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

Wiktionary:Requests for verification Feb 24th 2013, 19:02 Revision as of 04:54, 24 February 2013 (edit) Latest revision as of 19:02, 24 February 2013 (edit) (undo) Mglovesfun (Talk | contribs) Line 1,955: Line 1,955:       : Anyone can purge; it seems a little obstructive to do that when you have no one who can cite.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 00:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)   : Anyone can purge; it seems a little obstructive to do that when you have no one who can cite.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 00:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)   + :: Dunno what you mean by "no one who can cite". I agree that constructed languages should be subject to the same criteria as other languages; this needs to be used in an Ido text, not just 'if anyone were to use the word, this is what it would be'. [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun|talk]]) 19:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)       == [[cosplay]] ==   == [[cosplay]] == Latest revision as of 19:02, 24 February 2013 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-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} - 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: See also: Criteria for inclusion Format for citations Standard entry layout Searchable external archives Overview: Requests for verification is a page for requests for attestation of a term or a sense, leading to deletion of the term or a sense unless an editor proves that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in Criteria for inclusion, usually by providing three citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic AKA sum of parts should be posted to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. Adding a request: To add a request for verification AKA attestation, place the template {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new nomination here. Those who would seek attestation after the term or sense is nominated will appreciate your doing at least a cursory check for such attestation before nominating it: Google Books is a good source. Answering a request by providing an attestation: To attest a disputed term, meaning to prove that the term is actually used and satisfies the requirement of attestation as specified in inclusion criteria, do one of the following: Assert that the term is in clearly widespread use. Cite, on the article page, the word's usage in a well-known work. Currently, well-known work has not been clearly defined, but good places to start from are: works that stand out in their field, works from famous authors, major motion pictures, and national television shows that have run for multiple seasons. Be aware that if a word is a nonce word that never entered widespread use, it should be marked as such. Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year. In any case, advise on this page that you have placed the citations on the entry page. Closing a request: After a discussion has sat for more than a month without being "cited", or after a discussion has been "cited" for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed. Closing a discussion normally consists of the following actions: Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening. Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFV failed or RFV passed, indicating what action was taken, and striking out the discussion header. (Note: The above is typical. However, in many cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply "RFV failed" or "RFV passed".) Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request may be archived to the entry's talk-page or to WT:RFVA. This consists of removing the discussion from this page, and copying it to the entry's talk-page (using {{rfv-passed}}, {{rfv-failed}}, or {{rfv-archived}}). Historically, it could also include simply commenting on the talk page with a link to the diff of the edit that removed the discussion from this page. Examples of discussions archived at talk pages: Talk:impromptu, Talk:baggs. Oldest tagged RFVs price point unequivocal ANI arabo cob at loose ends pilot trap abalienate small kabloowey public domain boffin 千乗の国 sound art trundle lady of light virtue pound town lärftskramhandlarsocieteter fractal compræhensive Tedusius sourcefulness frandgie LQL Christcentrism Christcentric Rico Suave anœa opsi whoop whoop jenticulate our butts postwork illusion to the max traditional marriage 三相女神 Луна Büyük Utku Nones bag straight marriage Zerouary urocystitis tsunamî dial it in militia čižma quagga Kettled Generation jádí dághaaʼígíí eye dialect kool keep paracosmos backcheck lampoon arbuto shiloh middle case носъ кратъкъ снъха give someone the shits absolution Gene שאָטאיש androgine hermafrodite ллъон ピチャンチャチャラ語 スーパーカリフラジリスティックエクスピアリドーシャス superoptikjempefantafenomenalistisk superoptihupilystivekkuloistokainen supercalifragilisticoespialidoso supercalifragilisticexpidelilicieux nightertale afer wool irha detao 䢗 䥑 䲜 䦉 white over right, smoke over fire sale masculism bazdjeti eat the wind Deseret Morcegoso gute gute skel 佦 zeptomole albifrons dative europoan 丟 乒 亢 亶 仞 伋 伺 但 住 佘 你 *ch *fish 侏 俞 pull in the pieces cê tem bruneva cê tem bruchove necrosadism atoron perigon shoray litrus gaydacu pofavo puatdabucets opinião é que nem bunda, todo mundo tem a sua lö 砵 basmeg organolithium Min katal Well-Known ID seio gut halfbirthday catfish timoniser couplezilla earthworm mutation sowse neverthriving Pandeism faggot barebum mot-dièse late lentiada misandrism arkeopterigido arkeopterigino virarkeopterigo acantha autotonsorialist out 尿放る 㐪 krank vuorottainen fanel Sehnsucht dark elf sialoquent 1-up Constanța 鸋 henohenomoheji beerdick buck naked go 乁 佫 䯂 䰠 squib private full retard antecipate antecipation nieselest click renovate uvet увет 倭 limp-dick unvirile už bitcoin opa 𢦔 lateral made in China Hiberno English Betty Boop piemeldoek los brick turu camarão RFV-sense "Without equal, matchless." - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Hm, this might actually be attested; see e.g. the older BGC hits for "unequivocal scope". - -sche (discuss) 05:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC) RFV-sense "Automatic Number Identification". Tagged with the comment "acronym of a phrase that failed RFV" but never listed. - -sche (discuss) 03:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC) This is a basic telecom term (see w:Automatic number identification) that's not as widely used now that phone technology has progressed beyond hard-wired telephone numbers. When I had a job working with payphones a couple of decades ago, ANI was also used as a term for the numbers themselves, pronounced the same as "Annie". I'm surprised that such a well-known term could fail RFV. At any rate, there are plenty of hits on Google Books: [1] Chuck Entz (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Previous discussion is at Talk:Automatic Number Identification. There are plenty of Google Books hits for both uppercase "Automatic Number Identification" and lowercase "automatic number identification". If you think it's not SOP, please restore the entry: it seems it only failed RFV because no-one cared to check the definition or cite it. - -sche (discuss) 19:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Adverb: "in a small fashion". The given example is "writ small", but this is surely an adjective use. Compare "painted red". Equinox ◑ 22:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Aim small, miss small. ? --WikiTiki89 (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Is "writ small" for write small perhaps? Expressions like think small (cf. think big (= think in a big way), live large (= live extravagantly or to the fullest extent), etc.) are clearly adverbial. Leasnam (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Input needed: This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look! Is "small" an adverb in "live small" and "think small"? - -sche (discuss) 04:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC) I think it is -- it certainly is meant that way. Note also how difficult it would be to use the (rare) corresponding manner adverb smally in the same context -- it's almost like the case of fast. On the other hand, unlike fast, small is quite limited as an adverb: you can apparently use it only in a few cases (among which "think small"), but not, apparently, in *to work small or *to pay small or *to draw small (though you can 'draw it small, a small-clause resultative construction similar to paint it red). (Or can you? What do the native speakers here say about how constrained the adverbial use of small is?) --Pereru (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Do we have any citations showing these uses so that we can analyze actual use instead of our own imaginations? "Writ small" is an idiom given the archaic writ and so constitutes to evidence about small in contemporary English. I don't think of the resultative constructions as showing adverbitude. If one "writes small" or "thinks small" both seem to me to about the result, though the alternative is certainly arguable. Real context-rich citations can help clarify usage, but may also be ambiguous. I have added a cite from a well-known work to the challenged sense and added two other senses, one probably obsolete. Other dictionaries show adverb senses. DCDuring TALK 15:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense: Not subject to any copyright or patent restrictions. Isn't this just an attributive form of the noun? ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Even when it's used predicatively? —CodeCat 23:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Maybe it would help if the definition for the noun actually made sense: "The feature of intellectual property being not protected under patent or copyright". Just try to substitute that into the phrase "in the public domain" and use it in a sentence! Chuck Entz (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC) This was part of a series of half-finished and sometimes accurate idioms from a while ago. I can find many examples of this but I can't find any sources that define it. At any rate I'm confident about the reading, but I don't know the meaning or what the full idiom is. This appears to be part of a longer idiom, or it may just be part of a famous quotation. It's rare at best. --Haplology (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC) I have corrected the definition. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Input needed: This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look! This and same author's media bridge seem to have been used by only one author, possibly in a patent filing. Equinox ◑ 15:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC) If attestable, move to RFD. Ƿidsiþ 15:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Sum of parts, surely. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Per Widsith, if cited move to RFD anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC) These are not sum of parts at all. They are, taken together, a unique identifying term which has been coined in a growing body of work by the MIT Tangible Media Lab (www.tangible.media.mit.edu/) giving rise to a collection of new technology such as that found in the following US Patents: 8,230,337 (Associating objects with corresponding behaviors); 8,194,986 (Methods and systems for content processing); 8,180,844 (System for linking from objects to remote resources) 8,108,484 (Fingerprints and machine-readable codes combined with user characteristics to obtain content or information); 8,051,169 (Methods and systems useful in linking from objects to remote resources); 8,023,691 (Methods involving maps, imagery, video and steganography); 7,991,157 (Methods and systems responsive to features sensed from imagery or other data); 7,760,905 (Wireless mobile phone with content processing); 7,257,583 (System and method for updating an on-device application catalog in a mobile device receiving a push message from a catalog server indicating availability of an application for download; 7,065,559 (Media bridge method and apparatus)] The complete phrase tangible media object is term of art employed by technology research groups such as the MIT Tangible Media Lab (www.tangible.media.mit.edu/) and in such patented processes as Media Bridge and Apparatus (US 7,065,559 (http://www.google.com/patents/US7065559)).—This unsigned comment was added by Vanguard33 (talk • contribs). First, each of the two definitions needs three independent citations in durably archived media (likely to survive, not subject to deletion or editing). The citations may help establish the definition as one that it is not SoP. I don't think that a family of patent applications counts as more than one independent citation. DCDuring TALK 01:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC) In response, see http://tangible.media.mit.edu/, discussing Professor Ishii's discoveries and findings in the new world of giving physical form to digital information and vice versa; ergo the birth of the now ubiquitous complete phrase, "tangible media object." ((see also, discussion of radical tangible atoms) http://tangible.media.mit.edu/vision/)). There is no family of patents set forth above. Each patent represents a complete and separate technology (non obvious and unrelated innovation), yet each contains the touchstone term, championed by Professor Ishii's MIT Tangible Media Group, now known as the "tangible media object". Many citations exist within the patents cited and the MIT Tangible Media Group links cited which support a non SoP stand-alone definition of the new tech term, "tangible media object." See also, http://www.neverdesign.net/oldsite/old/images/kamelion/kamelion.pdf (tangible media objects in music); http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/r.harper/papers/videoworkchi.pdf (Microsoft scholarly "white paper" on videoworks as tangible media objects); http://pdf.courses.qut.edu.au/coursepdf/qut_IX69_24338_dom_cms.pdf (Queensland University of Technology course description KIB 314 in Tangible Media including coursework on "tangible media objects" within technology). Vanguard33, you're missing the point, though I imagine you're doing so deliberately to promote your own interests, so no amount of us explaining will help. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC) I may be wasting my breath, but I have looked at a few of your sources and can give you an idea of where you are going wrong here. It is useless to present us with documents from the web unless they can be shown to be durably archived somewhere (that is, other than on a server). They will not count towards verification. Even so, looking at a few [2][3][4], they do not contain the phrase "tangible media object". We need that exact phrase for their to be an entry. Likewise, patent 8 230 337 has only "tangible computer-readable medium". 8 194 986 does not contain "tangible". 8 180 844 has only "tangible object". 8 104 484 does not contain the word "tangible" and in any case is not independent of 8 230 337 (same principle authors Rhoads and Rodriguez)—and so on and so on. Exactly the same terminology is not important for an encyclopedia article, but we are writing a dictionary here. SpinningSpark 10:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Mglovesfun: While appreciated, your insinuative comment is off the mark. Member of a technology association with no agenda other than a student and follower of all things tech and digital. Spinnerspark: Thank you for reviewing some of the cited patents. You missed a few including 7,065,559 which makes direct reference with examples to a "tangible media object" as well as the published sources on the MIT Media Object Lab site, Professor Ishii's own white papers (also published on that cite link provided) and the academic white papers and course curricula from Queensland University of Technology including published definitions for "tangible media object." This is not an encyclopedic discourse, rather a new term given rise in each of these published sources and now popularized in a particular technology corridor (e.g., MIT Media Object Lab). With all due respect, there is no agenda here other than to record use of a new and important technical term. —This unsigned comment was added by Vanguard33 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 25 October 2012. There are no acceptable cites in the entry so it will be deleted. Personally, I am not willing to spend any more time reviewing more of your sources even if you had been thoughtful enough to provide clickable links or the text of the cites. SpinningSpark 13:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC) I think you're misunderstanding what sum of parts (SOP) is referring to here. It doesn't have to mean that these are all just independent words, but that at least one of the words isn't part of the idiom. There should really be an an entry for tangible media, not this entry. This entry just refers to an object used in tangible media. We don't need entries for things like "tangible media system", "tangible media interface", "tangible media interactivity", etc., and we don't need this- because they all should be covered by tangible media plus the entries for the other parts. