object to.

It should be taken to the Beer parlour, but I'll note that Middle English gave rise to two languages, English and Scots, and considering English the same language as Middle English and Scots not the same language isn't based on reality on the ground. As per CFI, just one cite counts for an extinct language like Middle English, so except for Dutch and Afrikaans, the case you state will never come up, even under the most obdurate treating of the rules.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, which isn't much, I think that the difference between Scots and Scottish English is a state of mind. If Scots is a sunder tung, then should be American. As for ME ... yea, we should take this to the Beer Parlor or Tea Room, but ME is eathly readable with the right wordstock ... and isn't that what wordbooks are all about? This isn't linguistics, this is an inventory of words in a tung (English) and those words in ME are or should be in the inventory. Further, most of those words can be found in modern books talking about ME poetry! So where does that leave us? We can and do mark word (historical). You won't find goom much outside of ME ... unless it's referring to the history of bridgegroom. Oh ... and the order should be English > ME > OE ... THEN outland tungs in alphabetical order. --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As I hav been saying all along. The word meets and goes beyond the criteria for inclusion. If we want new criteria, it must be more objectiv and eathly followed than the fuzzy-wuzzy stuff I see going on now. I put forth the following:

GOWAP

Guidelines for Outland Words And Phrases (GOWAP).

Owing to the technology of the internet and that there is no hardcopy of Wiktionary, it is no longer needed to put the English header on outland words that are often found in English writings. This in no way lowers or lessens their standing or noting in English, it only rightly groops them.

Outlander words are often noted in writings to either add a kind of taste or worldliness in a writing and/or as a marketing ploy. However, for the purposes of Wiktionary, these words are to be put under the befitting tung header.

To go under the English header, there must be a meaningful change in meaning or spelling. It must follow English spelling guides, English speechcraft / stafcraft (grammar), and way of speaking (pronunciation). Meaningful means more than the dropping of a diacritic, change of capitalization, a misspelling, or change of a few letters. For byspel, apres would be written as:

--French--

English spelling of the French word for after, see après

Après should be under French as well. Mark also that the spelling of neither apres nor après follow English right-spelling for how it is said but that of French.

The noting of a word in a specialized field, does not put it under English. Thus, many legal Latin or legal French words and phrases will go under Latin or French, as befitting, rather than English with a mark that it is noted in legal writs in English. Many outland words noted by gleemen, cooks, craftsmens, and so forth will go under the befitting tung as well.

Words from other than Latin alphabets (OTLA) will still be put under the befitting tung header. For byspel, nyet should be as:

--Russian--

English spelling of the the Russian word for no, see нет.

After writing the above I found the guidelines set forth by the Dansk Sprognævn. I think I hit it near the mark:

"The Dansk Sprognævn (Danish Language Council) collects and registers all new Danish words. As with all languages, modern Danish is influenced and enriched by foreign words. One of the Council's tasks is to decide which words are considered Danish, and which are loan words. 'Bar', 'bus', 'film' and 'slum' all fit Danish rules of spelling and pronunciation, and so are now considered Danish words, but 'freelance' and 'playboy' are used, but considered mere loan words."http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/european_languages/languages/danish.shtml

As I keep saying, doing this will cut a wide swathe thru the wordbook. All the words that I hav talked about above, to inhold avant garde, would not go under English as they are now. They would be acknown as loanwords. Until then, gewiss, and all of the above, meet the criteria for inclusion.--AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Same as #gewiss above. This a fairly standard phrase for writers to put in the mouths of German characters to make it more clear they're German, but I don't think it's a standard English phrase. The citation given is said by a character called Karl Kreuzer who also says Herr Jesus and potz tausend with incredible regularity, and the other hits I've found on Google book search are similar. Is this English, or should the heading change to German? Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Poking around in the page history, it seems this was once marked as German, but it was changed to English because "Gott in Himmel" is not grammatical German (it should be "Gott im Himmel"). This puts us in a weird situation - this is basically an English misspelling of a German phrase and so it's not strictly a word/phrase in any language. I might have to move this to RFD. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd think that if it's found in English print works unitalicized (unless clearly foreign words are also unitalicized in the same work), then it qualifies as English. (All the more so in light of the in instead of im.) The question IMO is only what if it's only attested sufficiently italicized: do we say that those cites count for German? Methinks not, but me's open to being convinced otherwise.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, here's one example where "Gott in Himmel" is not italicised, but in petto on the previous page is (though "Mein Gott" and "tyfel" (i.e. Teufel) are also unitalicised). Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This text also uses the odd colloquialism mynheer, probably for mein Herr. These appear to be used to indicate the idiosyncrasies of the character's speech.

What's the WT take on such oddities? Do we treat them as nonces, protologisms, something else? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It's from Dutch, apparently - mynheer. From the looks of it, the character is meant to be Dutch, but the author freely swaps between German and Dutch. Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Any chance then that Gott in Himmel might be grammatical in some Low German variety? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Dunno. I was just thinking it might be grammatical in Yiddish, or rather that גאָט אין הימל (got in himl) might be. You'd expect Low German to spell it "God" (because of the absence of the High German consonant shift changing d to t), but final devoicing would mean it would wind up being pronounced with /t/ anyway. —An gr 22:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added some citations. Two did not have italics, one did not have an exclamation mark, and one was a noun (not an interjection). --BB12 (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I came across those while I was writing up this RFV. The trouble is that I'm not sure how many, if any, are of it being used in English. Some are obvious - in Fauquier County in the Revolution, the character who says "Gott in Himmel" says, in the previous paragraph, "Was ist los?", to which the reply is "Amerikaner!" The book is clear that he's speaking in German to show that he's too shocked by the battle to speak English. The character in Murder at Hale's Ferry is a Prussian who speaks a kind of weird European eye-dialect, full of "Gott-damned"s and "yah"s. The Long Growing Season looks legit, though - although the characters all have German names, their conversation is in fluent English apart from the frequent "Gott in himmel!"s (the fact they don't capitalise "himmel" is a sign it's drifted even further from the original German). This really comes down the the issue Eirikr was asking about above - what do we do with foreignisms like these, which are used in English only to make dialogue look more foreign? Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, my grandmother who didn't really speak German (one high school class) used the expression, and I consider it part of my vocabulary, though I don't know if I've ever used it. Ultimately, it seems common enough to warrant inclusion as an English entry, unlike, say, some of the Louisiana French used in the book "w:Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood." --BB12 (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It's attested, so it should exist in some L2 section. And it isn't grammatical in German, so it isn't ==German==. By process of elimination, it must be a malformed ==English== {{context|Germanism}}. - -sche (discuss) 19:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a fair solution, though it should have a note somewhere emphasising that it's not correct German. Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand that logic, -sche. You say it can't be German because it doesn't fit German's grammar, so it must be English. Don't you really mean that it doesn't fit German's vocabulary? (It uses English in instead of German im.) But then why can't you as easily say it can't be English because it doesn't fit English's vocabulary, so it must be German? Or, perhaps easiest of all, say it's German, and uses indefinite Himmel?—msh210℠ (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a refutable presumption that terms which appear in (e.g.) English-language texts are English. You can refute this presumption by showing that the term is a term in another language and not in English. Wiktionary's structure is such that doing only the second half of that, i.e. showing that the term is not a term in English, is not possible: pages must have language statements. Compare [[Talk:ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]. As EP suggested there, perhaps "we should explain with Usage notes that the phrase appears in English fiction, and so is technically English, but is intended to represent" German. It is, however, not German: if you would like to show that it is, you must cite it in German-language texts. - -sche (discuss) 22:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, what if the page's content was moved to Gott im Himmel, and Gott in Himmel becomes "Misspelling of Gott im Himmel" (or perhaps "Low German"/"Dialectal")? It does seem to be valid in some forms of Low German; here's what seems to be a character speaking Low German (judging from his "Ick heff") - he says what is clearly "Gott in Himmel". At any rate, this is citeable in German, so perhaps this is the best solution (unlike Cthulhu fhtagn, which is just nonsense syllables, Gott in Himmel is at least supposedly German). Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hm, so have an entry for Gott im Himmel#German, and make Gott in Himmel #German, defining it as {{context|by speakers of dialects|and|by non-native speakers}} {{misspelling of|Gott im Himmel}}, possible with {{uncommon}} thrown in because "im" is 23 times more common on GBC? That's doable, although Gott in Himmel#German would need citations — as I dispute that the current, English citations can be used to support it. - -sche (discuss) 05:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

{{misspelling of}} seems a good approach; users will look up common misspellings, even if uncommon among native speakers. ~ Robin (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I made this same point in gewiss above:

Let's back up and look at the criteria for inclusion:

A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means.

Further, if needed, … Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year …

Truly, does noting in insted of im make this any more "English"? It should stand or fall on the whole phrase rather than a misspelling. I'v seen this often enuff in English writings to say that it should stay given the rules I quoted above.

Now, as I understand it, it's being naysaid for that it is being noted to add a German "taste" or "flavor" to the writing and, therefore, it doesn't belong under an English heading even tho it is found in sundry English writings.

If we're going to start tightening the entry requirements so that these words and phrases don't go under the broader English heading (words found and noted in English writings), then it should apply across the board. Avant garde, apres, au revoir, asf should be under French; nyet under Russian, purdah under Persian, mirabile dictu under Latin, asf. We'll be very busy cleansing English of these foreign words and phrases if we go that way.

This talk seems to come up see talk:avant la lettre every so often and it boils down to the same two stances. If avant la lettre made it thru, then so should Gott in Himmel. --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: A type of turkey.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably a WT:BRAND entered in error (and with bad capitalisation). "Butterball is a brand of turkey and other poultry products produced by Butterball LLC internationally." Equinox ◑ 15:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

But it might be worth checking for use as a genericized trademark. I can easily imagine Americans referring to frozen whole turkeys as "Butterballs" even if they're not Butterball brand. —An gr 22:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, a brief search found at least one lower-cased use of the plural in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 20:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't checked yet; might not be too hard. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing on Google Books, Groups or Scholar. It does get some hits on Google News, but it depends how 'durably archived' they are. Websites aren't usually considered durably archived because of linkrot. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Posted three cites I found for the noun form on Citations:catvertising. They're all under a year old, though, so this doesn't seem to meet CFI yet. Astral (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] catvertise

This is even rarer, and catvertisement listed as a derived term is rarer still. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Those anons... --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Disgusting - but there's a lot of usage in the internet. Certainly not understandable as a sum of its parts. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Posted eight citations at Citations:leather cheerio: seven from Usenet, one from a book. "Cheerio" is sometimes capitalised. Astral (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't find cites for the language, only for the islands. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 23:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Certainly wouldn't pass muster as an EN entry, but then I haven't much knowledge of PT standards.

Adding the relevant JA entry in a moment. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 03:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese uses lower case. It's correct as is in Portuguese. —Stephen ^(Talk) 04:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the capitalization is being disputed. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

@User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV you seem to be correct. Is there a Google Groups or Scholar in Portuguese? I don't see them in the dropdown list. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. When results show up with different languages mixed up I add a few common Portuguese words to the search (de, que, o, a and um/hum usually does it). In this case I tried searching for language related terms like idioma miyako, língua miyako, palavra miyako, and went through various pages, but everything in Portuguese was about the Miyako island instead of the language. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 04:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What does this word actually mean in the military context? We have at least the following candidates:

Wiktionary: A defensive entrenchment consisting of a trench and parapet.
Wikipedia: A work or series of works constructed in rear of existing defences in order to bar the further progress of the enemy should he succeed in breaching or storming these.
Dictionary.com: An interior work that cuts off a part of a fortification from the rest, and to which a garrison may retreat.
Dictionary.com/World English Dictionary, The FreeDictionary and Collins: An extra interior fortification to reinforce outer walls.
FreeDictionary again: An entrenchment consisting of an additional interior fortification to prolong the defense.
Merriam Wbster online: no military definition

2, 3, and 5 look like variations of one concept, whereas 1 and 4 stand each on their own ground. None, one, some or all of these? --Hekaheka (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Also:-

OED (online) An inner line of defence constructed within a fortification. Also: a line of defence used to maintain a position. Also fig.
French Wiktionary (retranchement, translated) Any work done to fortify a position or to increase its defense. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I have inserted the Websters 1913 definition which I call "dated". (Should it be obsolete or archaic?) It seems the same as the first half of the OED definition. I wonder whether The second half seems like a WW I-era extension to the concept.

A defensive work constructed within another, to prolong the defense of the position when the enemy has gained possession of the outer work; or to protect the defenders till they can retreat or obtain terms for a capitulation.

Perhaps it would be clearer to have separate senses for each military sense and test their attestation. DCDuring TALK 18:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a Pilcrowism (he added a lot of obsolete terms, some of which he just wanted to exist). Can we find three citations that are definitively not scannos? (Of course the inflections are not useful because they look the same as those of acknowledge.) Cf. judg. Equinox ◑ 19:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually Doremítzwr (talk • contribs), not Pilcrow. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops, yeah, should've checked the page history. But he's also known for archaic-o-philia. Equinox ◑ 19:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep, this is a common 16th-century spelling. Get rid of the inflections though, just use {{head}}. Ƿidsiþ 19:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

If it's so common, why not cite it instead of writing keep in bold letters? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Just saying dude. I've seen it a hundred fucking times. Anyway, now cited and closed. Ƿidsiþ 20:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Cited. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 20:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Sense: November (N in the ICAO spelling alphabet). Isn't the ICAO alphabet international? Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 04:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a simple mistake. Portuguese Wikipedia says Nazaré is used in the Portuguese radio alphabet, which is composed almost entirely of place names. Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I was only able to find one citation now, and it's not idiomatic (here). Might be worth an appendix, but I'm completely unfamiliar with this spelling alphabet. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 20:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

See Appendix:Portuguese phonetic alphabet. —Stephen ^(Talk) 05:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense - having a single heart.

Could we have some citations please (I could only find the title of a book on a quick look). SemperBlotto (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC) (p.s. Is Dr Who bicardian or dicardian?)

I think it should be tagged rare, (~4 independent uses in nearly 200 years) but I've dug up a few uses:

1838, William Swainson, The natural history and classification of fishes, amphibians and reptiles, or monocardian animals:
In prosecuting our labours upon these principles, we shall, in the first place, inquire into the station occupied by the monocardian animals in the zoological circle [...]
1980, Vera Fretter, "Observations on the gross anatomy of the female genital duct of British Littorina spp", Journal of Molluscan Studies, volume 46, number 2, page 148-153:
The precise function of this membrane gland is unknown. It is presumed that it is concerned with the production of the external bounding layer of the albumen, though in other monocardians such a layer is not associated with any diverticulum
2006, Louise R. Page, "Modern insights on gastropod development: Reevaluation of the evolution of a novel body plan", Integrative and Comparative Biology, volume 46, number 2, page 134-143:
Continued leftward expansion of the mantle cavity and loss of the second gill produces the monocardian condition of most extant gastropods.

That said, I think these are referring to the second definition, having a single ventricle. As far as I'm aware, no creature exists with two separate hearts (though it's not necessarily impossible) and outside science fiction, this sense is unlikely to exist - I did find a few Doctor Who fanfics that talked about monocardial people. Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

According to WP hagfishes have 2. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 20:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Learn something new every day! Incidentally, the most common term for two hearted seems to be bicardial, with use in both textbooks and Doctor Who novels. Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this really a variant of the Horned God and if so it is not supposed to be capitalized?Lucifer (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: To generate.

I'm not really sure what sense of generate would even apply. DCDuring TALK 12:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Is "sorceror" really a legitimate alternative spelling? Axl (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to cite them right now, but Google Books has a plethora of hits, including books by Harper & Row and Macmillan. It certainly needs an entry; what makes you think it's not a legitimate alternative spelling?--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

sorcerer says sorceror is a misspelling. Siuenti (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The only results that comes up for "sorceror" in One Look are us and Urban Dictionary (Wikipedia and TFD appear, but if you actually click the links it takes you to "sorcerer"). I think this is clearly a misspelling - no dictionary contains "sorceror". It does seem common enough for an {{misspelling of|sorcerer}} though. Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a misspelling. I note that a number of the top b.g.c. hits for "sorceror" are actually for "sorcerer" (cases where someone messed up the metadata), and that even in hits that do use "sorceror", many are from works that also use "sorcerer". That is not typical for alternative spellings, even rare ones. —Ruakh_TALK 22:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree from what I saw on Google Books. Many usages are by authors with foreign-sounding names, who from my G.Books experience are more likely to make mistakes or use non-standards forms. Equinox ◑ 23:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Replaced definition with {{misspelling of}}. ~ Robin (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

seems salvageable as an idiomatic item of gastronomy if the definition is correct.Lucifer (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Can't tell if it is spurious or legit, any cites?Lucifer (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Cited from Google Books (a good place to check). Seems to have been introduced by Billy Wilder, as now noted in the etymology. Equinox ◑ 00:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sweet, wasn't sure if it met CFILucifer (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Some cites would be nice to make sure the antibiotic/leprosy part is important enough to merit inclusion.Lucifer (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that just oil from a chaulmoogra, even if it is the elixir of life itself? DCDuring TALK 00:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking about suggesting rfd instead of rfv, but then I noticed LW was focusing on the antibiotic/leprosy aspect. A quick skim through the first couple of pages of the 81,400 Google Books cites turns up almost 100 percent with what look to me like usable cites. The SOP angle is much more of a problem for the entry: although "a chaulmoogra" doesn't really make sense, it is simply an oil extracted from the seeds of the chaulmoogra tree. Perhaps the chaulmoogra definition should be changed to end with "chaulmoogra oil, formerly used as a remedy for leprosy", and the chaulmoogra oil article deleted. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