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC) I have added the only two valid citations I could find at Books, Scholar, News, Groups, and Patent. We need another one. Any ideas? DCDuring TALK 14:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Suggest the following: S. Jang, C. Shin, Y. Oh, W. Woo, GIST U-VR-Lab, S. Korea, Introduction of 'ubiHome' Testbed, (p.3) @ http://icserv.gist.ac.kr/mis/publications/data/2005/P3_04(seiie%20jang).pdf ("TMCS is a tangible user interface providing intuitive ways to access and control digital media contents with identity (What) of object such as CD, picture and movie title. See items A, implimented TMCS and B, 'Tangible Media Object' and controller.") Could I find a copy in print in a library in the US or the UK. DCDuring TALK 19:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC) I tried to find the proceedings of the conference on WorldCat which has many major libraries, especially university libraries: No joy. DCDuring TALK 19:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC) RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 05:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense: A sex toy comparable to a very narrow dildo inserted into a penis through the urethra By Luciferwildcat. I was inclined to just remove the sense together with its translation table. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC) What is questioned here exactly? Is that the existence of such sexual toys? Urethral sounds do exist as BDSM toys, see w:Urethral sounding (and ext. links). Or do you suggest this sense should be merged with sense #1? That wouldn't sound unreasonable to me, since originally the toy was identical to the medical instrument, except it was used in a sexual context. But, thanks to the creativity of designers, today's toys don't seem to have much in common with the medical ones. — Xavier, 13:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC) I am asking for citations of use of the word "sound" to mean what the definition above says it means, such ones that meet WT:ATTEST. You seems to suggest the defition is related to the one above: "A probe (e.g. a surgeon's tool)". Unfortunately, the definition above is subprime; it should read "A probe: any of various medical instruments used to explore wounds, organs etc." or the like, to be perfectly clear which sense of "probe" is being picked by the definition. If this definition is accepted and you can cite "sound" as referring to sex toys that are not medical instruments, then you will have attested the sex toy as a distinct sense, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC) The item exists; that can be verified via a lot of non-durable websites. The word, on the other hand, doesn't seem to meet CFI. - -sche (discuss) 05:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC) The Spanish Wikipedia disagrees with our entry — es.wiki claims that this term means "casting" (a certain manufacturing process), while our entry claims it means "smelter, smelting furnace" — but more to the point, the term doesn't seem to be in actual use, in either sense! —RuakhTALK 16:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Google Books is not letting me see more than its results-page preview, but I see three seemingly Peruvian results, "Fundó el Colegio Nacional Mixto de Esmelter,"[5], "Esta compañía para consolidar su dominio en la altiplanicie de Pasco, Junín y Lima, y sofocar las protestas por la contaminación que provocaron sus centrales metalúrgicas (Esmelter y La Oroya), adquiere bajo diversas modalidades y"[6], and "Nadie en Cobriza ignora que desde hace algunos meses la Cerro inició el cierre de los asientos carboníferos de Goylla- risquizga y el lavadero de carbón de Esmelter. Asimismo, los trabajadores recuerdan las continuas amenazas de la"[books.google.com/books?id=gLVFAAAAYAAJ&q=esmelter]. No idea what it means.​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC) In those cites, it's clearly a proper noun, or part of one, so not really relevant. (In the first one it's part of the name of a school founded by an ex-miner; in the latter two it's the name of a coal preparation plant, or something along those lines, at the Cobriza Mine. Oddly, I can't find much confirmatory evidence of either one, but that doesn't really matter.) —RuakhTALK 05:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC) RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 02:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC) When a main character is described as a hero without being heroic, or a protagonist without promoting anything, that's sarcasm without the moisture isn't it? RTG (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC) So, which senses are you disputing? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC) The most common use of "protagonist" in my experience is the "main character" meaning, not the "promoter" one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC) @RTG, sorry to be a bit of an arse, but this is a massive page, so any off-topic material, I'm very keen to remove it. Nothing personal. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC) The ones where it implies, the words hero or protagonist define a main character, specifically without any other prerequisite quality than being characterised at all. I suggest such sense is contextual, expectant of a situation rather than descriptive of a subject and therefore requisite of explanation as such, in definition as such. Can you verify that a main character is always a hero simply by being main, as opposed to being merely described as one, in the implication that fiction best provides a hero for a main characters adventures? It's a bit tongue twistery to explain but it's not very complicated or long. If a fictional work about Satan sacrificing babies describes him as the hero of the story without any heroic aspect to his adventure, are we left requiring context for defintion? I say, yes of course. RTG (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC) I'm not insisting you do anything Mglovesfun, but the senses are unverified and that is interesting as the context is totally overlooked which makes them kind of undefining too. RTG (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Could you tag the disputed sense with {{rfv-sense}}, then we can all know what they are, instead of just you? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Done and I would suggest scrolling up a little to the RFV for James Bond as that is pretty much something like this, more of an ironic use. Please verify that these senses are not ironic. RTG (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Though the use is so common I would suggest describing as ironic rather than deleting? RTG (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC) This looks more like a topic for WT:TR than for rfv. Here you're asking people to look for examples of usage to verify that the term (or at least a particular sense of it) is in use- mostly to determine whether it meets WT:CFI. If the term or sense fails verification, it gets deleted. The Tea Room is for more general discussions about a term. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC) I find it weird that when searching here, Google Books comes up with hits for "hero" when searching for "protagonist". Searching for google books:protagonist of Paradise Lost finds that Kaplan's guides say "Satan is the protagonist in Paradise Lost. Although there may be evil elements in the other works, Satan himself does not actually appear." and "protagonist: This is the main character of the story." google books:"evil protagonists" finds "Wood's strong evil protagonists are punished, of course - but only after the readers have been afforded a chance to identify briefly with female force and power." and "Amusing vampire flick featuring real-life twins Madeleine and Mary Collinson as the good and evil protagonists." Hero is more complicated, but I don't see any question about protagonist.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Satan could be described as a major protagonist without any loss of the meaning of the word because of course the stereotypical Satan promotes something, but when I change that search to "hero of paradise lost" in brackets, the first hit I get says, "Satan is wrongly called the hero of Paradise Lost. He is really the villain-hero or the counter-hero..." and so on which I think makes the exact point I was trying to make. RTG (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Also I've tagged the 'champion' sense, which is tagged with rfc, but I'm now changing to RFV since nobody has been able to clear it up. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC) RTG, above you seem to want to withdraw your nomination, do you still want to? You seem to think that this exists, so, rfv is the wrong place. I'm pretty sure you've just got this totally wrong. I was hoping you'd realize that for yourself and it would save me saying it. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC) The above quote is from a book called The Tragic Hero Through the Ages by Karuna Shankur Mishra. Is that a good attestation? RTG (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC) When a word is "wrongly used", it is still used. We are not a proscriptive dictionary. --WikiTiki89 18:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Okay, then what about the sense evil hero. It's definitely attestable. Should it be put in as a mere attestion without definition? Should it be implied that, because it can be found to be used, it has become the truth? Do you imply that hero is attestably used in the phrase evil hero, or do you imply that hero means a person of evil, as attested by use of the phrase evil hero? RTG (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC) @RTG, what's it to you? You're convinced the sense is valid anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC) It just lacked that aspect of definition and I couldn't see a simple edit from me to suffice so I tried it on the experts. Nothing strange. I'm just dragging it in off the porch for you to see I guess. The point is now made in the attestations I guess? I think it works best when it's all covered, and I get what it says on the tin, a very good dictionary at the expense of selfless dedication such as your own. Ask me to do something if you like. RTG (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Hero: I've passed the "protagonist" sense—it's in clear widespread use; I've removed the "champion" sense—it had no citations and I'm not familiar with it. Protagonist: I've passed the literary sense (again, clear widespread use). - -sche (discuss) 05:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC) This supposedly means "case law". Is this correct? In Wikipedia νομολογία means "precedent". Common law is Αγγλοσαξωνικό δίκαιο ("Anglo-Saxon law"). --Hekaheka (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Our first sense, which I find in other dictionaries too, is "a girl or woman with brown or black hair." The second, challenged sense is: "A white brunette with dark eyes and a relatively dark or olive complexion." Equinox ◑ 12:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Whoa, no, I can see what they're getting at. It's a bit pointless to refer to black or Asian women being brunettes as they all have brown hair (naturally I mean) so the distinction is more meaningful when talking about white women. But of course brunettes don't necessarily have brown eyes. Most commonly, sure, but it's not a factual thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Then perhaps we should remove this sense and add a usage note about how the term is not generally used for dark-skinned people. Equinox ◑ 17:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Don't people of African, South/Southeast/East Asian, and Native American ancestry generally have black hair, not brown hair? Is brunette used of black-haired women as well as brown-haired women? —Angr 18:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC) I don't think so. My wife is Chinese, and her hair is naturally dark brown, not black. It's not terribly common, but it's not terribly rare either. On the other hand, I agree that this dichotomy of usage can be addressed through a usage note. bd2412 T 21:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC) I'll vote for usage notes too then. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Sense removed by anonip. Striking.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense: "Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature." Was tagged with {{fact}}, I thought it would be better to list it here. I feel like it's attempting to be genuine, but the way it's worded I don't think I understand it. A dam counteracts the work of nature by stopping water flowing, and it's clearly a human effort, is a dam therefore art? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Looks like tosh to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Reasonable in the sense of anything produced by skill - especially considering the general use of "term of art" in engineering etc. And yes - the Hoover Dam is a "work of art" in that sense. [7] "It also is a work of art" Collect (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC) The first definition of art is in the aesthetic and the second is in the practice of skill. Any relation to nature after that is consequential or situational. If that is true it is either etymological or fanciful. Is the list not, paint, sculpture, scripture, method..? I'd have said a dam could be art if consideration was paid to the aesthetic, and that damming was artful if it were skilled. Counteracting nature is just a poetic abstraction. RTG (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC) The focus of the definition does seem to be nature. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC) I don't get why the word nature needs to be in the definition either. The current configuration of main definitions, on which the translation tables are built, has been there since 2005. But I find the definitions variously hard to understand, tendentious, or duplicative, especially in the absence of usage examples of citations. I'm also not sure about completeness. This would be a candidate for some kind of advanced cleanup. DCDuring TALK 14:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Rfv-sense: (Australian, slang) The process of defecating (compare a liquid trundle). Nothing obvious in G books or groups, though there is a missing verb sense by which one can trundle (off) to the toilet (or indeed elsewhere). — Pingkudimmi 15:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC) I've added two senses not connect to 'wheeling', based on cites findable at COCA. I think this term has lost the wheel association for most people. The rhyme with "bundle" may account for some of the non-wheel transitive use. I have no ideas about the purported Australian sense. DCDuring TALK 15:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC) The term does seem to have some hits in Google books, but I cannot confirm the sense of prostitute from the quotations that I find. See google books:"lady of light virtue" and google:"lady of light virtue". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC) "Chardin was approached ... by a lady he took to be a high-class prostitute. ... He had not long since arrived in Isfahan and, wary of the possible implications of being accosted by a lady of light virtue, refused her offer and passed by."[8]--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Most of the uses seem to refer to a slut (in layman's terms). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC) Rfv-sense: (slang, vulgar, extremely pejorative) One who has sex with pigs. I'd be surprised if it's ever been used that literally. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC) Well, there's a scene near the beginning of the South Park movie, where: Terrance (movie): You're such a pig fucker, Phillip! [In the audience, the kids gasp.] Kyle: What did he say? Phillip (movie): Terrance, why would you call me a pig fucker? Terrance (movie): Well, let's see. First of all, you fuck pigs. Phillip (movie): Oh, yeah! South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut (1999) And here as literal outlandish accusations: 2004 November 9, Peter C. Newman, Here Be Dragons: Telling Tales Of People, Passion and Power, Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, ISBN 9780771067921, OL 3377718M: If you want to allege an MP is a pig fucker you don't have to produce the pig. You just have to get him to deny it. 2010 May 11, Paul Provenza; Dan Dion quoting Paul Krassner, ¡Satiristas!: Comedians, Contrarians, Raconteurs & Vulgarians, New York: !t books, ISBN 9780061859342, OL 24488548M, page 22: I also went on all these radio shows and would not cop to a hoax—partly to see the fury of the interviewers, but also with that old idea that if a politician says his opponent's a pig-fucker, it puts his opponent in the position of having to say, "I'm not a pig-fucker!" ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC) All of these seem to have drawbacks. The third one doesn't really support this meaning more than any other meaning of pigfucker. The second one looks good but it pig fucker, the first one has the same problem; is it spelled pigfucker, pig-fucker or pig fucker in the original script? Or is that just a transcript from a website? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC) I checked the spelling in the South Park DVD subtitles. The lines are subtitled "pig fucker" with a space. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC) RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 22:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense: uncountable, US. I don't see how this is uncountable. There might be a proper name that does not have a plural, but is it normal English to say "too much/little electoral college"? If that is OK, doesn't it apply to the first sense, too, which leaves us with no difference between the senses. DCDuring TALK 22:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC) I feel like the second sense was an attempt to cover the proper noun. I would just move it to a new ===Proper noun=== POS section. - -sche (discuss) 23:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Agree with both. Not uncountable but proper. DAVilla 06:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Neither Electoral College nor electoral college appears to be the proper name, except as a nickname, for the college of electors of the president of the US. I'm not sure that such a proper name exists. The US Constitution and the US Code refer variously to the electoral college and college of electors. I suppose it is only with the decline of the use of college other than in reference to education and learning that this has become a set phrase. Its apparent existence as an institution (or "process", as it is defined in some dictionaries) seems to make folks sometimes want to capitalize the words in the set phrase. To me it seems like calling University a proper name because it is used to refer to any number of specific universities. DCDuring TALK 13:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC) I think (as you say) this has become a set phrase. A term/phrase needn't be official to be a proper noun. In turn, I think if it's how the term is used in US English, that's sufficiently broad usage to merit a sense, whereas phrases like "I head back to [the] University next week" and "I went to the store this morning" do not suggest that [[University]] needs to be defined as my local uni, or [[store]] as my local store. - -sche (discuss) 19:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC) I have edited both the RfVed sense at [[electoral college]] and [[Electoral College]] in line with this discussion and my understanding of the facts. I think most people are referring to the overall process any specific existent Electoral College (51 in total). Many people definitely believe that there is a single Electoral College that meets to formally elect the president and vice-president. DCDuring TALK 21:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Rfv-sense: adjective, relating to a market. Looks like attributive use of the nouns. Cannot imagine this being used as "more market", "very market" "the forces are market". Mglovesfun (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC) RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Tagged {{delete}} by an anon who claims it doesn't exist. Any proof? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Can't we speedy it because it's a plural and we don't have the singular yet? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Haha, good point. I think that is our practice. (Whether it should be or not is a separate matter. De.Wikt has lots of inflected forms without lemmata, and I've found it helpful about as often as I've found it unhelpful.) - -sche (discuss) 22:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Now the singular exists, together with the components of the compound. This is indeed a most uncommon word, but it does appear here. However, the English entry for linendraper is still missing. --LA2 (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC) August Strindbeg is a well-known author par excellence, but don't we need another quote? --Hekaheka (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC) I think we can use that page to cite klädeshandlarsocietet as well? —CodeCat 03:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Question to LA2: are you sure that such guild ever existed under that name and that the author did not use the word "societet" in its other meaning "upper class, socialites"? If he had meant a guild, he might rather have used the word "gille". If I'm right, the modern Swedish equivalent for societeter in this case would be kretsar. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Side note: someone should add societet, as its plural societeter is already there. --WikiTiki89 08:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC) The author here is Jan Myrdal, writing about August Strindberg. The text is about these societies or guilds protesting against competition from jewish immigrants, as one root for antisemitism in Sweden. I don't know what the actual guilds were named. I have added references to lärftskramhandlare (linendraper), which is a word that appears in dictionaries. The longer word (l-societet) is a far less common word, that normally hasn't appeared in dictionaries. So should it appear in Wiktionary? In English, the "linendrapers' guild" would just be a "sum of parts" and therefore not included. But in Swedish it is one compound word. I'm really not sure where to draw the line. --LA2 (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC) This has been a common issue lately. Some users here think that a 'part' in a SOP term is always and only separated from surrounding text by delimiting characters like spaces, hyphens and such (in languages that use them). Others (including me) believe that this bases the concept of idiomaticity on orthography, rather than on the ability of speakers of the language to figure out the meaning of the word by its parts. —CodeCat 21:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC) I was wrong, it does appear in the dictionary, with an extra -e- that most people would not use: lärftskramhandlaresocietet in Svenska Akademiens ordbok online. --LA2 (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Rfv-sense: movable stepladder. This seems like it is probably the same as the Dutch word trap, but I've never heard this word being used in English. —CodeCat 14:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC) "American Mechanical Dictionary" 1884 [9] Also in an 1826 dictionary [10]. Non-dictionary usages of "trap ladder" abound including [11] from 1832 etc. Appears to refer either to a foldable or moveable ladder, especially one leading to an attic. Collect (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure what "section" is supposed to accomplish, but clicking on the above link just took me to the top of the page. DCDuring TALK 16:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC) I know, but it works the other way around. We currently have two senses of trap for RFV, so to make the RFV link on the entry point to this discussion, I added a section link to distinguish the two. —CodeCat 16:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC) I see. DCDuring TALK 21:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Rfv-sense: A geometric figure that repeats itself under several levels of magnification, and that shows self-similarity on all scales. What I want to see demonstrated is use of "fractal" by which Mandelbrot set is not a fractal, as it is not perfectly self-similar, per the challenged definition. There is another definition which remains unchallenged: "A geometric figure that appears irregular at all scales of length, e.g. a fern." This unchallenged definition is probably intended to be coextensive with "A geometric figure which has a Hausdorff dimension which is greater than its topological dimension", a definition that I have just removed bz reverting back, in order to enable challenging the definition with perfect self-similarity. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Do we really need an RFV for this? The accuracy is debatable but it's perfectly real isn't it? If it's deleted we'll need another definition to cover the English usage of 'fractal' anyway, so this RFV seems like a bad idea to me. Move to Talk:fractal, doesn't seem to be bad enough to merit WT:RFC. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Please look again. There are two definitions now. The one constrains "fractal" to figures that are perfectly self-similar. The other one includes figures that are perfectly self-similar, but also includes figures that are not, such as Mandelbrot set. I have sent the first definition to RFV. What evidence do you have that "fractal" is ever used in a way that excludes Mandelbrot set? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC) No it doesn't. You've added the word 'perfectly', the entry itself says 'self-similar' not 'perfectly self-similar'. Are we RFVing the definition in the entry or your definition? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC) I admit that I read "self-similar" as "perfectly self-similar", and that I read "similar" as "differing only by scaling, rotation and translation", that is, in a mathematical way. If what the definition intends by "self-similar" is "approximately self-similar", it remains to clarify in what way is the second definition ("A geometric figure that appears irregular at all scales of length, e.g. a fern") intended to cover a different class of things from the first definition, that is, what are the examples of geometrical figures such that they satisfy definition 2 ("irregular at all scales") but not definition 1 ("showing self-similarity at all scales"). In any case, I still do not see that Mandelbrot set is "a geometric figure that repeats itself under several levels of magnification"; that is, I have hard time reading your "approximately" into the definition as it stands. What I want to see attested is that there are two uses of "fractal" that do not apply to the same class of geometric figures. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC) I would remove the "irregular" definition since there are many irregular shapes that would not be considered fractals. We could include the word irregular in the main single definition, since not all self-similar shapes are fractals. I don't think we should have two definitions. Dbfirs 16:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC) I think that the wrong sense has been RfVed. Self-similarity (not necessarily perfect (a word that is not in our definition)) at different scales is the most important part of a fractal, as far as I can tell. The OED defines this as "A mathematically conceived curve such that any small part of it, enlarged, has the same statistical character as the original." - statistical similarity, not perfect. The second definition (that I added many years ago) may, indeed be wrong (I'll investigate). SemperBlotto (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC) I've added some citations and split them between "self-similar" and "irregular" to the best of my ability. It isn't always obvious which sense is meant. Feel free to add more. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC) p.s. The definition of fractal from mathworld is, in part, "A fractal is an object or quantity that displays self-similarity, in a somewhat technical sense, on all scales. The object need not exhibit exactly the same structure at all scales, but the same "type" of structures must appear on all scales. A plot of the quantity on a log-log graph versus scale then gives a straight line, whose slope is said to be the fractal dimension." - this is our sense #1. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC) I have now added rfv-sense to the second sense. For the purpose of existence of the term, "fractal" is doubtless sufficiently cited at Citations:fractal; thank you. For the purpose of showing there is more than one sense of "fractal", the quotations at Citations:fractal do not do the job for me. It is not clear how I should evaluate the quotations. Like, for the C.W. Ormel quotation from 2006, should I look up what "PCA/CCA fractal model" refers to? Without doing that, how am I to know what sense of "fractal" the quotation uses? Note that the first definition currently says "that repeats itself under several levels of magnification", which seems much stronger than the notion of self-similarity defined as having the "same statistical character". --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC) What about having this single definition: "A geometric figure that shows self-similarity on all scales; technically, a geometric figure which has a Hausdorff dimension that is greater than its topological dimension."? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC) I liked your suggestion until I remembered that an ordinary parabola (and even a straight line) satisfies the first part. I agree that we ought to have a non-technical definition, but how do we word it so that it includes only those patterns that most people call fractals? We need to include some concept of irregularity to eliminate the trivial geometric figures. ("Fractus" did mean "broken" or "shattered" in Latin.) Dbfirs 14:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC) @Dbfirs: what about this: "A geometric figure that shows self-similarity at all scales and that, unlike a line segment, shows an ever-expanding detail of shape at all scales; technically, a geometric figure which has a Hausdorff dimension that is greater than its topological dimension." --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC) Something like "that repeats itself under several levels of magnification" or "that is (exactly, approximately, or statistically) self-similar on all scales" seems to fit common usage of the term, though it may need to be reworded to be technically accurate. Merriam-Webster defines it as "any of various extremely irregular curves or shapes for which any suitably chosen part is similar in shape to a given larger or smaller part when magnified or reduced to the same size" (emphasis mine). Dictionary.com has "a geometrical or physical structure having an irregular or fragmented shape at all scales of measurement between a greatest and smallest scale such that certain mathematical or physical properties of the structure, as the perimeter of a curve or the flow rate in a porous medium, behave as if the dimensions of the structure (fractal dimensions) are greater than the spatial dimensions", which seems too technical (jargon-y) without necessarily satisfying all mathematicians. Since mathematical authorities themselves are said to disagree on the definition, perhaps we should have more than one definition? Alternatively, we could have a technical definition and then explain in a usage note what characteristics are associated with fractals in the popular imagination and/or differing mathematical definitions. Wikipedia has an entire section, w:Fractal#Characteristics, devoted to various definitions. - -sche (discuss) 17:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC) @-sche: I think we should have more than one definition only if the definitions are not coextensive, that is, if there is at least one geometric figure that is a "fractal" per one of the definitions but not per the other definition. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC) It seems to me that the term is commonly used in math with a relatively narrow meaning, but sometimes also used with a broader meaning that includes all instances of the narrow meaning but also other cases which are not otherwise/often regarded as fractals. Wikipedia has examples. - -sche (discuss) 03:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC) What are the examples--whether from Wikipedia or elsewhere--of things that are not fractals per "relatively narrow meaning" but are fractals per "broader meaning"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC) From WP: "Mandelbrot […] illustrated his mathematical definition with striking computer-constructed visualizations. These images, such as of his canonical Mandelbrot set pictured in Figure 1, captured the popular imagination; many of them were based on recursion, leading to the popular meaning of the term "fractal"." However, Kenneth Falconer argues for a broad definition of "fractal", which would include things like this strange attractor. (Oddly, I found a use of "fractal" in that specific "attractor" sense in Chaos, Criminology, and Social Justice by Dragan Milovanovic, a non-mathematician: he writes of corporations which "produce a fractal basin of outcomes with any number of attractors".) - -sche (discuss) 16:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC) I tried: compraehensive, comprxhensive, comprrehensive, comprsehensive, comprashensive, comprarhensive, comprœhensive, compræhenfive, compraehenfive, comprrehenfive, comprsehenfive, comprashenfive, comprarhenfive, comprxhenfive, compriehensive, comprjehensive, comprjehenfive, compriehenfive and none of them turned up any relevant results. --Æ&Œ (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC) It's an inconsistent spelling, as æ often replaces a, not e! Could be just a total error. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC) It could charitably be viewed as hypercorrection, as if many uses of "e" in modern spellings of Latin-derived words were improper alterations of "ae". Or it is intended as an intentional archaicism. The valid ones are fine, though it seems to me we've overemphasized them. This one seems quite unsupportable in English, though Lewis and Short does show compraehendo as an alternative spelling of comprehendo. DCDuring TALK 18:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC) My mistake; English pre is from Latin prae. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC) Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC) Check Corpus inscriptionum latinarum please. 