At one time it was pretty much the only treatment used for leprosy, though I believe it's now been superseded by modern antibiotics. I've seen lots of mentions of Chaulmoogra oil over the years, and I don't think I've ever seen any that didn't mention its use against leprosy- to the point that I would say it's an integral part of the meaning. I'll concede that the antibiotic part may be unnecessary, or perhaps even incorrect (the wikipedia article refers to it as an antibiotic). Here's an abstract to a journal article that mentions the importance of chaulmoogra oil in the history of leprosy treatment. I'll see what else I can come up with. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Many OneLook dictionaries have chaulmoogra, but none seem to have chaulmoogra oil. DCDuring TALK 02:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Another form of breath sounds? But breathe isn't a noun. Only "breathing sounds" would make sense as far as I can see. Equinox ◑ 00:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it my be technically gramatically incorrect and therefore has an idiomatic usage here.Lucifer (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have now deleted breath sounds: previously failed RFD, October 2011, re-entered without cites. Equinox ◑ 00:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I added three cites!Lucifer (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Since Lucifer has admitted to being dyslexic, I wonder if this is just a straight error; we might need a definition {{misspelling of|breath}} at breathe mind you, as the two are often confused. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

As it was defined as {{alternative form of|breath sounds}}, which latter has been deleted at RFD, I've deleted this. The citations formerly in the entry are at citations:breathe sounds.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Dislexia is not an acceptable excuse to reject someone's credibility, perhaps one of you has dislexia too if you conveniently missed the fact that there are many citations available including one that I provided showing I am not dislexically confused, in medical books and among medical professionals we use the terms, respiratory sounds, breath sounds, breathe sounds, lung sounds, and heart sounds, whether you think they fit a narrow view of what is grammatically correct or not, it's all words in all languages, and these are not words simply used at my school, workplace, or unit. They are used in the books that mark the international standards for medicine. Then some of you wonder why I end up mostly adding terms like cuntfucker and dickjuice, you guys never try and delete those, but noooo if it's medical terminology there is suddenly a war against it. That is a really weird and appalling state of affairs and makes this project and its participants look very immature, childish, and sophomoric with rampant weird-faith.Lucifer (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

We've nothing against medical terminology, but dictionaries are about single words. Sometimes two-word terms merit inclusion if there are strong reasons for arguing that the two words cannot stand independently, but often they are better entered as Wikipedia articles. Wiktionary does not accept mis-spellings unless they are common. Dbfirs 23:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Creature resembling mermaid or merman. Not much in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 01:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hits on Google Books appear to all be scannos of "mermaid." Astral (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

See all the other similar entries by User:Dantescifi (including the following). SemperBlotto (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I see a pattern emerging after a cursory search: the ones with definitions along the lines of "an animal resembling x" stand a tolerable chance at attestability. The "x-like humanoid" ones, however (with the exception of maybe a couple based on very characteristic animal forms), seem to be just examples of the productivity of the -oid suffix: to coin a word, bovinofecoid. Macropinoid, especially, has no Google Books hits and all the regular Google hits eventually trace back to us (I didn't check usenet) Chuck Entz (talk) 07:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Both senses look like tosh to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This one may hinge on whether 3 independent coinages satisfy the 3-cite rule. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be barely attestable as an adjective:

1994, Karol V. Menzi, "Like it or not, mom was right about broccoli", The Baltimore Sun, 13 April 1994:

She uses the stems, not the flowers. She trims the stems and peels them if they're tough, then grates them and mixes them with raisins, grated carrots and mayonnaise. If she's feeling adventurous, she says, she tosses in a little curry powder to spice up the dish. "This doesn't taste so 'broccoloid.'"

1999 28 April, Lucy Kemnitzer, "Re: Shorter novels", rec.arts.sf.composition, Usenet:

And that people might actually like the shrimplike frying bits and the broccoloid flowerets, considering what they buy at fast food joints nowdays.

1999 7 June, I Am Oblivian [username], "Re: MIND CONTROL GANG IN CLEVELAND--MORE INFO", alt.discordia, Usenet:

But you know Broccoli and Cauliflower, despite being genetically derived from Cabbage, are actually Our Friends. The Proof? They go better with Cheese than Cabbage. Have you ever had a head of Cabbage smothered in Cheddar Sauce? If so, you are much braver than I.
Don't forget, June 18th is a Sacred Cheese Day, celebrating the Divinity of Easy Cheese. Show your appreciation to our Broccoloid Bretheren.

The sense "a broccoli-like humanoid creature" apparently occurs solely in an episode of the cartoon The Powerpuff Girls. Astral (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-senese: (informal) To bite a woman's pudenda. WTF? Sound it be shot on sight? ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It does seem like a bad definition because it uses the word bite which has a lot of definitions. Citations demonstrating distinctness from the other definitions sounds like a good idea. Would it be something like "he bit her" where the vagina/labia are implied but not actually stated? I dunno. I'm willing to assume good faith and give it a full 30 days but I concede there's a solid argument for deleting it outright too. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is that there are plenty cases where "bite" implies a body part that isn't stated. We talk about vampires biting people, with the usually unsaid implication that the bite was on the neck, but "To bite a person's neck" would be an odd definition of bite. Looking through Google books for sex scenes that include the phrase "he bit her" (without an explicit body part) finds examples where the unstated body part is the shoulder, the ear (possibly?), somewhere that is below the waist but explicitly not the genitals and the foot, and I'm pretty sure if I kept going I could find for any body part, a book in which is a woman is bitten on it sexually without it being explicitly stated. I don't see why being bitten on the genitals deserves a distinct mention from being bitten anywhere else. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Searches for "bite pudenda", "bite the pudenda" get no hits in Google, "bite a pudendum" gets 1. "Bite a woman's pudenda" gets only Wiktionary-related hits, of which one on a Swedish website and another in China. Let's kill this before the disease spreads. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget that pudenda is at least partly a euphemism here, so you would need to search using the terms it substitutes for if you want to do a realistic check of usage. You have two different registers here: the sense of bite we're looking for is fairly vulgar and pudenda is rather clinical- I doubt you'd see them together much in the wild Chuck Entz (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It may be an euphemism, but if a definition raises more questions than it gives answers, it should be at least reworded. What the heck does "bite the pudenda" mean? Should it be understood literally? Is it an invitation to do a cunnilingus? We should not have riddles as definitions. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Must be the coffee talking -- suddenly I had visions of an ambitious (and completely mad) project to rewrite all of Wiktionary into riddle format. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This must have been intended to cover the sense of bite#Verb used in bite me. I never thought of that as gender specific. As me is not the only possible object ("Bite this", "Bite my ..."), we really could use a non-gloss definition of bite. Isn't this only used in the imperative (and in reported imperative "I told him to bite me"). We should have something similar at eat#Verb. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

[[eat#Verb]] has:

(transitive, informal, vulgar) To perform oral sex on someone.

Eat me!

I have no experience with the use of "bite" in this sense except in insults or other maledictions or with the normal meaning of "use one's teeth on". DCDuring TALK 23:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Really? Looks like a word invented by some motivational speaker. Fairly localized. Doesn't seem to be in wide use. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 11:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I had already deleted it once as a protologism. There are Google hits, but many use the term in quotes. If OK, it needs heavy pruning back to a simple dictionary definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a term that many people in the field of nonviolent struggle have been using to describe the use of humor in protest and how it can create a dilemma situation for authorities. —This comment was unsigned.

In that case, you won't have any trouble finding three independent citations. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Two cites on ggc ([67]), but that's it. This is really close, so if anyone feels inspired to look for that one last quote, I can only laud you. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't find any song lyrics with "laughtivism". Note that the Google Groups cites are a few months apart from each other. Smells like failed protologism. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 06:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering that apeirophobia is in Appendix:English unattested phobias, I figured this should at least be subject to rfv. If passed, I wonder if apeirophobia should be revisited. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Added by known-suspect anon IP Special:Contributions/90.205.76.5. The wording is a bit odd -- "A by B" suggests that B is instrumental somehow in carrying out A, but if so, "murder by suicide" would seem to suggest something more like killing oneself and incidentally killing another in the process of committing suicide, rather than any meaning where murder is the primary action and suicide is something that happens in the course of the murder. Actually, that latter case would be more "suicide by murder". Then again, maybe I'm overthinking this. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

A suicide bomber's suicidal act murders other people. As for the anon: first a preoccupation with the occult, now murder and suicide- kinda creepy! I hope we're not looking at warning signs of something (not that we could do anything about it, unfortunately). Chuck Entz (talk) 05:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Tosh. I would have just deleted it. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Cited --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: One who denies or disputes. It's not in any online dictionaries AFAICT, but I haven't looked that hard, so it might exist. —Internoob 18:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW it was the only ever main namespace edit by an IP back in 2006. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I found several citations, but they are all clearly SOP. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 02:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Besides, if pt-Wikipedia is to trust, the correct term is acompanhamento [68]. We had that word also in the ttbc-section of accompaniment. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

So: move to WT:RFD? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping someone could find citations where this term is used idiomatically. On second thoughts this term is SOP by nature, when applied to the current definition. So I'll do what you recommend and move to RFD. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 23:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, so this term happens to be a mediaeval borrowing, so we need three cites. The problem is that there's basically nothing out there that isn't referring to the w:Tacuinum Sanitatis. So that's one, but that leaves two more to be found in some Renaissance manuscripts or something. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No it's not universally agreed that we need three citations, the CFI passage says 'For terms in extinct languages: usage in at least one contemporaneous source.' We didn't agree that contemporaneous means 'while the language is living'. I'd just consider this already cited, unless someone can add the definition to contemporaneous of 'of a language, living; not extinct'. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Except that we had a discussion in the BP about this, and nothing is universally agreed, but this seemed to have widespread support for Latin, at least: anything mediaeval to modern needs three cites, like hamaxostichus. We're going to get a lot of bad Latin entries if we follow your wide interpretation of "contemporaneous". --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't necessarily like it very much, but I feel uneasy about deliberately misinterpreting the vote on the matter for our own convenience. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing holy about votes. The truth is that every rule around here is built on consensus. It's only consensus that makes us follow our own votes, and it's consensus that decides how we interpret them.

With that said, if it bothers you, you can certainly make a vote to fix it. I'm fully willing to help with wording, etc., and if it seems to solve the problem, to support it. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough on both points. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's a type of attestation you don't see often: Italian has taccuino, with a related sense, and Venetian has tacuin. If either is indeed a descendant, that would be pretty strong evidence of usage in a generic sense at some point. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting (I only knew of the Italian, so it's good to see the Venetian with one c), and I don't deny that they're descendants that ought to be listed, but only if you can actually attest this entry. We still require 2 more primary source quotes in Latin. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There's always the possibility of an independent borrowing of the Arabic word directly into Italian, so it would need some verification from an etymological source. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

At any rate, a true descendant form is circumstantial evidence of widespread use, which would bypass the 3-cite rule. Establishing the nature of the connection between the Latin form and the Italian and Venetian forms is the tricky part.Chuck Entz (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

But it's not evidence of widespread use! One extremely influential book (the Tac. San.) can easily lead to more general terminology in a lect like Tuscan, and thence modern Italian and Venetian. Yet in Latin, it still may have not been used for anything beyond that book. It's not like mediaeval Latin is so hard to find online - there's a reason that bgc isn't turning up anything without "sanitatis" or a scanno thereof. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense for a longsword and for a variant of the Gothic typeset. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but who ever heard of a bastard sword or a bastard font? I don't know enough about either to find the right keywords to search under, either. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

[edit] bastard — "sword" sense

google books:"bastard sword" gives plenty of hits in this sense — both in (historical) contexts and in (fantasy) contexts — but our def implies that "bastard" is used alone, as a noun, with this sense, and I'm really not convinced of that. —Ruakh_TALK 20:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

So we make it an adjective? Or mark it as attributive only? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
"Swung his bastard sword" finds lots of distinct Google hits, "Swung his bastard" on its own (i.e. excluding "swung his bastard sword") doesn't find even a single use. I think it's very unlikely that it's ever used on its own. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

[edit] bastard — "Gothic script" sense

Should be bastarda. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 21:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Moved. Thanks, Ungoliant. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it really a Persian word? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Just seems a bit protologistic, and I can't see any obviously good cites for it. Ƿidsiþ 09:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Quite a few cites on Usenet, including some that are clear uses, not mentions. The expression seems to date back to at least 2004, so although it's a recent coining, it doesn't seem to be a protologism as far as Wiktionary is concerned. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think I've ever seen a User:Equinox term fail RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Added five new cites (plus the one featured on the main entry) to the citations page. Astral (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I've swapped the cite on the main page for a couple of the more respectable ones found by Astral. Ƿidsiþ 10:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"penislike; resembling a penis" Equinox ◑ 17:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Check Google books for "penisy breath", "penisy Flipper", "penisy-looking" and "glans-penisy". Siuenti (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm adding cites now; since we had an RFV for dangling thing or something like that recently, I'll point out that the uvula is also called "that little penisy-looking thing at the entrance to my throat".--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Prosfilaes has cited it (thanks!); it looks like it passes. And the previous RFV/RFD was of dangly thing. - -sche (discuss) 06:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The term 'claret' is an 'English' word describing a light red wine from Bordeaux. It comes from the French word 'clairet', which describes a light red wine from Bordeaux. But pronouncing it /kleré/ is hyperforeign. If that makes sense to anybody, I'd like to hear about it. Korn (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm used to hearing something more like [ˈklɛɾet], FWIW. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- Note: wrong forum for future reference. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  - Should be at WT:RFC, looks like tosh to me, if it is derived from French, dropping the final t is not hyperforeign. I've always pronounced it /ˈklærət/ and just got my mum to say it, she says the same. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I added this term, and having seen it enough in old biology manuals and educational materials, I thought it would do fine. However, most hits on bgc are science fiction, or in quotation marks. Do uses in quotation marks count? If not, can anyone find two more citations? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Google Scholar has it: [69]. --BB12 (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably fine, I don't know. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Then why did you bring it here?

I've confirmed: it's fine. A bgc search for the phrase shows quickly that that's the case. I can't be bothered (now, at least) to add cites to the entry, however.—msh210℠ (talk) 05:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry; I like to be on the safe side and sometimes I'm lazy. One of these days I'll atone for my verification-related sins in a day devoted to fasting and citing every possible term on RFV. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The definition for bork(rugby) actually belongs to balk in the sense of "(sports) deceptive motion". These two words are almost indistinguishable when spoken, and I suspect the definition under "bork(rugby)" is the result of a misspelling and should be deleted. Raoouul (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a single Google books result for "Rugby + bork" or "Rugby + borked" was a use, and I can't find anything from a plain Google search either. I think you're right, this should be balk. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Shot on sight, likely good faith total error. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: A brooch, often in three parts, worn over the stomach or chest in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. Ƿidsiþ 11:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Added three. Any good? Equinox ◑ 13:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Unbelievable, figuratively speaking. The cites look good. DCDuring TALK 17:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well...yes and no. The first one ("stomacher brooch") looks more like sense 2, and I wonder if the solution is really to combine the two senses and stress the often-bejewelled nature of the garment in question, since it seems to me there is not a clear dividing-line between them in the citations. I'll think about it before I close this however. Ƿidsiþ 08:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: the computing department of an organization --Maria.Sion (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It can certainly be cited — one cite · another cite · eight more cites · an unusually helpful mention — but I'm not sure whether it warrants inclusion, since the use of "____" to mean "the department in charge of ____" is a pretty common formula, and not really a specific property of "____". I note that we don't list such senses for accounting, marketing, or sales. (Though we do list such a sense for human resources, so information technology isn't completely alone.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The same issue underlies Wiktionary:Tea room#Capital_cities_as_symbols_of_national_government. Phol (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Similar. That's use of a place name to mean what organization lives there; this is use of a subject-matter name to mean what organization handles it. Anyway, this should be RFDed.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It has three cites, but one of them is non-durable and another one is a pseudo-mention talking about the use of cafe' in Dutch. That leaves only one 1 legitimate cite, IMO. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Just think of all the junk to which this would open the door! --Hekaheka (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Google does not distinguish "cafe'" from "cafe" or "café", which makes searching very tedious. I waded through four hundred hits to find the two citations in the entry. There are, however, four million Usenet hits of those three spellings, which makes me confident this one can be cited. (Even if only one hit in four hundred is valid, there'll be ten thousand valid hits.) If anyone is going to propose it be deleted, I request that they do that first, before anyone goes to the trouble of citing it. - -sche (discuss) 08:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I would much rather it be cited, because IMO we only have one legitimate cite for it. Granted, I don't know how that could be achieved. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Cited. Two of the citations are by Jeremy Henty (2004-05-11 and 2004-06-08) and two are by David Carrigan (2004-06-07 and 2012-05-26), so they only count as 2 total rather than 4, but then there's a citation by LeAnne (2004-08-18), which makes 3, and they span more than a year (because David Carrigan's latest one is 2012, while the rest are 2004). - -sche (discuss) 00:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Amazing! Thank you --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we have a {{rare mis-spellings}} template, or a {{lazy, deliberate mis-spellings}} template? Dbfirs 08:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Ohmigod, what's next? Find citations for attache'? No doubt somebody has used that too, somewhere. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I tried to cite Citations:caffe' and found only one citation, so I doubt many apostrophic terms are sufficiently well attested to be included. I don't see why you fear that slippery slope, anyway. Unlike misspellings, these alternative spellings are not made by mistake but are consciously chosen (several of the citations, like Citations:caffe''s, make that clear); why should we exclude them? We include eatin' and 'alf, which also use apostrophes (in those cases, to represent omitted letters rather than accents). Anyway, that's a discussion for RFD, not RFV. - -sche (discuss) 21:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've no objection to use of the "eye-dialect" template. Perhaps we should really create a template for "silly deliberate mis-spelling of" if we are going to have lots of these. Dbfirs 09:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Does it make any difference that all the citations seem to be for places with Café in their name? Siuenti (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they are all citation for Cafe' or Cafe`, and only the Dutch one (that I don't understand) is for cafe'. Dbfirs 09:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Has 2007 really lived on as a year of infamy in Icelandic culture? I somehow doubt this is anything but a protologism, and I don't know how to cite it, anyway - maybe by searching with hrun ("collapse")? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Adjective? BTW IFYPFY. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Adjectival use wouldn't fit the current definition. Thanks for proofreading me, though. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sense: a plant disease. Added by anon. All citations I found were about urban geography. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 04:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in Google Books. Only a handful of mentions, no real uses, on Google Groups. Equinox ◑ 11:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

And the term isn't even on the page that the entry links to. I'm inclined to speedy-delete it; the only thing holding me back is that, SFAICT, this editor has made only two edits that aren't POV-pushing, and I feel like we should encourage that. :-P —Ruakh_TALK 17:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedied. Please also comment on the possibility of blocking its author: WT:VIP. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Fear of money. As is common with phobias, only appears in word lists. Equinox ◑ 13:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

"He suffered from chrometophobia, the fear of money, a clinically documented disorder." (Moneymakers: the secret world of banknote printing - Page 17, Klaus W. Bender, 2006). I'll give it a full go before the month is up. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It says it is a symbol for litre (unit). AIUI, this is just a script version of the letter l. All Wikipedia says is that it is "sometimes used in mathematics and elsewhere" (e.g. ℓ-adic representations). Equinox ◑ 00:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I have definitely seen this in use... —CodeCa t 00:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a script version of l, but it's used, just like l is. It's tedious to search for, but one book suggests it's most common in the US, Japan and Greece. - -sche (discuss) 20:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

"1. A large penis. 2. The quality of exceptionalism or talent." The given Penthouse citation is useless. Equinox ◑ 11:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The other citation doesn't demonstrate this meaning in particular. Could equally mean a very large male chicken. In reality it's probably a pejorative meaning dickhead, bastard, etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The citation from a 1973 issue of Penthouse originally given doesn't verify either sense 1 or 2, but there's a subsequent sentence in the same source that features a clear use of sense 1. The Penthouse writer assigns two meanings to "supercock", one reflecting sense 1, the other to "describe a man who knows what to do [with what he's got]" and is "a superlover as far as techniques are concerned." Which is a long way from the definition given in sense 2, and, even then, it's still an idiosyncratic meaning apparently used strictly by the Penthouse writer. Sense 2 should be removed. Sense 1, on the other hand, has been used outside the Penthouse source (found six other citations which feature it). There's also another sense referring to large male chickens. Astral (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This may be a neologism in Irish... I can't find any uses of it in Google Books or Groups. - -sche (discuss) 18:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Embryomystic (talk • contribs) has an unfortunate habit of adding theoretically correct but seemingly unattestable terms in Irish. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "(figuratively) Not straightforward." It doesn't ring a bell with me. - -sche (discuss) 20:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Nor with me, here since October 2004 by the IP 194.73.231.93 (talk • contribs). Well over 7 years! Mglovesfun (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Tagged as 'wrong spelling' by a native speaker, but originally created by a native speaker, and no admin has seen fit to speedily delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my mistake. Yes, it's a wrong spelling. 昨夏 already posted, so please delete 咋夏. Thanks, electric_goat (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the relevant content over to the 昨夏 entry. 咋夏 should be fine to delete now. (I'd do so myself but I'm leery of being too hasty.) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If you've moved content from [[咋夏]] to [[昨夏]], doesn't that mean that we can't delete [[咋夏]]? I mean, we copied the content under a license that required attribution; if we delete the original entry, then the attribution is gone, and [[昨夏]] is a copyright violation. —Ruakh_TALK 06:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, then we just delete the correctly-spelt entry(!), move the wrongly-spelt entry, and restore, preserving the edit history. - -sche (discuss) 06:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't really "preserve the edit history"; it merges the two edit histories, making a total mess. I'm not even sure if it really lives up to the spirit of the attribution requirement, because it makes it difficult or impossible to determine who contributed what. We do it when we have to, but we should avoiding having to. ;-) —Ruakh_TALK 19:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Case closed. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

@Ruakh, @-sche --

I somehow missed seeing your posts earlier. Apologies for the late reply.

I'm confused as to what license you might be referring to? The only content I copied from [[咋夏]] to [[昨夏]] (the only content that [[昨夏]] was missing and that [[咋夏]] had) was a two items in the list of related terms, and the synonym. I reformatted both. These items also appear on (at least some of) the pages of those same related terms. I didn't notice anything about licenses; perhaps you mean Creative Commons as it applies to WikiMedia projects? I just tried looking at the pre-move version of [[咋夏]], but either that went bye-bye when it was moved, or I'm just not smart enough to find out how to get to it. It does appear that the edit histories of the [[咋夏]] and [[昨夏]] pages have been merged; the 昨夏 history page shows two creation events, one by Carl Daniels (talk • contribs) in Feb 2008 with the properly-spelled [[昨夏]] ("last summer"), and one by Electric goat (talk • contribs) in Nov 2009 with the typoed spelling [[咋夏]] ("shouting / chewing / biting / eating summer"). (I'm honestly confused how Electric goat (talk • contribs) managed to enter this misspelling, and why with the archaic reading sakuka, as the 咋 character is barely ever used in Japanese; using the Microsoft IME and typing in "sakka", or even "sakuka", [[咋夏]] is not included as any of the conversion candidates.)

You gave a move summary of "to maintain edit history for licence/attribution purposes"; what licensing or attributions did you intend to keep?

Just to be clear, I'm not looking for an argument, I'm just trying to educate myself. :) -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License under which all contributions to Wiktionary are released. If you feel that you didn't copy enough creative content to violate copyright, then never mind: that was my only concern. —Ruakh_TALK 19:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha, thank you. Copyright is such a mess, but given my (admittedly dodgy) understanding, I don't think the content I moved from the old page to the new one was enough to run afoul, as 1) it was only one synonym and two related terms, each consisting of a word, a transliteration, and (for the relateds) a gloss; and 2) I reformatted all three such lines, templating and adding detail, so it wasn't just a copy-paste. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: Periodic male tension (which itself seems unattestable). Seems to be only in one newspaper article, used humorously. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Obvious protologism. what do you say to speedying it? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There is an odd mention in the Sunday Times: SCIENTISTS claim to have identified a masculine version of the female affliction PMT. Periodic male tension, they say, is rife among us. Alex Smith would probably date his monthly downturn in mood to around about now. Just when the recovery signs were evident, a woeful first-half display allowed St Johnstone a lead that was never reversed.

An article in the Guardian seems to have generated a very small amount of interest. The article says that the presentation was made to the British Psychological Society, and therefore is probably archived by them, though I cannot find the term on their website.

The article also appears on Usenet.

All of these occur in 2004, though, so the term does not seem to satisfy the requirement of citations spanning at least one year. --BB12 (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Verb. Is this used in any verb form other than the -ing form? Is the -ing form used as a verb (progressive) or just as noun or adjective? It could be that we should only have attention whoring as a noun. DCDuring TALK 19:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I tried "to attention whore", "is attention whoring", "was attention whoring", "attention whored", and "been attention whoring" in bgc and ggc. No durable cites on any of them. If anything, the verb is a rare back-formation. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: Antic tricks or motions. I know this was in Webster's 1913 and they cite a "B. Johnson", but it seems weird and I want to verify it anyway. —Internoob 22:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

According to Wiktionary, antic means "grotesque, bizarre; absurd."

The monkey busied himself with the boots, and the light-minded drunkard laughed; and at every fresh gesticulation of the new boot-wearer the laugh grew louder and more tremendous, till at length it was found impossible to restrain it. [70]
They are all an essential part of the Shaker worship, and in authentication of it, they quote the fact of "Miriam and all the women going out with timbrels and with dances;" of "David's dancing before the ark," &c. &c. The manual gesticulation, too, which is incessant with them, is an act of worship, and justified by such passages as "glorify God in your body, and in your spirit," &c. [71]
[72]

I think these three fit, though I'm not too happy with the use of "antic" in the definition. --BB12 (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Deep passionate love, or something. Ƿidsiþ 05:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

According to "Book of Martyrs" by John Foxe (1831) Agaperos was a young gentleman, who sold his estate, and gave the money to the poor. Later he was seized as a Christian, tortured, and then brought to Praenette, a city within a day's journey of Rome, where he was beheaded. It also seems to be the name of a star and AGAPEROS is the name of a reserch project studying gravitational lenses. Wiktionary defines "agape" as love of God for mankind, or the benevolent and altruistic love (of Christians) for others, but I found no evidence of "agaperos" meaning anything at all. Search for "felt agaperos" gives zero results. Emulating the "definition" given, this appears to be a word beyond any definition. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

User's only edit; obvious protologism. Does anyone have a problem with speedying it? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not me. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope. I love that the definition is "undefinable love". If it's love, no matter how deep and passionate it is, it's still defined as love. There is no upper bound on love. Speedy delete as nonsense. Smurrayinchester (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Ƿidsiþ 06:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (rhetoric) A series of terms in an utterance in alphabetical order. Ƿidsiþ 06:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A very interesting word with four interesting meanings! It looks citable: [73], [74], [75] and probably [76]. --BB12 (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "Something which has a threatening or menacing character." Really? Since it's listed as uncountable, I tried searching for "some minacious" and found nothing. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The OED does say 'also as a noun', but none of their citations actually back it up (unless you count 'a touch of the minacious'). Ƿidsiþ 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Needs durable cites. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 01:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems just about attestable on Usenet. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

... but not with that definition! Dbfirs 09:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this is all traceable to Justin B Rye's site and people who've read it. It seems to go back to 1998 at least. And it does seem that the Usenet links are of the same definition as ours. Soap (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I haven't read it, but it seems strange to have a main definition based on a single website. Can we not find cites for the more general usage that I would think is more common? Dbfirs 09:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy. I've never seen the second definition, so I was going to make it an rfv-sense, but I figured I'd go for the whole hog. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't enjoy citing this kind of entry, but feel duty-bound (All words in all languages!). So please check whether the definitions you RfV are attestable (you don't have to actually do the work of selecting, inserting and formatting).

This metaphor originates from James Joyce, I think, in reference to the human body. So "shit factory" seems to have been applied to all humans, not just infants. Infants are usually "little shit factory". Dogs, cats, and horses, especially very young or old, are also referred to this way. A possible definition is "An unproductive being that requires repulsive maintenance.", which sense I claim is cited, though I haven't proven the range of application.

I would say that the label "shit factory" applied to a business seems more SoP.

I haven't seen the term applied to a product.

It would be attestable that history or the world or the earth are called "shit factory", but I leave that for others. DCDuring TALK 19:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No prizes for guessing who added this one. It appears to have some currency in Google Books, but not with this definition. Ƿidsiþ 18:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find any citations for the original sense, but I found several for another sense and for the past participle of the verb to nigger (I added the citations there). There is another noun sense, but I only found two citations for that:

- 2012, Alison Ravenscroft, The Postcolonial Eye: White Australian Desire and the Visual Field of Race, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., pages 139-140:
  Scott has not invented an Australian blackface in order to show something of the logic of race; there has been a long tradition of blackface in Australia and it has played its part in the 'blackening' and the 'niggering'' of Australian Indigeneity.
- 2008, Mike Evans, Defining Moments in Art: Over a Century of the Greatest Artists, Exhibitions, People, Artworks and Events that Rocked the World, Cassell Illustrated, pages 322:
  […] and Nolde was a slogan that read: "The niggering of music and theater as well as the niggering of the visual arts was intended to support the racial instinct of the folk, and to tear down blood barriers."

Lastly, there seems to be another sense which means "working on someone else's project for free", but I didn't bother writing down the citations I found for that (seemed citable though). Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 23:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the etymology: this is clearly all from the verb- no need to mention the -ing suffix. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I speedy-deleted niggerings, cannot find anything for it anywhere. It reinforces the idea that niggering is only a present participle. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Ungoliant's two citations seem to mean niggerization. I also saw some evidence for "niggering up", but what it means isn't clear to me. Equinox ◑ 21:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I had some trouble deciphering many of the uses of nigger#Verb, probably because so many of the uses are so distasteful and offensive. I added and cited one transitive sense: "to treat as inferior". But there are abundant cites available at groups for various senses. Nigger up can mean "(sports, business) staff with blacks", "damage while attempting to repair", "decorate in a style associated with some black-person stereotype". Even the sense I have added is probably offensive, almost all the others more so. DCDuring TALK 23:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This is badly formatted but that's not really important right now. I thought this was an obvious protologism but a simple Google search turned up a wider variety of results than I expected. So I wonder if this may be attested after all, even if not with the sense given. —CodeCa t 00:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

According to professional photographer, Gabriel Biderman, the term ruinism, which he uses, is "the beauty of decay" (see ruinism.com/about). It is arguable that the definition I have provided uses the same definition, but talking of decay in an artificial sense. If it would help for the purpose of achieving a better definition, I could alter my definition to include natural decay as well as artificial decay. I believe this would, therefore, prove that my article can be verified by Wiktionary's terms.—This unsigned comment was added by 94.168.87.47 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 15 June 2012.

One use (or multiple dependent uses) isn't enough. That would make it a protologism. For WT:CFI it has to be in use by others, making it a neologism- which is proved by citations in at least 3 independent, durably-archived sources over more than a year Chuck Entz (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Most usage seems to be referring to something completely different, and in lowercase. I have created Citations:ruinism (I find the first citation to be extremely funny), but I haven't actually made ruinism yet because I don't know how to define it exactly. As for Ruinism, I can't find a single durable citation and I think it ought to be deleted rather soon. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably exists, but not sure it means that. Ƿidsiþ 07:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I was about to delete it on sight, but found two real usages on a Google book search. Difficult to know exactly what they mean though. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- In X-ray examination, cystoid degeneration (41.4%), mushroomoid degeneration (35. 4%), and deformtive osteoarthritis were frequently detected
- The exact form of the indented central panel is also unique, although it bears a distant relation to those pieces with mushroomoid indentations on the vertical axis.

Quite a few uses out there on the web [77][78][79] including this transcript from Stephen Fry's TV show QI. Spinning Spark 15:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- It looks like the definition is correct. -oid is a common suffix. My person preference is "having" rather than "in," but perhaps it makes no difference.... --BB12 (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  - I think we should treat the QI transcript like we treat Google Books. If Google Books were to disappear tomorrow, the printed versions of the books would still exist. If that website disappeared tomorrow, would there be a written/printed version of it somewhere? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    - It is reasonable to expect that there would be copies of the show (the studio and at least one library somewhere are sure to keep copies), which (not the transcript per se) is what counts. - -sche (discuss) 02:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I formated SemperBlotto's citations and put them on the Citations page (thanks for finding them). I also tracked down a recording of the show (on Youtube), so I can verify the correctness of the transcript and have added that citation, making this cited, I think. - -sche (discuss) 02:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Noun: (slang) £20,000.

If it is real, is it capitalized? This spelling? Etymology? Context? DCDuring TALK 14:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Also slang where? UK? Ireland? US? I've never heard of it but of course it might be UK, just not my part of the UK. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

UK - invented but does not seem to have caught on. You need to Google for Jeffrey Archer £2000 in order to understand it. (I would delete it) SemperBlotto (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I see. So, it should be "£2,000". It mimics US Benjamin "$100", etc. We could give it its 30 days here in case someone has some idea of how to find a pocket of attestable usage. DCDuring TALK 23:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Substance that kills a spider. Seems like a "book word", vanishingly rare. Equinox ◑ 21:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

However, the word is found in a scientific article, Masked Chafers, Cyclopcephala pasadenae, Casey (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), are Poisonous to Spiders, in the journal The Coleopterists Bulletin, published by the Coleopterists Society. It is also found in a PhD thesis entitled The life history and behaviour of the subsocial amaurobioid spider Badumna candida. Additionally, one can find the French version of the word here, denoting its similarity to insecticide, and here, an older French arthropod study entitled Histoire Naturelle, Générale et Particuliere, des Crustacés et des Insectes. Rare? Of course. The word has been found in English and French, as old as a public-domain French study and as recent as a 1992 study of Coleoptera toxin.—Giant Squid_Talk 22:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

French would be aranéicide unless I'm mistaken. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct, which is why I said French version. It can be found here and here, exactly as you spell it. I was using the French version as a way of substantiating the word's existence.—Giant Squid_Talk 22:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, good research, and I think we have some rule that accepts anything that's been in a sci paper. We should flag it as rare, at least, though. Equinox ◑ 22:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That's very reasonable. —Giant Squid_Talk 22:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

May I remove the tag then?—Giant Squid_Talk 23:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Leave it for now, because we usually have to find three suitable citations. (The "one mention in a scientific paper" might overrule this, but just be patient.) Equinox ◑ 23:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright.—Giant Squid_Talk 23:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

One use in a journal is no longer sufficient for inclusion (see Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-11/Attestation in academic journals), but because it is used (rather than mentioned) in that journal, we only have to find two more uses. - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

To me, this phrase is nothing special among phrases in the form X + 代わり. --Whym (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if this is the correct place for it. If I understand you correctly, this is something that has its meaning already covered by entries for the individual words that it's made from. In English this would only apply to terms written as separate words, but Japanese seems to be different.

If this were an English term: "address-book substitute", I would post it at WT:RFD to be deleted as a sum of parts (SOP) entry. RFV is for terms that would be valid if they were in actual use, in order to verify if they are. RFD is to decide whether they belong in our dictionary whether they're in use or not. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I'll withdraw here and resubmit this to RFD. I was simply ignorant about the fact that RFD covers sum-of-parts cases. --Whym (talk) 03:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Struck. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "An event implying a degree of awkwardness." Possibly just an awkward way of wording a valid sense? - -sche (discuss) 20:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sense: "of or relating to a sleeping person or sleeping people". I don't think this can be right; sleep+bound seems like a poetic term for "bound by sleep", i.e. sleeping. "Relating to a sleeping person" sounds more suitable for some scientific term. Equinox ◑ 23:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Equinox ◑ 00:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Cited. Also created (and cited) quod google. Astral (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Noun, verb, adjective. Supposed to be a "canine version of a cat's purr". I can see that this is used in the furry subculture (and the word could possibly be cited from Usenet) but even the furry wikis don't seem to define it this way. It's just a growly noise, not specifically tied to cats or dogs — AFAICT. Equinox ◑ 01:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Being furry myself I can verify that this is not specifically tied to any species, pretty much any species can do it. Then again, so can purring. —CodeCa t 22:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Are the etymologies 1 and 3 really different, or should we just move the contents of 3 into 1? --Hekaheka (talk) 05:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really an RFV issue, unless you have doubts about whether the senses in Etymology 3 are in actual use. Tea Room, maybe? or Etymology Scriptorium?

As to substance: From a synchronic view, merging makes perfect sense- the two are semantically two sides of the same coin. Inconveniently, Etymologies are inherently diachronic- it boils down to the actual history of the two.

It's an interesting philosophical question: did the verb descend directly from the Old English verb, separately from the noun's descent from the OE noun, or did both form a complex of complementary forms that descended to what we have today? The connection between the two would have been as obvious then as it is now. I do tend to otiose capillary bifurcation, at times, though... Chuck Entz (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

When I treat etymologies, that is precisely what I look for: whether a pos is a direct descendant of an earlier word, or whether it is derived, either in Modern/Middle English, from the other. Century, which is a good source (where others may coalesce for space-saving) shows individual etymologies for the noun and the verb. Leasnam (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I do, however, feel it should be moved closer to the related word (Etyl_3 closer to Etyl_1). Leasnam (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It also seems likely to me that the wrestling verb sense is in fact a direct conversion of the wrestling noun sense. The actual facts of diachronic derivation within language communities seem messier than what we would want to present. DCDuring TALK 15:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with you there. Breaking up into a main Verb (all encompassing) and Noun (all encompassing) is usually the extent to which I go. If further breakdown is needed, it can be written into the Etymology to explain the various sense derivations. Leasnam (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"A kind of marine wildlife found in the area of the US Virgin Islands." So what is it: a fish, a seal, a bird? I can't see it in Google Books at all either. Equinox ◑ 19:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"A person moving on his/her own, and only moving himself/herself, not transporting goods or other persons, such as a pedestrian, passenger, motorcyclist, skater and the like." Equinox ◑ 19:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing useful in a book search for 'mobilian -jargon -language -indian -amerindian' (to filter out Mobilian), nor for '"a mobilian" transport'. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Another dodgy "most outrageous words of the year". It has one Usenet citation, and one newspaper citation which may count, if the article appeared in print; also has a number of non-durable blog links. - -sche (discuss) 21:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep, five (5) total citations, plus three (3) additional references. -- Cirt (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Update: I've gone ahead and done some additional research. I've improved the page with additional USENET citations. Please see Cambodian accessory and new citations page, at Citations:Cambodian accessory. -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Note: There are now a total of four (4) citations to USENET sources, at Citations:Cambodian accessory. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Three of those citations are just "Cambodian accessory has been declared an outrageous word" and the other two are identical comments posted to different newsgroups. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, there seems to be one valid one of those. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, clearly the term must have been in use, prior to the American Dialect Society meeting, so I'll do some further research. -- Cirt (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well hopefully rather than clearly! Mglovesfun (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Another dodgy "most outrageous words of the year". The last sense is cited, though the citations capitalised the term, suggesting that it should be moved to Ejaculation Proclamation; the first three senses lack durable citations. - -sche (discuss) 21:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep, respectfully disagree with assessment, each entry has appropriate citations. -- Cirt (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Note: I've formatted a few USENET citations, to make it more obvious that these are NEWSGROUP postings and therefore obviously durable cites. :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Sense 1: only one cite, which consists of the term as the subject line, not in running text. There's nothing to indicate that the subject line is anything more than a pun that vaguely alludes to the subject matter in the body. It requires very tenuous reading between the lines to derive the stated definition from the combination of the subject line and the body text. At best we sort of have 1/2 instead of the 3 needed.

Sense 2: More of the same pun, with the 2005 and 2006 cites being really nothing but mentions: all we can determine is that they involve Abraham Lincoln and orgasm. By my count that's 2 out of the 3 needed

Sense 3: The cites support a phrase, "delivering the Ejaculation Proclamation", not the term here. 0 for 3 on this one

Sense 4: I would call this one cited.

Basically, the first three are just wordplay, combining incompatible terms to see what kind of coincidental humor results. Vague common themes to groups of quotes shouldn't be treated as senses that can be defined. The fourth is saved by having become a cliché, and thus being repeated enough for CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably delete: the fact that it has very many senses suggests that the two words are used in many situations and someone just thought it was cute to document them as a pair. Equinox ◑ 01:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

To expand on this: it is in our interests not to copy the silly, mostly unused words that are published annually as "cool words of the year" (or whatever), and rather to behave reasonably and rely on evidence. Half the "words of the year" were never used. tweetheart? fuck off. Equinox ◑ 01:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep and delete are for RFDs. We're discussing an RFV. ~ Robin (talk) 09:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Two senses. The first has two durable citations (I can verify that the first newspaper citation appeared in print, and I assume the second one did as well) and thus needs one more. The second has no durable citations. No hits on Usenet, and only a few mentions in Google Books. - -sche (discuss) 22:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep, four (4) total citations, plus six (6) additional references. -- Cirt (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Last citation is actually Florida flambe-er (no, really!) but if you merged the three citations into one definition it would pass, wouldn't it? With a {{very|rare}} tag. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Since Florida's moving to lethal injection, I don't think this expression's got much of a future. ~ Robin (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it might actually be obsolete already, looking at the citations, we can only cite it from 1997 to 2007. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Done, per suggestion by Mglovesfun (talk • contribs), please see diff. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker of German, but my understanding is that the part-of-speech terms which are compounds with Wort (like Umstandswort 'adverb') don't have the option of a plural form in -worte, only one in -wörter. Can anyone confirm (or disconfirm) Zeitworte? --Pereru (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The Leo online German dictionary gives only Zeitwörter as the plural in their entry for "Zeitwort", but then google books:"Zeitworte" does generate over 52K hits. Many seem to be masculine dative, but there are plural nominative uses showing up as well. Can anyone more knowledgeable chime in? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine that as long as the plural Worte is in use, people will continue to also use that plural for compound words, based on analogy. That alone ought to be a reason to include it, even if not attested. (To compare, we would include firemen even if we could only find firemans, based on the fact that people will compare it with men.) —CodeCa t 13:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Er? We specifically don't include hypothetical plurals that are sent to RFV and found to be not attested.

In this case, Zeitworte is attested, so let's include it with the appropriate {{nonstandard}} tag and usage note.

de.Wikt, by the way, has only Zeitwörter, but de.Wikt is prescriptivist to the point of denying the existence of attested plurals if they aren't found in dictionaries. - -sche (discuss) 18:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

When I browse through the b.g.c hits, I find very few examples of the plural Zeitworte that are more recent than the mid-19th century. I found two modern texts: [80] and [81] that use the plural Zeitworte (or its dative Zeitworten), but neither of them appears to be using it in the meaning "verb". Rather, in both cases it seems to just mean "word having to do with time". —An gr 18:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I've comprehensively cited it with six citations from 1719 through the present day, but as Angr notes, it's uncommon in modern works. {{obsolete, now nonstandard}}? or {{nonstandard|dated}}? - -sche (discuss) 19:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

How common is it in older works? More common than today, perhaps, but if Zeitwörter was 20 times more common than Zeitworte even in the 18th century, then it's always been {{rare}}. —An gr 18:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

How's this? - -sche (discuss) 22:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I found one source that said this was not attested in any Old English texts. I am also curious about its etymology because the more usual descendant of this Germanic word was benc (from which bench). The lack of palatalisation is suspicious. —CodeCa t 11:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Remember too that palatisation was not a universal feature in all OE dialects: it was a feature of primarily Southern OE dialects (West Saxon); those in the North (Anglian) usually did not palatise, or did so to a much lesser extent (cf OE ic > SouthernME ich, but NorthernME ik; OE finc > English finch but Scots phink) Leasnam (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

According to Bosworth & Toller, it appears glossed as tumulus in Somner's 1659 Old English–Latin dictionary. If that's the only place it occurs, that's just a mention, not a use, and the word can't be verified. Clark Hall doesn't include it, but Clark Hall doesn't attempt to be unabridged. —An gr 18:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

A slightly different form, OE hō-banca ("couch", literally "hock-bench"), more closely depicts PGmc *bankô, *bankōn. I wonder too if the word (if it exists) might have been a borrowing. Leasnam (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Three independent citations please. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sense: an animal that is rarely seen in the wild; indigenous to South America and has been know to hunt small animals..

Added by anon. Has several hits on Google Books, but it's hard to tell the meaning. Note that Chiroptera is the order of bats. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 20:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This appears to just mean "bat." See [82], [83], (fantasy), [84]. Keep, but change to "bat; member of the order Chiroptera." (Are orders normally capitalized?) --BB12 (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Are orders normally capitalized?" Yes. Names of taxa are always capitalized. (Granted, sometimes specific and subspecific epithets/names are used alone, as though they were the full species or subspecies name, and in that case they're not capitalized; but that's the exception that proves the rule. It's not really correct to write just sapiens; one is supposed to write Homo sapiens or H. sapiens, which is the name of a taxon and therefore capitalized.) —Ruakh_TALK 21:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well the species is not capitalized. Would you capitalize both words in "Animal Kingdom"? Wikipedia seems to capitalize everything except the species and perhaps lower, though "kingdom" is not and "phylum" is at w:Animal. Even domains are capitalized: w:Domain_(biology). —This unsigned comment was added by BenjaminBarrett12 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC).

The species name is capitalized, as I explained. And "animal kingdom" is not the name of a taxon; Animalia (or Metazoa) is. —Ruakh_TALK 22:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

But it's Homo sapiens, not Homo Sapiens, so the word designating the species alone isn't capitalized. —An gr 22:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, there isn't a "word designating the species alone". The "specific name", sapiens, isn't capitalized, but the actual name of the species, a.k.a. the "species name" Homo sapiens, is. But regardless . . . this discussion doesn't seem to be productive. If you and Benjamin prefer to think of the rule as "names of infragenera and higher are capitalized, whereas names of superspecies and lower are not", then be my guest, as long as the result of applying that rule comes out the same. —Ruakh_TALK 22:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I was genuinely just confused. It appears that "species name" can mean either the name used in binomial nomenclature, or the name used for the species level itself. In any case, it seems that there is agreement that the Latin names at each level of the tree of life are capitalized. --BB12 (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's confusing. Technically speaking, the species name is a two-word entity made up of the generic name plus the specific epithet (I don't remember if the author name/abbreviation ("Linnaeus"/"L.") is part of the of the species name or just something that's required to be included with it at least once, then can be skipped in repeat uses: "Homo sapiens Linnaeus"). The generic name and species name together can also be called the binomen. When you're referring to a subspecies, the full name is three words, so it's called the [trinomen]]: Homo sapiens sapiens Linnaeus. In real life, even taxonomists will informally refer to the specific epithet in conversation as the species name, but not when they're trying to be precise. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone missed the distinction, Chiroptera is always capitalized, because it's the scientific name of a taxonomic order, but chiropter isn't, because it's just an English word derived from the scientific name. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"an animal that is rarely seen in the wild", and "indigenous to South America" and "has been know to hunt small animals" are the kind of phrases a grade school kid would come up with in order to sound serious and grown-up. The definition is obviously made up. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I have modified the definition and added it as a synonym under bat. --BB12 (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, perhaps a non-English speaker attempt to describe a bat without knowing the word for one. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No sign of that. The English is perfectly ok, it's just the content that makes no sense as a whole: that is, the meaning of each of the parts is clear and unambiguous, but the parts don't add up to a coherent whole- especially not a description of bats. I don't see how "an animal that is rarely seen in the wild" could possibly be a translation error for anything describing a bat, for instance. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Bats are frequently seen in the wild in South America, and they occur all over the world. My original guess was that the anon was defining another animal, but I failed to find any citations that refer to something that couldn't possibly be a bat. Ungoliant ^(Falai) 17:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 19:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Curious; such short words with common suffixes are usually attested, but you're right, and this doesn't get Usenet hits, either. "licencise" gets a few Usenet hits, as a reduplicative synonym or misspelling (take your pick) of "licence": Citations:licencise. - -sche (discuss) 20:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, all I can find is a website, so I don't think it deserves an entry. The uses I can find for "licensise" seem to be mistakes where "license" or "licenses" was intended, but -Sche seems to have found some genuine uses. Dbfirs 20:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The citations linked by -sche look like mistakes for licensed/licensing to me, as s/he seems to have already said. At least they are not unambiguously not mistakes. Spinning Spark 07:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I would read them, but some Wiktionarians (not any of us) seem to think that if they can find three "mistakes" or illiterate usages, then the error deserves an entry. Dbfirs 09:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

-sche's citations look like adjectives, instead of verb forms, to me. Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, licensize still has no citations, and I'm not going to create licencise myself without stronger citations. For one thing, the 6 Nov 2001 one was written by an American, which speaks against interpreting it as "licenc(e)+ise" (why the British spellings, licence+ise, rather than license+ize?). On the other hand, what speaks in favour of the others being some neologistic verb "licencise is: I can see "licencise" (IPA: /laɪ.səns.aɪz/?) as a misspelling of "licenses#Verb" (IPA: /laɪ.səns.ɨz/)... but "licencising" (IPA: /laɪ.sən.saɪ.zɪŋ/?) as a simple misspelling of "licensing" IPA: /laɪ.sən.sɪŋ/? Why the extra "is"? - -sche (discuss) 16:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing whatsoever in Google Books or Groups. Equinox ◑ 10:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The reference also seems to be made up as well as the entry itself. I can find no trace of this book. Spinning Spark 14:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've found it. It's not a published book, but someone's personal poetry blog. [85] Thus speedily deleted entry. Equinox ◑ 14:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

If deletion 7 1/2 years after creation can be considered speedy... Chuck Entz (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

this can only be wrong, as neither the ԓ nor the ы̄ are actually used in Nenets orthography -- Liliana • 21:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (transitive, computing) To fail to properly perform a computer-related procedure; or, the failure of a computer hardware or software component. There are three cites but they don't meet the "spanning at least a year" rule. Any others? -- Liliana • 21:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Also note dubious transitivity: "routers were cupcaked" does not support cupcake meaning "fail". Equinox ◑ 22:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I tried to find something on Usenet with all sorts of combinations such as "was cupcaked" and "were * cupcaked," but nothing. --BB12 (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I found some hits in Google Books, but as far as I could see, they are all scannos of 蜂蜜. --Whym (talk) 08:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It's possible that it could occur as a (recurring) typo, but that seems a little far-fetched. --BB12 (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (music) The performance of music by local musicians in a public place, with its origins in Gaelic culture. A musical performance broadcast for a radio show.

We may be missing a more central music sense for session, though I think it is included in the first sense, but I don't see anything that would restrict the use of the word to this sense. DCDuring TALK 12:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

"The democratization of user-generated information through social networking sites, etc." How can information be democratized? And how does rubbish like Facebook achieve anything? Citations welcome. Equinox ◑ 00:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Wealth Maker

Monday, June 25, 2012

Wiktionary - Recent changes [en]: Wiktionary:Requests for verification