94.67.90.106 18:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC) It's real, but massively rare. This book lists it, with a citation to a certain inscription (as for which inscription, I'm too lazy to decipher their system, so I don't know). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC) It's rare but it does exist. A small but significant number of google books mention it and the book "Corpus inscriptionum latinarum" refers to the connection between the names (Thedusius-Teodusius). There is also the district of Naples, San Giovanni a Teduccio, with "Teduccio" coming from "Theodosius" (see [12] "Da Teodosius si fa derivare Teodusius, Teoducius e poi Teduccio") in a comparable way in modern Italian (note the different forms that the name can take, the pronunciation doesn't differ a lot). Btw, the feminine equivalent "Tedusia" is more widely used. 94.67.90.106 18:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC) US slang: "a snappily dressed cool confidant Latino ladies man". It has a reference, which is actually a citation, and probably not a valid one. A quick Google Book search doesn't find this, but references either to Rico Suave the person or Rico Suave the song. I'm wondering if the source article is just wrong. If it's recent US slang I'd expect Usenet hits at the very least. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC) I could only find it as a song title - that's why I speedied it. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC) Actually it wasn't you! It was Metaknowledge, presumably he got there a few microseconds before you did. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC) And I just speedied it again. Most definitely vandalism, I reverted the same person doing the same thing over at WIkipedia. Just because some vandals are slightly smarter than others doesn't mean that we should let their crap sit for a month. I'll be surprised if you find a single usable cite. By the way, Semper, do you just automatically assume that any speedying is done by you? Actually, if so you're probably more often right than wrong :) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC) You should get an error message if you try and delete a page that doesn't exist. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC) I don't think you know what vandalism is if you think that "Rico Suave" is vandalism. Clearly you didn't read the reference, which gives the same definition as provided in the entry. The phrase "Rico Suave" has a number of origins, being slang in the US for a cool, confident Latino and ladies' man who dresses sharply clearly a reasonable dead tree source "The Australian". Clearly the term was defined, so how is that vandalism? -- 70.24.250.26 06:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC) http://www.tmz.com/2008/07/18/cristiano-ronaldo-rico-suave/ Cristiano Ronaldo -- Rico Suave This uses "Rico Suave" as in the definition in the deleted entry. On the subject of Rico Suave-types, be warned: They check out more parts here than an auto shop Los Angeles Times, 17 June 1993 Desjardins had been given the nickname "Rico" in Montreal because of the way he dressed and handled himself. He was like that mythical Latin character, Rico Suave Philadelphia Inquirer, 28 December 2003 Alex wasn't always met with open arms when he made it out to the 2nd level. "Rico Suave baby," Boone said, shaking his head. Hawkeye Insider, 11 January 2005 http://www.tv.com/shows/csi-miami/forums/i-hate-jonathan-togo-ryan-wolfe-5154-513278/ He even asked her out (made a bit of a mess of it but the guy ain't Eric "Rico Suave" Delko so whatever). http://reviews.cnet.com/pc-games/leisure-suit-larry-s/4505-9696_7-30983749.html Those who want to be richer and smoother than Rico Suave will definitely find the style of play satisfying. http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/21-jump-street-now/story?id=15928964#.UK3BrU3A8lU For the cast of the original Fox TV series, (like Rico Suave, er, Richard Grieco ) it was a chance to launch careers ... In real life, Mitt's rico-suave Eastern governor, who happens to be a card- carrying member of a peculiar religion based somewhere out West Salt Lake Tribune, 10 February 2008 http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/movies/news/n86762.htm By banding together with a quirky team of characters (including Ansari playing a Rico Suave-esque slug) New York Post We live together; we don't want to see each other twenty-four hours a day," Logan said. "Hey, Lopez, Syd has her eye on you; better look out, Rico Suave." Nick laughed at the Rico Suave reference to Lopez. "I think Rico here feels the same. [13] Matthew R. Zende, "Real Family: A Journey of 5 Friends Discovering Their Identities and the True Meaning of Family" I immediately nicknamed him Rico Suave in my head. [14] Stefanie Wilder-Taylor, "I'm Kind of a Big Deal: And Other Delusions of Adequacy" We call him Rico Suave - he's pretty smooth with the women. Maggie Shayne, "Killing Me Softly" Hell naw my name ain't no damn Rico Suave [15] Kaiserrific, "Derrty Lil' Sex Secretz: Based on True Events" "Seriously, Freckles, you're dressed to the nines and I could give Rico Suave a run for the money in my getup," he explained. [16] Melissa McClone, "It Started with a Crush... & Win, Lose...or Wed" Just about the time I was really getting my groove on - Nice move, Rico Suave! - I stepped on Kay's foot and bumped into the poor guy behind me who was as lost as I was. [17] "How We Love: Discover Your Love Style, Enhance Your Marriage" Seriously, you wave vandalism around waaay too loosely. -- 70.24.250.26 06:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC) I haven't burrowed through all your references, but most of them don't work. Most of your cites either a) don't support the definition you gave, b) don't meet the requirements in WT:CFI, or c) don't actually cite this exact spelling. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC) The definition I gave I extracted from the Australian newspaper, so I don't see how that qualifies as vandalism (dead tree source provides a definition, so where is the vandalism?). Most of the sources I subsequently use the term, so don't give definitions. Nice move, Rico Suave! ISBN 9781459227415 -- self referential, comparing the speaker's lack of grace to Rico Suave's putative grace better look out, Rico Suave." Nick laughed at the Rico Suave reference to Lopez. ISBN 9781425976811 ; the character "Lopez" is referred to as a Rico Suave, using the term as defined in the Australian newspaper We call him Rico Suave - he's pretty smooth with the women. ISBN 978-0778327936 ; the character is referred to as a Rico Suave, for the reason of fitting the definition as defined in the Australian newspaper Hell naw my name ain't no damn Rico Suave ISBN 9781478235859 ; the character is denying he is a Rico Suave (as defined by the Australian newspaper) as his name is Rico, not his nickname. "Seriously, Freckles, you're dressed to the nines and I could give Rico Suave a run for the money in my getup," he explained. ISBN 9781459227415 ; character is comparing himself to a Rico Suave. In real life, Mitt's rico-suave Eastern governor [18] this dead-tree newspaper reformulated the noun in adjective form. It compares an early image of Mitt Romeny as a Rico Suave-esque character to real life. richer and smoother than Rico Suave that uses the term just as defined in the Australian newspaper like Rico Suave, er, Richard Grieco comparative of the actor Richard Grieco to the stereotype Rico Suave (These are my analyses of the sources previously given) Similar terms already on wiktionary are Don Juan, Casanova, Einstein, etc -- 70.24.250.26 05:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC) From being Rico Suave I was now a dog-the Taco Bell chihuahua. Philadelphia Daily Inquirer, , 6 September 2003, pp.H1 My analysis: The narrator is referring to himself as someone considered a Rico Suave to being a dog (another slang term) after a personal failure Now Midler gets to discuss the allegations made by the Rico Suave of tabloid television during the first Barbara Walters special of the season Austin American-Statesman, , 12 October 1991, pp.3 My analysis: The columnist is referring to reporter Geraldo Rivera as a Rico Suave Durrel's the Rico Suave-type; women are the only thing on this guy's mind. But he's all flash, with no cash and no car. Lawrence Journal-World, , Mike Floyd, 12 August 1996, pp.12D Iglesias says with a laugh. "I'm not a Rico Suave type of guy. Women will ask 'Really? Are you serious?' Conexión, , Rudy Arispe, 10 February 2005 The polished, poised, fashionable husband Katina sees now -- the one she teasingly calls "Rico Suave" and who cops to being a metrosexual (not that there's anything wrong with that) -- bears little resemblance to the diffident guy she fell for. Sports Illustrated, , Michael Silver, 19 June 2007 The person being called Rico Suave is actually w:Jason Taylor (American football) Uh, excuse you, sister dear, but we all know that, I, Rico Suave, need no invitation. Nothing is sacred to these ears. [19], Dwayne S. Joseph, "Growing Pains", 2011-03-01, ISBN 9781601622464 This character's name is Richard Rose I think 'Rico-suave' type, dark skin, dark hair, smokey eyes, and somewhat of a man of mystery. But he also knows every move in the book. (Kelly) Pablo G. Castañeda R., , 2005, pp.2, ISBN 9781412050807 He tried to turn on the Rico Suave charm [20] "The King of Erotica 2: The Crown", 2008, ISBN 9780615153087 He thinks he is Rico Suave and you know him to be a Don Juan. [21] Michelle Dupress, "Attract the Love You Want", 2010, pp.10, ISBN 9781609116446 The show follows Lawrence Jameson, a regular Rico Suave, and Freddy Benson, a small-time swindler who tugs at ladies' heart Indianapolis Monthly, December 2007, pp.194, ISSN 0899-0328 That Rico Suave-ass nigga don't know how to keep a bitch like Miamor [22] Asley & JaQuavis, "The Tale of Murda Mamas: The Cartel 2", 2009, ISBN 9781601622563 If you've been invited to a friend's birthday, and you show up only to find three couples, two stragglers, and Rico Suave hitting on the hot waitress, lower your expectations of meeting someone, and try to have a great time anyway. [23] Reba Toney, "The Rating Game: The Foolproof Formula for Finding Your Perfect Soul Mate", 2009, pp.181 ISBN 9780312383985 -- 70.24.250.26 09:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC) I would have speedied it as vague nonsense, but it was too time-consuming to check for usage because of line-wrap breaking of resourcefulness, and I don't like to speedy without checking. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Well, it seems to exist - but what it means is a bit impenetrable. (many false hits are for re-sourcefulness). SemperBlotto (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC) In its current form I would speedy it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Special:WhatLinksHere/sourceful, just delete it please. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC) That sourceful as no links and is absent is immaterial to RfV. In any event, apparently sourceful has some meaning in Yoga, but I haven't found any valid hits for sourcefulness connected with Yoga. DCDuring TALK 15:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC) A Jèrriais would-be word; appears unattested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC) "Laughing quite loudly". I only found one occurrence of this, but I had to filter a bit to remove random alphanumeric garbage, so I might have missed something. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC) I found two cites on Google Groups. If neither of them are the cite you found, that would make three cites. Astral (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC) [edit] Christcentric I know that these are real words, but I don't think they actually mean what the definitions say they do. Every non-ambiguous cite I can find seems to say that they mean "centering on Christ", not "centering on Christianity". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC) What do you make of these: ""Church" is too much a Christcentric concept to be projected onto other religions without distortion" "The Western cultural and cosmological model is Christcentric and personal, the Eastern is both anthropocentric and more impersonal." "When Timothy says "liberal" or "conservative" he means theological liberalism and conservativism, Conservative being Christcentric." ? — Ungoliant (Falai) 16:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC) The first one works, the second one not so much (Christ is being juxtaposed with humans, or else the sentence doesn't make quite as much sense), the third one probably. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC) See Christocentric. Equinox ◑ 22:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC) RFV-sense. The other definition ("to have big breasts") was RFVed and passed—and it's the definition the French Wiktionary has; it doesn't have this definition ("to always have something to say"). - -sche (discuss) 21:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Unless there's a bad gap in my knowledge, it's real but very literal. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Yes this 1850 quote: "L'Angleterre n'a pas de conversation, parce qu'on n'y parle ni des autres ni de soi. Y parle-t-on du moins de la politique, de la religion, des choses de l'esprit'? Guère plus." Clearly it doesn't mean "England doesn't have big breasts". Mglovesfun (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Clearly to me, avoir de la conversation does not have the meaning "to have big breasts" (I never heard/read that meaning, and no French dictionary I consulted knows it). avoir de la conversation (lit. "to have conversation") means something like "to speak easily and to be talented in maintaining a conversation" or, put more simply "to be a talented conversationalist". Forget about big breasts! — Actarus (Prince d'Euphor) 15:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Never heard it to mean "to have big breasts" either. I agree with Actarus Prince d'Euphor, I would say something like "having something interesting to say" (an implicitly be able to express it well, too). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Could one of you RFV that sense on fr.Wikt, then? I'd prefer to see what the wiktionnaristes do with it before acting here. - -sche (discuss) 11:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Yes but their CFI is quite different to ours so I'm not sure it would achieve anything that would help us. Also, can we pass the primary sense as clear widespread use? google books:"n'a pas de conversation" easily gets more than three valid hits but I can't really be bothered to type them up. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC) fr:avoir de la conversation does have what looks like a valid citation, so I can't nominate it for deletion in good faith (no RFV there, the equivalent page got deleted). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Eh... detagged (months ago). - -sche (discuss) 20:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Protologism? I can see it only in the one cite given. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC) RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC) One citation below the minimum requirement. --Æ&Œ (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC) diff. This is the same user that keeps adding unattested Gothic words and ignores all requests to stop. —CodeCat 13:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Google Books and Google Groups don't have it, and Perseus' online version of Liddell & Scott doesn't have it either. I notice that the Ancient Greek Wikipedia incubator uses it here and there (e.g. [24]), which may be where this person got it from. I wonder if there's a Gothic Wikipedia incubator... Chuck Entz (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC) There is a non-incubator Gothic Wikipedia. — Ungoliant (Falai) 15:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC) I've undone diff. - -sche (discuss) 20:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC) [edit] ave. Tagged [25] but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 22:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Cited.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks! I've duly passed "ave", and removed the maths sense from "ave.", though because ave. had other content, the entry still exists and is principally a soft redirect to ave, so no content is really lost (in case the sense is real). - -sche (discuss) 00:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC) An opsimath. The given citation is a mention. I cannot find uses anywhere. Equinox ◑ 23:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Rfv-sense: The outback; the middle of nowhere. Appears to be an error for Woop Woop. (OTOH, an onomatopoeic sense looks citeable.) — Pingkudimmi 13:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC) Would the onomatopoeic sense be distinct from whoop? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC) Seems widespread. Searching for '"middle of whoop whoop" -facebook', brings up 60,000 hits on the web, roughly half of the number of hits that "woop woop" gets.--Dmol (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC) "To have breakfast." I see nothing usable in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 22:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC) According to jentacular, wouldn't it be jentaculate anyway? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Never heard of it. Is it regional? (also "my butt", "your butt", "your butts", "his butt", "her butt", "their butts" and "show one's butt" from the same user) SemperBlotto (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Isn't this just using a part to refer to the whole (I forget what the word is for that). --WikiTiki89 08:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC) metonymy Equinox ◑ 10:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Right, don't we consider metonymy to be SOP? --WikiTiki89 10:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC) See also your ass. So to speak. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC) I think these are in fairly widespread use in the US. Butt is used just like ass in these constructions. These are not set phrases inasmuch as adjectives (sorry, pathetic, etc) can intervene. We have the following at [[ass]]: "(slang) One's self or person, chiefly their body." and at [[but]]: "(slang) Body; self." As the use of this as a subject and reflexively may be somewhat unexpected, perhaps such usage should appear among the usage examples at [[ass]] and [[butt. I think these are RfD candidates, including our asses and its relatives. DCDuring TALK 11:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Speaking of our asses, why is it defined as a third person singular? --WikiTiki89 12:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Incompetence, I imagine. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC) These are all SOP: basically it's a possessive construction that can take any human possessor. For instance, one could say: "I need to see Smith's butt in here immediately! Also, the entries seem to be missing an important part of the usage: they're used as sort of derogatory intensifiers, usually in sentences like "those people had better get their butts over here ASAP if they want to keep their jobs!" I've heard a version in African American slang where "black ass" is used to make it even stronger and more derogatory.Chuck Entz (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC) They certainly are used and do exist. Whether or not we should include them is another question and such a thing is to be decided at WT:RFD, not here (WT:RFV). 4.238.4.80 06:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Noun: "(art) a process of taking an image, whether it be a digital photo, a rendered fractal or a piece finalized in any image producing program into another program for alteration. Examples of this would be twisting, recoloring and stretching." I searched Google Books and found one reference to "postwork in Photoshop" (and couldn't see the text behind the snippet due to Google restrictions). I found nothing else. Equinox ◑ 17:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Rfv-sense: "(uncountable) The fact of being an illusion (in any of the above senses)." Which also includes {{rfex|this is totally unclear to me}}. I wanted to speedy delete this, but it has a translation table. Not sure what to do. Am tempted by all of rfd, rfc and this rfv. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC) One approach I would favor; is there any uncountable definition of illusion that is citable? I can't imagine a plausible example, for example "there was some illusion that night" looks wrong. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Well, this search yields a raw count of more than 5,000 Books hits for "much|less illusion". At least one MWOnline definition (" the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : misapprehension") seems to be for a potentially uncountable sense, but I haven't verified that there are citations that fit that definition. DCDuring TALK 15:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC) How can this be an adjective? Sure, it's used with adjectives ("angry to the max"), but only adverbially. Equinox ◑ 23:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Fortunately we have the option of using the Prepositional phrase header, which allows for both kinds of use. It might be used as an adjective after a copula. "It was to the max." this search suggests that I'm not just making this up, though the usage as adjective is not abundant. DCDuring TALK 00:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC) How is this not SOP? --WikiTiki89 00:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC) to the max at OneLook Dictionary Search. Even MWOnline (probably the strictest about phrase inclusion) has it. DCDuring TALK 16:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC) That doesn't answer my question. --WikiTiki89 17:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Wikitiki89, I can't see anything at to#Preposition to cover this, nor can I at to the. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC) To me, the second sense is obviously an {{&lit}}-candidate because, as its definition points out, one can also say "to the maximum", and abbreviating "maximum" to "max" isn't unique to this phrase. It's the same sense of [[to]] as is used in "turn the dial to 10", "pushed to the limit", etc (probably "indicating destination: In the direction of, and arriving at" or a figurative counterpart of that which we may be missing), + [[the]] + [[max]]. I agree with WikiTiki that the first sense is SOP, too: that it can be used hyperbolically of something that is merely angry, cold etc "to a great degree or extent" rather than to the literal max is the flimsiest of arguments for keeping it. (Actually, it isn't the absolute flimsiest, I'm being hyperbolic. Should we add a sense to [[flimsiest]]? I vote "no".) - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC) @MG: For to MWOnline has: "used as a function word (1) to indicate the extent or degree (as of completeness or accuracy) <loyal to a man> <generous to a fault> or the extent and result (as of an action or a condition) <beaten to death>" @-sche: I would defer to the lemmings and keep this as a prepositional phrase when it is used as an intensifier. But I have also added max#Noun, with two senses, one being "An extreme, a great extent", which fits this and exists apart from this phrase. "To the max" as an intensifier is characteristic of California teenspeak and spread nationwide among some of the young. It is used where the idea of a gauge or control seems too remote to be even metaphorical. That Wiktionary at least considers such an entry is totally rad to the max. DCDuring TALK 00:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC) RFV-sense "(in some jurisdictions, specifically) A polygamous union." If attested it should be a subsense (logically speaking). - -sche (discuss) 20:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC) "The marriage practises and customs of a particular culture." is SOP. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC) I agree, but it was kept at RFD for lack of consensus (see Talk:same-sex marriage). - -sche (discuss) 21:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Two cites have been added. The first doesn't use the term, so I'm not sure of its relevance. The second cite is "A great deal has been written about polygamy as a traditional marriage system in all Africa of which Iboland is a part". I don't think this is an example of definition 3, but of definition 2 (And definition 2 strikes me as the non-idiomatic meaning, as Mglovesfun says). Furius (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Besides which, can we be sure that it's traditional marriage system and not traditional marriage system?Chuck Entz (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC) This term is quite dependent on context: I'm sure there are jurisdictions where a traditional marriage involves exchange of livestock- do we want to even try capturing all of that variation? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Separate question: why is "The marriage practises and customs of a particular culture." not rolled into the &lit? The concept is plausible, but I can't seem to find more than a couple of uses in the usual places, and those may be different versions of the same book. With my first-year Mandarin and minimal Japanese, I can't tell for sure, but I suspect there's lots more where this came from. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC) w:Triple deity, w:ja:三相女神, w:zh:三相女神. —Stephen (Talk) 07:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Ok, we have a Japanese Wikipedia article created by an IP from Yunnan, and a Chinese Wikipedia article created by a user from Yunnan who seems to be very interested in Japanese culture, and an English Wikipedia article that doesn't mention the Japanese word. Like I said, I'm not doubting the Triple Goddess part, I'm questioning whether the term as given in the entry name is in actual use by the Japanese. For all I know, the IP who created the ja:wp article could be the same person as the creator of the zh:wp article, and the British IP who created the en:wt entry could have gotten the spelling from either of those. This British IP looks suspiciously like the same person who has done hundreds of very bad Japanese edits using at least half a dozen IPs, all of which have been blocked. All I could find through Google Books and Google Groups were a couple of Chinese editions of Sophocles, both with the same cover art. Without taking the time to wade through the Chinese, I have no way of knowing whether these are both by the same editor/translator. It would be nice to have someone who knows Japanese check to see whether I'm missing something. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Checking around the web and excluding WP / WT pages shows some use, albeit very limited, by a few users that might be native JA speakers: google:"三相女神" "の" -wiki -wikipedia -wiktionary -weblio -mpedia (the "の" helps limit search results to JA pages). However, I cannot say much for durable sources: google books:"三相女神" "の" yields zero hits. Even if we opt to keep this, the 三相女神 is a bit of a mess. google:"三女神" "の" -wiki -wikipedia -wiktionary -weblio generates more reliable hits. For that matter, google books:"三女神" "の" -wiki -wikipedia -wiktionary -weblio generates over 15K hits, strongly suggesting that 三相女神 is bogus. Looking through the history of the JA WP article, there are lots of anon IP users, all but one of which are in southern China (the other one is from Yokohama, and only intervened to tweak a typo and minor formatting here), several bots, one user Æskja who did some minor housekeeping, and one user Iokseng who self-identifies as not having very good Japanese. And oddly, the only references listed for the entry are English books. All in all, I find the JA WP article to be highly suspect. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Can we cite this capitalized other than at the beginning of a sentence or in a title? --WikiTiki89 16:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Why? It's almost the same case as with земля and Земля. It's a proper name and it should be capitalised when it means the satellite of the Earth. Lower case луна is what we see. Gramota.ru suggests: Слова солнце, луна, земля пишутся с прописной буквы, когда они употребляются в качестве астрономических названий, например: вокруг Солнца обращаются следующие планеты: Меркурий, Венера, Земля (со своим спутником Луной), Марс, Юпитер, Сатурн, Уран, Нептун и Плутон; период вращения Земли; но: обработка земли, восход солнца. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 06:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Ok, I'll withdraw. But can we add a usage note and make the differentiation in meaning a little clearer? --WikiTiki89 07:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC) You can try yourself. There are much more to the lower case луна, more complicated. The upper case is clear to more, it's the astronomical sense, a proper noun like any other name of a celestial body. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 11:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC) From your quote above, it seems like the rules are exactly the same as in English. --WikiTiki89 12:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Seems like a ridiculous, undefined entry, but in case it exists, let's see some cites that actually support a def. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Seems harsh! It literally means Great Victory, not sure why this would be any less includable than say Great War. If attested, of course. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC) It's been here for two years, but I don't think it even exists outside of wordlists. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC) RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 00:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC) "Those without any religious affiliation" Any takers? Needs a proper headword if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC) The only way I can see this is in the context of surveys, where "nones" are people who answered "none" on a survey question. If the survey was about religious affiliation then it would have just that meaning, but unless it is used outside of that context, it doesn't deserve a definition. --WikiTiki89 15:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC) This was probably inspired by the recent news that this group (dubbed "nones" for short by the pollsters and/or newspeople) had a large influence on the recent US election. - -sche (discuss) 19:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC) So then I was right :P --WikiTiki89 19:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC) http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/12/09/the-nones-helped-obama-win-the-election/ is one article that uses it: "That's why we're seeing more people who believe in God shed any sort of religious label — they're Nones, too — and why more people are becoming non-religious as a whole." That one's not citable, but surely someone can find newspaper or Usenet cites that are similar.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC) keep, it is very freuqnelty used. Pass a Method (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC) This isn't a matter of voting. I reject any assertion that this is in widespread use. We need citations of it capitalized. DCDuring TALK 10:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I just provided a citation Pass a Method (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Two more to go. DCDuring TALK 11:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Why does it need 3 citations? Pass a Method (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC) WT:CFI. English words always need 3 citations to pass RfV.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Done, but 3 citations is stricter than a motherfucker. Pass a Method (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC) If it is "very frequently used" as you claim, finding three should have been very easy. Equinox ◑ 13:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Not done. There are only two cites in the entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Well its done now. Pass a Method (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC) I notice that in all three cites, the word is given in quotation marks, and that in two of the quotes the author feels the need to define the word. Isn't that mention rather than use? SemperBlotto (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Should it be tagged {{US|_|politics}}? Not sure that it's used outside of the US or outside of politics. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Theres plenty of entries without any cites thought. Pass a Method (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Feel free to RFV any entry or definition, if you think it doesn't exist. — Ungoliant (Falai) 18:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC) The only mention I find is the first occurrence of Nones in the first cite (the same cite has two uses though). The authors probably use quotation marks because it's a weird use of what is normally a plural-less pronoun. — Ungoliant (Falai) 18:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Not to mention the fact that it's homophonous with nuns, who do as a rule tend to have a religious affiliation. —Angr 21:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Any takers? The whole mess needs cleaning up if it is OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC) There's a Wikipedia article and the term is also explained here [26]. The term is mentioned in numerous Java programming guides and in these books [27], [28], [29], but I'm not sure whether they count as usage. There is also a Swedish Gothic metal band Undecimber. I did some cleanup, too. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC) reference.com is an old Wikipedia copy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC) I noticed the word "wiki" in the pagename, but wasn't sure what it means. Anyway, I thought it was written more clearly than the current Wikipedia text, and therefore worth mentioning in thi discussion. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC) "(slang, African American Vernacular) To be caught by the police." I am RFVing this because bag also means "catch", so I think this might be an error for "to catch", i.e. "the police bagged me", not "I bagged" (was caught) as currently defined. Equinox ◑ 02:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC) RFV of both senses. I expect the first sense is attested and is, though SOP, as entry-(un)worthy as same-sex marriage (see the RFD discussion). The second sense includes polygamous unions; if it's attested, the senses should be combined, but I expect the sort of people who use the term "straight marriage" only use it of two-person marriages. - -sche (discuss) 06:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC) OTOH, it may be difficult to tell how many people are include/excluded. Perhaps both "straight marriage" and "gay marriage"/"same-sex marriage" should be reworded two "A marriage between (usually two) people of ...". - -sche (discuss) 06:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Computing: zeroth month of a calendar. Evidence of use? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC) After having thought about it, I don't think we should include things like this. It makes as much sense as including things like "WriteLine" and "ArrayList". --WikiTiki89 11:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Well the header says English so it needs to be attested in English sentences. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Your examples, WriteLine and ArrayList, are named entities that can be used in source code, but this Zerouary does not appear to be defined in any programming language or API (nor used CFI-attestably in English!). Equinox ◑ 12:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC) I think they are used CFI-attestably in English. --WikiTiki89 12:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC) One Usenet cite. Other than that, a couple Usenet hits for "Zeroary". Nothing in Books. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Supposedly Latin. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC) No. Ancient Romans don't use y in cista; while deriving from ancient Greek--Pierpao (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Kurdish. Seems believable, but is this actually used? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Why wouldn't it? There are obviously no tsunamis in Kurdistan, but they read the news like anyone else. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC) I think we should define it ourselves instead of pointing to wikipedia. After all, we are supposed to be the dictionary here. Pass a Method (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC) What definition do you think is wrong or otherwise needs verification? Do you have any citations which suggest a usage that is not covered by the existing definitions? DCDuring TALK 18:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC) I think the sentence about wikipedia should go. A simple "(see wikipedia)" link would be sufficient. I'll make the change now. Pass a Method (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC) It might need to be expanded but i'm not sure with what. Pass a Method (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC) I'll go ahead and delete the tag. Pass a Method (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC) This looks more like a WT:RFC issue. It definitely needs work, but redefinition of the term has been used to further heavily ideological and partisan ends in US politics, so it will need considerable sensitivity and judgment to hit the right balance. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC) It never hurts to have citations to support senses, especially in an entry that is in any way controversial or sensitive. They also help us remind each other that this is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Finally, they help us get around the natural tendency toward PoV pushing. DCDuring TALK 20:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC) I agree it definitely needs some work. Pass a Method (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Being bold, I overhauled the entry... revert (though note the format fixes I also made) or modify as needed. Hm, I'll try to compile a bunch of citations this weekend for us to work with, like I did for [[ghetto]]. - -sche (discuss) 22:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Thank you sche. Pass a Method (talk) 08:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC) I've started gathering citations, though not many of the political sense(s) yet. Some are in the entry, others are in Citations:liberal. I've looked in my first pass for books that write of "such liberals as...", which will (I hope) let us know what those books mean by "liberal". - -sche (discuss) 06:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Previous discussion: Talk:trap#RFV_1 Rfv-sense: (slang, pejorative) A female crossdresser, transvestite or transsexual. Added in diff by CodeCat (talk • contribs) on 2 December 2012. I request attesting quotations, at least by means of links to them. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC) I am very much familiar with this sense, if it helps any. -- Liliana • 13:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC) I'd like the entry to clarify whether a shemale or a female-bodied person is meant by "female crossdresser". - -sche (discuss) 17:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC) I think it's more like a genetically male person dressed up as a female for whatever reason. -- Liliana • 17:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC) it's only a crossdressing boy. shemale is shemale (or newhalf in Japanese). Minirop (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense "The price of an item, especially seen as one of a number of pricing options." Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 07:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Rfv-sense "An elderly naval officer". Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 08:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 08:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Have just found one probable citation: ""Hey, it's not like I wouldn't take the guy to Pound Town myself if I was single, but he's messing with a married man." (2011, John Simpson, The Rent Boy Murders, page 113). Mglovesfun (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC) PS it was listed above! I just removed it to avoid duplication, but since it was listed 11 November it has technically failed already, as not cited within 30 days. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Oops, how'd I miss that? Here, for everyone else, was the previous listing. - -sche (discuss) 08:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC) They said something like "take that sweet ass to pound town" in Movie 43, in the Veronica segment. Siuenti (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Also google books "You had me worried you might have taken her to Pound Town." and "he understood that talking and taking her out to eat are often prerequisites for a trip to pound town". Siuenti (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC) --WikiTiki89 19:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC) In my view, the phrase "dial it in" is a variant of "phone it in", which has the opposite meaning of what is proposed here. Namely, to "phone it in" means to have such little regard for ones acting performance that one can simply use the phone, rather than show up at the theater. (Examples of this sense: 1 2 3 --Dharasty (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC) That would be phone in or dial in. --WikiTiki89 20:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC) You are proposing that "phone it in" means "did a great job", but "phone in" means did a "half-hearted job"? Sorry, I don't buy it. Can you cite examples of "dial it in" that supports your definition? --Dharasty (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC) No, that's why I RFV'd it. And it's some anon's definition, not mine. I'm in favor of deleting it, but thought it would be best to give it a chance first. --WikiTiki89 20:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC) I'm familiar with "phoning in (a peformance in a broad sense)" in the sense exhibited in WikiTiki's example. I think I have heard "dial in (settings)" to mean something like "set something up properly for success in a situation", which is something like the challenged entry. I don't think that both expressions have both meanings. If dial it in attestably has the challenged meaning, then it should probably be reworded as an additional sense at dial in. DCDuring TALK 21:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC) dial it in seems attestable in both senses. I think some of my examples under the challenged sense are really for a literal sense, but more cites are available. DCDuring TALK 21:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC) I still don't see an example of "dial it in" referring to an actor or musician putting in a outstanding performance. With regard to performances, I think it categorically means lukewarm effort and sub-par performance. I propose striking the sample sentence of "The actor dialed in his performance, showing considerable talent." unless an attestable reference demonstrates the same. --174.252.30.191 21:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Yes, that seems lame and possibly misleading. DCDuring TALK 13:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC) RFV-sense "an army" (i.e. any army), as distinct from "an army of trained civilians, which may be an official reserve army, called upon in time of need; the entire able-bodied population of a state; or a private force, not under government control." It's very plausible that "militia" once referred to any army, but I suspect it's now archaic in that sense. Citations will show... - -sche (discuss) 19:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC) You have a point. Neither in Merriam webster nor in Oxford--Pierpao (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia says "an irregular army". Perhaps that's a clearer wording. This alerts the wiktionary reader that the distinction between army and militia is in many cases subjective regarding the meaning of "irrgeular" 64.57.149.49 22:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC) RFV-sense "Conveying or consisting of covert sarcasm; sarcastic under a serious or friendly pretense; as, an ironical compliment." Is this attested as distinct from the other senses in the entry? - -sche (discuss) 20:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC) RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC) AFAIK, "čižma" is not a Czech word meaning "boot". A quick Google Books search constrained to Czech works finds no Czech works using the word in Czech sentences; some Slovak works pop up as part of that search. The Slovak section for "čižma" is not nominated for RFV; only the Czech one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC) You're right. In Czech jackboot is útlak , boot is bota.--Pierpao (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC) As an aside, "útlak" in Czech never refers to a boot or shoe AFAIK. One could link cs:"útlak" to en:"jackboot" via the second, figurative sense of "jackboot": "The spirit that motivates a totalitarian or overly militaristic regime or policy". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Is quagga an alternative spelling of the Afrikaans word kwagga? "Pharos Afrikaans-English/Eglish-Afrikaans" and "Prisma Afrikaans en Nederlands" both only mention kwagga. Caudex Rax (talk) 06:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Not really, it's the original Dutch spelling, which was both adopted into English and also developed into the Afrikaans word. Ƿidsiþ 06:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC) In that case the caption 'Afrikaans' should be removed from that page. Are there any rules or can I erase it myself? Caudex Rax (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Linked Wikipedia article was deleted. Equinox ◑ 21:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC) This is just a test to see whether a randomly chosen Navajo noun describing something not found in the American Southwest can be cited. Only a single cite, use or mention, is required. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Very few Navajo words can be found online. Just because the animal doesn't live in the Southwest is no reason not to be able to speak about them. How many black mambas have people seen in the U.S.? We still have a word for them. Navajo is descriptive. The Navajo names for things describe the things. —Stephen (Talk) 05:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC) I fully agree with you. I also don't see why it must be found online. However, every entry still must satisfy the CFI. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC) If you have to find examples in books for words in languages that are virtually unwritten, then we have to stop adding words in those languages. Many books were destroyed in the 1940s to keep the language from being studied. Any surviving materials from the 1940s or earlier used a variety of makeshift orthographies, such as "nǽĕshjā băˊnă'ái", used by the Franciscan Friars for the hawk owl. Very few people can recognize that spelling today, which ignores glottal stops, nasalization, tone, and other important features of Navajo phonology. If you can find it somewhere, be my guest. Until then, we have to cease the Navajo effort. —Stephen (Talk) 05:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC) So is this your proposal to modify the CFI? DTLHS (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC) @Stephen: If Navajo is essentially unwritten, then how do we know that this entry is accurate? If you said it to a native speaker, would they know what you were talking about? @DTLHS: I'm sorry, I don't understand your question or who it was aimed at. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC) What I mean is, why are you bringing this up unless you think the CFI should be changed for languages such as Navajo? DTLHS (talk) 07:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC) A native speaker would understand it much better than many English speakers would understand northern hawk owl, echidna, or yowie. Northern hawk owl is three simple words, but it is really meaningless to the vast majority of people, except for the word owl. Navajo is a transparent language and people understand words even if they have not encountered them before. —Stephen (Talk) 06:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Someone with access to a good university library should look in Young and Morgan's The Navajo Language: A Grammar and Colloquial Dictionary. It's probably in there. —Angr 15:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC) @Angr: Why would it be in a colloquial dictionary? How often do Navajo discuss gnu? @Stephen: What if they thought it was just a bearded pronghorn? That seems very hit-or-miss to me, not exactly descriptive so much as allusive. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC) First of all, if it's the work I think it is, don't let the title fool you: it has just about everything you can think of in it- it weighs only slightly less than the gnu itself... Secondly, what makes you think that Navajo only discuss basket-weaving and sheep-herding? Chuck Entz (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC) What makes you think that the Navajo discuss gnu? I certainly don't, or at least I can't remember the last time I did. This is one of the best attested Native American languages in terms of our CFI requirements, and yet the minimum of a single mention has not been reached. All that said... I'm trying to get access to my state's university system libraries. I'll see what I can do, but don't expect me to find it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC) I have a copy in a box somewhere in my storage unit. If memory serves, it's over a thousand very large pages of near-microscopic type- potentially quite useful in hand-to-hand combat if one can lift it... Chuck Entz (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Chuck is certainly thinking of the same book I am, though I may have gotten the title wrong. Used properly with a sling, it could bring down a gnu. —Angr 10:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC) I found my copy, and it doesn't have the term.Chuck Entz (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC) It's not in Young and Morgan's Analytical Lexicon of Navajo, either, FWTW. - -sche (discuss) 04:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense: "The written representations of dialect speech in which words are spelled in a manner which indicates a non-standard pronunciation." I've only ever encountered this term in the meaning in which it was coined, "written dialogue that uses nonstandard spelling but doesn't indicate an unusual pronunciation", e.g. sez for says. If the spelling does reflect a dialectal difference, it's just a dialectal spelling, not eye dialect. —Angr 17:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC) What about wonderfool? Is wonderful with /uː/ an usual pronunciation? — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Yes. The examples at wonderfool all show it's a spelling reflecting a foreign pronunciation. It's a pronunciation spelling, not eye dialect. —Angr 20:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC) I've always understood the term to mean any written representation of a pronunciation, but I see that this wasn't quite the original meaning. The term seems to be currently used for any "spell as it sounds", including both standard and dialectal pronunciations in modern usage. The OED says: "unusual spelling intended to represent dialectal or colloquial idiosyncrasies of speech". Charles Dickens seems to have combined both usages in Bleak House: "...there wos other genlmen come down Tom-all-Alone's a-prayin, but they all mostly sed as the t'other wuns prayed wrong, and all mostly sounded as to be a-talking to theirselves, or a-passing blame on the t'others, and not a-talkin to us.". It is difficult to find usage that is exclusive to either sense. Dbfirs 10:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC) If Dbfirs' definition turns out not to meet CFI, almost every entry which uses {{eye dialect of}} needs to be changed. - -sche (discuss) 16:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Yucatec Maya, supposedly meaning to masturbate. --Wikt Twitterer (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC) As far as I can tell, this is plausible, but differences in orthography between references and the entries make it difficult to be certain (for instance, keep is spelled "cep" here). Add to that the likely appearance of this verb phrase in various inflected forms, and it may not be possible for someone who doesn't speak the language to verify this with online sources- one would probably have to find the source this was taken from to cite the spelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Any takers? Quote needs formatting if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Cited under a different definition. The original quote didn't turn up anything on Google Books or Google. Astral (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC) A very unlikely creation by an anon. As an LDL, Cree needs just one use or mention. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC) A Korean IP, at that. They must have just copied it from Cree Wikipedia. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Failed; deleted.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense: "To rush back to the defensive zone to defend against the other team's attack" Sole existing sense. I thought that there was always contact or threat of contact with an opposing player or the puck. I thought of this as attempting to check a skater with the puck from behind. DCDuring TALK 21:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Rfv-sense: (Noun) "A light, good-humored satire." This is 180 degrees from what I see in other dictionaries: a lampoon is described as anything but "light" or "good-humored". Both of the noun definitions were added at the same time by an IP as their only contribution. Although I'm starting with a single sense, some thought needs to be given to restructuring the noun section as a whole- I'm not so sure the remaining sense as written covers everything accurately. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Ido. I suspect this is incorrect, and that it actually denotes the strawberry tree, but that's assuming it's citeable. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC) I don't think it's an interjection, and with the probable exception of the KJV, I don't see how any cites of this could avoid being mentions. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC) The KJV is a well-known work, so if it did in fact use this term, I think that would be enough. However, as it happens, the KJV capitalizes it, so no matter how we read the KJV's use, it would go at [[Shiloh]], not [[shiloh]]. (And I agree with you that it's not an interjection. In both the Hebrew and the KJV it's the subject of a verb.) —RuakhTALK 02:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Really? (and all the alternative spellings etc. etc.) SemperBlotto (talk) 08:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Therearw commercial middlecase font http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/andreas-stotzner/andron-mc/ —This unsigned comment was added by 레즈큐읭 (talk • contribs) 08:45 25 December 2012. It's been slow going, but so far, middlecase is only other senses of case (or CASE, in the software-engineering examples), and one use that's obviously a joke based on the idea that there isn't such a thing as middlecase (it refers to the choice between "uppercase", "middlecase", "lowercase" and "Walt Disney" character sets). I suspect this is a protologism that might catch on, given time. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC) After slogging through pages and pages of hits in Books and Groups (mostly best case/worst case/middle case scenarios)- nothing for this sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC) In a grammar book about OCS, this word is specifically mentioned as just not happening to be attested in any OCS texts. There's no doubt that it did exist in OCS; all Slavic languages have this word so it would be very unusual if it was somehow missing from OCS. But still... —CodeCat 20:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Perhaps move to Appendix:Old Church Slavonic/носъ as a reconstructed term? --WikiTiki89 22:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC) For OCS, mention in another printed dictionary is sufficient attestation, right? кратъкъ is listed here, носъ here, and снъха here. All three entries include abbreviations and numbers that I assume refer to places in the literature where they're attested. —Angr 22:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC) That is certainly helpful. Are those manuscripts available anywhere online? —CodeCat 22:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Looking more closely, it may be that the terms aren't attested in exactly these forms: it looks like кратъкъ and носъ are attested only in inflected forms, and снъха is attested only in the spellings сньха and сноха, but I don't think that's any reason to delete the entries. I have no idea if the manuscripts are available online; it wouldn't surprise me, though. You may want to browse w:Old Church Slavonic#External links and w:Church Slavonic language#External links. —Angr 22:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC) @CodeCat, wouldn't that actually count as a mention, hence pass WT:CFI#Attestation? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC) I think so yes. But it would be better to actually have citations, wouldn't it? —CodeCat 18:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC) And if one reference mentions that the term is not attested, the presence or absence of citations is (hopefully) what determines whether or not we should have a uage note saying "this term is not attested" or "according to X, this term is not attested". - -sche (discuss) 19:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC) [edit] кратъкъ Same as above. —CodeCat 20:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC) [edit] снъха Again, same. —CodeCat 20:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Sole sense given: To annoy or frustrate someone. I am only familiar with this meaning "give someone diarrhea" or "make someone afraid". It goes without saying that this is not in any OneLook reference with any definition. DCDuring TALK 07:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC) A quick look on Google Books for "giving me the shits" reveals plenty of hits for the given definition. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC) I think the contributor may be confusing "give someone the shits" with "give someone the fits." An understandable error. 64.57.149.49 22:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC) RFV-sense. Tagged (with the wrong template) and not listed. "(Australia, slang) Very good or skilful." - -sche (discuss) 18:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC) RFV-failed for now. Might be citable if someone knew where to look. - -sche (discuss) 07:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC) RFV-sense. Tagged (with the wrong template) and not listed. "In Anglo-Cornish dialectal usage, a geographical term meaning anywhere in England but not in Cornwall or the Isles of Scilly." - -sche (discuss) 18:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC) RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC) - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC) As the IP who added it commented, this is "Strange but true." [30]. Here are a few cites from Books: [31], [32], [33], and [34]. Its action seems to have come from the combination of digestive enzymes and bacteria in properly-dried dog feces. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC) I see now that the rfv is on the etymology, not the word as a whole. At least one or two of the above cites speculates about the derivation from the French verb meaning stink, which sounds a lot more plausible than pure. Other than that, WT:ES would be a better place to find this out. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Actually, your initial understanding was correct, I was RFVing the whole word. Someone else was (prior to me) RFVing only the etymology, hence the listing on WT:ES. - -sche (discuss) 21:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC) I'll type up those citations and pass the word, though the ES-RFV is still open. - -sche (discuss) 21:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC) RFV-sense. The word exists (I've just added a citation), but does it mean "to have sex with by impaling by the vagina" as opposed to just "fuck"? the sense was tagged (with the wrong template) but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 00:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Seems to specifically mean "to penetrate vaginally," as I couldn't find any Google Books references to men being "encunted," and a number of citations in which it's found use distinct verbs like embugger to describe (male-on-female) anal penetration. The stuff I read for this site... Astral (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks for citing it and improving the definition! And re "the stuff I read for this site...": I know, right? - -sche (discuss) 07:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC) RFV-sense "(informal, Mexico) mate, dude (term of endearment between friends)". Tagged (with the wrong template) and not listed. - -sche (discuss) 00:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC) This could be like many similar English slang terms that are really just outrageously over-the-top insults playfully used among friends. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC) My Spanish is pretty bad, so I don't feel like adding cites, but this seems easy. Take a look at google books:"gracias, cabrón" which seems to be full of people using it in a friendly way, with more than three valid hits on the first page of results. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Ah, gracias! Great collocation idea. Duly kept (though I've reordered the senses so that it's not first). - -sche (discuss) 03:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Discussion moved from WT:RFD#absolution. I can't find any reference to this sense in any of my sources, and it seems so far off of the rest of the definition that I felt that it should be scrutinized. Speednat (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Moved from RFD to RFV. Definition in question is "Delivery, in speech." Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC) It's from Webster 1913, readily accessible via absolution at OneLook Dictionary Search. But it is odd and needs citations. DCDuring TALK 14:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC) I found the usage from Ben Jonson's commonplace book (a well-known work???) that Webster's referenced. DCDuring TALK 14:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC) It might be based on oration being metaphorically a "release", a "setting free" of normally guarded thoughts from the speaker's mind. I am having trouble finding others who use the term this way. DCDuring TALK 15:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC) The OED marks the sense obsolete and rare, citing only the Jonson usage from nearly 400 years ago. If we include this, then perhaps we should include the other, slightly more recent usage (1655, T Fuller) with the meaning of "Dismissal, dissolution". I'd be inclined to omit both unless we can find another two cites each with these clear meanings. Dbfirs 20:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Rfv-sense for "Genoa" and "jean" (both labeled as archaic). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC) What counts as verification? Merriam-Webster? LlywelynII (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC) See WT:ATTEST. Other dictionaries do not count, and for good reason. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC) And the link doesn't mention those two definitions. D'oh. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC) LlywelynII, surely your only source is not that page? If so you've confused etymology with definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Yiddish. The spelling seems somewhat unlikely to me, but who knows. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Weinreich's dictionary spells it שאָטיש and does not include the meaning "plaid". —Angr 22:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Esperanto: androgynously. Yeah right. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC) It's being used by Wikitrans, but I can't find any other Google, Google Groups or Google Books hits for Esperanto.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Yeah, I added that a couple years ago, back when I added plausible Esperanto part of speech derivations if a headword already existed in another language (Italian in this case). (And a couple not so plausible ones too, like my jocose Esperanto definition for vuvuzela.) Anyhow, I could not find a citation. Feel free to delete it. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC) I don't even think hermaphroditically is a word in English. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Why? A b.g.c query turns up many instances of hermaphroditically. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC) I've duly de-redlinked hermaphroditically. Astral (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Now all the remains to be seen is whether hermafrodite is a word in Esperanto... - -sche (discuss) 03:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC) It surely is, but does anyone actually use it? My search for citations has come up dry. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC) This feels too good to be true... does Archi really have a separate system of numbers for counting sheep? If so this will definitely be a FWOTD. Only one mention or use is needed, in accordance with {{LDL}}. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC) No relevance, but this is so awesome I hope it passes. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Abenaki has separate numbers for counting living things (e.g. nloak = 3), for counting nonliving things (nhenol = 3), and for "merely counting" (nas = 3). That's obviously irrelevant to this, but I mention it in case you'd be interested in them for FWOTD. - -sche (discuss) 23:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC) English has numbers for counting sheep too doesn't it? w:Sheep counting —CodeCat 23:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Inflection for animacy and differentiation between counting things and just counting are both not especially rare phenomena, although I don't think I've seen them together in a single language before. I think this transcends Abenaki... Anyway, a non-durable Archi dictionary supports this definition, but I am unable to find any other web hits or BGC hits in Archi's Cyrillic or Latin orthography that are not scannos of linguistic and mathematical texts. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC) I've realised that I've come into a slight problem with these two: which one's correct? Tony6ty4ur (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Maybe both are? —CodeCat 00:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Yes, those, among others. I would favor Eoforwic as the lemma, since it incorporates the prevailing spelling of the word for wild boar, so would be the best fit with the folk etymology- though there might be some regional differences to skew things. At any rate, Bosworth & Toller has several variations here, here, here and here. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Nothing on BGC. Looks like yet another ad hoc transliteration to me. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Can't see any problem with the term. Pitjantjatjara is obviously not a very popular language in Japan even for discussions but it's nevertheless a correct Japanese translation of the term. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC) The problem that I see is that there are no durably archived citations. It doesn't really matter if it's the most "correct" way to say it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I think we should keep the term and IMHO, we need some addition to our current CFI to provide for situations when a term is little known by some language speakers. I can't formulate what this addition should be but a language or place name, ethnicity or similar seem to be such cases. ピッチャンチャジャーラ語 may appear in some books, which are not available online. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Why? In this case, there's several ways that could go wrong. First, there's at least two names for this language, Pitjantjatjara and Pitjantjara; how do we know which one is used for transliterations in reliable media. Secondly, if they're transliterating from Pitjantjatjara, I think it's quite a stretch to assume that we know the one correct way b̥ɪɟanɟaɟaɾa is transliterated into Japanese. Or if they don't transliterate from Pitjantjatjara, how can we be certain they'll start from English instead of Korean (피짠짜짜라어)? There's no point in providing transliterations that we don't know that anyone has ever used or that anyone will ever use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC) I have moved the entry to ピチャンチャチャラ語, which is well attested. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks for that. どうもありがとう。 --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Well attested? Not really. I only see one hit on BGC, and therefore I am RFVing the new page in a subsection below. [edit] ピチャンチャチャラ語 The old entry was deleted, but this one seems almost as tenuous. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC) What is BGC? And I don't understand your request this time. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC) books.google.com, Google Books. The abbreviation confused me, too, when I first saw it many months ago. - -sche (discuss) 02:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Ah, Google Books. The hit count doesn't matter, because ピチャンチャチャラ語 is the name used in Gengogaku Daijiten: [35]. I said it's well attested. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC) That dictionary is entirely unhelpful, as far as I can tell with my lack of Japanese knowledge (I keep seeing 语 and thinking yǔ, then realizing that I need to switch to my almost nonexistent knowledge of Japanese. go, I believe.). If you do not know what citing an entry entails, please read WT:ATTEST. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC) It sais: "Attested" means verified through: […] 2. use in a well-known work, […]. Well, Gengogaku Daijiten is a well-known encyclopedia on linguistics you can easily find at local libraries in Japan. That should be enough. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Firstly, that's really stretching "well-known work". That's meant for Shakespeare and the like. Secondly, does Gengogaku Daijiten even use the word, as opposed to mentioning it? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I question the (existence and) attestability of comparative and superlative. Can anyone verify them? -- Gauss (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Fixed. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC) OK, I'll admit it: I love this declension table. The problem is, you can't just render anything you want into katakana and expect it to be citable. There might be a couple mentions out there, but I don't see three durable uses. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC) It does appear to get some use as a tongue-in-cheek adjective, though I'm not sure about durably archived sources: google:"スーパーカリフラジリスティックエクスピアリドーシャスな" -wiki. The JA WP also has an article for it, but seems to suggest that it's a noun: ja:w:スーパーカリフラジリスティックエクスピアリドーシャス. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Could the Japanese dub of Mary Poppins count as a well-known work? ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I think it does. The way Japanese treats English words as if they are Japanese is amazing. ボーイ･ミーツ･ガール (boy meets girl), アイ・ラブ・ユー (I love you). I had to smile when I saw "ノー残業デー" (nō zangyō dē) "no overtime day" where "no" and "day" are English and 残業 is Japanese. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC) It's not just how English gets borrowed.  :) My personal favorite at the moment is バックシャン (bakkushan), a mishmash amalgam of EN back + DE schön, describing a woman who is attractive only when viewed from behind. Yay, inventive repurposing! -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks for this example, I was actually looking for this! I discussed some funny words with my Japanese teacher but I forgot what it was. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 06:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Cheers! It looks like Takasugi Shinji has just marked it as {{obsolete}}, though, so it seems it's not very current. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Norwegian. Same problem as above. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Per Lekang used it when he wrote the Norwegian translation of Mary Poppins, and it was the title of Rolf Just Nilsen's 1965 record Superoptikjempefantafenomenalistisk and his 2000 album (CD) Superoptikjempefantafenomenalistisk – De beste av Rolf Just Nilsen. If someone can find one more citation... - -sche (discuss) 18:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Finnish. Same as above, but I didn't know what inflected forms to search for, so it still might be salvageable. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Well, it was in the local Mary Poppins translation. So that's one cite. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC) What exactly is the problem? The word is used in a well-known work (Maija Poppanen, Maija Poppanen (elokuva)). If I read the WT:CFI correctly, it should be enough. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Is that a well-known work? Meh... I guess so. - -sche (discuss) 01:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I think grouping it with Shakespeare and James Joyce is a bit much... we usually require a higher standard than that for a "well-known" work. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I also think we should be careful promoting a translation as a well-known work unless it's actually a well-known work in its own right.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC) In English, I'd hazard a guess that more people have heard the word "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" than have read Joyce's dense writings, though I'd also guess more Wiktionary editors would count Joyce than would count Mary Poppins. (I might be wrong, though; the volume of Joyce's nonces has led more than one editor to complain.) The question here, though, is whether Maija Poppanen stands beside the Kalevala as a well-known work in Finnish. Hekaheka, Jyril and heyzeuss are probably best-qualifier to answer that question. - -sche (discuss) 04:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Funny, I was going to mention the Kalevala too, but I thought better of it. That's a high bar, though. The thing is, in a value judgment, Finns both know the most about the subject at hand and are also arguably the most biased toward keeping a Finnish entry, even lacking more than one cite. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Interestingly supercalifragilisticexpialidocious has no cites at all :) On the more serious side, the "supercali"-song has been published in Finnish in the songbook Suuri Toivelaulukirja 16 as song nr. 82, p. 54. The editors of the book are Raimo Henriksson and Olli Heikkilä and it is published by F-Kustannus, Helsinki, ISBN 951-757-695-1. The word appears in this [36] web discussion, permanently archived by YLE, the Finnish Broadcasting Company. It appears that somebody has voted it for the most beautiful Finnish word! Maija Poppanen was shown as musical in the City Theatre of Helsinki in 2009 and the word appears at about 1min 20 secs of this video clip[37]. I also found bits of web discussions in which people wondered what might be the English original. The linguistic value of this entry might be questionable but there are definitely people out there who would want to find it somewhere. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC) When I say cites in this context, I mean quotes that could be placed in the entry. The English entry is quite citeable. It doesn't seem like Finnish actually has any more cites to offer than the first one. The songbook is not independent, YLE is not considered durable, and YouTube is nowhere near durable. So it stills circles back to the question of whether this specific Finnish translation is in fact a notable work to such a degree. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I didn't think YouTube would be an acceptable citation. I thought that if there's a play, there's a handwriting. I was in fact able to locate it, but they actually use another "translation" superylipoppelistikexirallinmoista in the play. On the video clip it was pronounced so fast that I erred to believe it was the same word. So, as far as I am concerned, you may delete this and the others as well. Now, a new question arises: what should be done with the translations -section of "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious"? It seems obvious that it consists mainly or exclusively of unattestable words, which have no usage outside Mary Poppins -world. Still, they are words that have undeniably been used as translations of the original term. Btw., if any electronic archive can be considered durable, YLE's should as well. It's not just another broadcaster, but a national institution which archives every single bit of program they ever air. It reads on top of the page that the discussion is stored in their permanent archive. The true problem with YLE quote is that it is a mere mention. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC) One more thing: why aren't we discussing French, Catalan and Spanish entries at the same time? They are equally suspicious as Japanese, Norwegian, Finnish and Portuguese, I would assume. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I love YLE (they have radio in Latin!), and if you want to make a vote for considering it durably archived, feel free. I'd support it. Anyway, in case you think there's language favoritism going on: there isn't. There is no Catalan entry to RFV (not sure why you thought there was), and the Spanish is easily citeable, not suspicious at all. You are right about the French, though; see #supercalifragilisticexpidelilicieux below. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Do we actually have a list of electronic archives considered durable? WT:CFI doesn't mention one, and I don't know where else to look for it. --Hekaheka (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC) It passed RFV in 2007, but no citations had been added. My search revealed only one mention (for Portuguese) across Google Books and Google Groups. — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC) French. Both the entry and its inflected forms, supercalifragilisticexpidelilicieuse and supercalifragilisticexpidelilicieuses, seem unciteable. I see one, maybe two, uses out there. I suspect this has potential, but I'm not sure where to look. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC) the fr: entry got moved to fr:supercalifragilisticexpidélilicieux. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC) The French dub of Mary Poppins seems to translate it as -expialidocieux (perhaps to closely match lip movements). ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC) The Chaucer quote not only attests a different spelling, but a different language (Middle English). It is not clear that this is attested when Chaucer is left out of the picture. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Cited nightertale in modern English. Nyghtertale probably warrants its own entry, given its use in a famous work. Astral (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC) It's Middle English, which means that we need only one cite, famous work or no.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC) The presence of even two durably archived cites does not seem to be forthcoming. As an aside, I'll count anything written by Zamenhof to be a "well-known work". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC) It shows up on Google Books with a "Full View" in Linguo internacia attributed to Zamenhof and with "No preview available" in Proverbaro by Ludwik Lazar Zamenhof.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Quoted two more usages of the proverb. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC) We have three cites attesting now, so let's call this RFV passed. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Is there any evidence that this was used in Latin? DCDuring TALK 01:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Excellent catch! A quick survey of the literature and the couple of Latin dictionaries within three feet of me does not reveal a single non-capitalized example. I believe that this is just an error for Āfer. A note to whomever closes this RFV: if this fails, all the inflected forms should be deleted as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC) It is used in species names. Therefore it should not be deleted, but rather moved to Translingual, where it will be welcome. DCDuring TALK 02:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Latin originally had no letter case, so should case matter? —CodeCat 03:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC) When did Latin sprout macrons? DCDuring TALK 04:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC) @CodeCat: Yes, because we can't have multiple copies of every entry. Latin works that differentiate (like all modern copies of Cicero, for example), seem to use the capitalized form. Dictionaries and grammars do as well. @DCDuring: In the postclassical era. Traditionally, long vowels were not marked, although some writers and inscriptions used apices and other odd orthographic measures to try to make the vowel length clear. The vowel length itself was present as far back as Latin phonology can be ascertained with any certainty. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Whereas the macron matter is discussed in WT:ALA, what is not discussed is the question of the distinction we attempt to impose on Latin between initial-upper-case and initial-lower-case forms of Latin words. Perhaps it is a tiny measure of revenge against the imposition of Latin grammatical concepts on English grammar books from the 17th century. DCDuring TALK 13:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Ancient language was inherently irregular, and dictionaries need citation forms and such. Bear in mind that even our declension tables are pretty fiction. The first sentence of the Aeneid, the standard of Latin literature, uses virum as a genitive plural when our table says one ought to use virorum. That said, we can't go repeating content, and this capitalization follows precedent. There are still zero cites. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC) What? Virum in Arma virumque cano is accusative singular. I know that isn't your main point, but still... —Angr 02:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Oops, thank you for catching me... I remembered a case with virum, remembered that virum came up early on in the Aeneid, and evidently mistakenly connected the two. I just checked L&S, who list a few examples, but none in something I remember reading... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Many Latin-English dictionaries habitually capitalize the first letter of proper nouns and of words derived from proper nouns. This norm is followed by some modern English editors and publishers of Classical texts, but typically not followed by Spanish, French, and German publishers. Demonstrating this is difficult because searches are confounded by capitalization in titles, and by the fact that many of these words have use as a noun as well (Afer can mean "a Carthaginian"). This normalization, as has been pointed out, is artificial in Classical Latin. However, in later forms of Latin and in Romance languages derived from Latin, the norm is to use lower case for everything except proper nouns. I have been following this principle, as it matches the source documents for Medieval and Renaissance Latin. Providing quotation evidence for terms individually would be an ernomously arduous task, and, as with capitalization in English, there will likely be exceptions from time to time. So, in short, my standard has been to follow the capitalization norms used later forms of Latin and in Romance languages, since Classical Latin followed no such regular distinctions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC) That's not a bad practice, if it can be backed up with citations. As it is, I reviewed not a few books but to find once more the state of affairs I expected: namely, that they use the capitalised form. Quite possibly this is citable, but not via the books I own or can easily find on BGC. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC) You looked at books (dictionaries), books (edited modern copies of texts), books (primary source documents), or what? BGC is excruciatingly difficult to use for these kinds of searches, as you get titles of works, edited works, noun usages, and all manner of confounding results. The easiest argument to be made is that of parsimony (Occam's razor), in that the modern Romance languages (Spanish, French, Italian, and even Romanian) do not capitalize adjectives, so it's most reasonable to assume this fact was inherited from the parent language. It's not the most rigorous argument, but it's the easiest one. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Two dictionaries, one grammar, a couple modern edited copies of classical works, and a few postclassical books on BGC. BGC isn't really that bad if you use Advanced Search and search for inflected forms. And we don't use parsimony in RFV, we use cites. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Modern dictionaries and modern edited copies of works can't be trusted not to normalize. This varies of course, but I've seen some horrendous cases, such as with almost any medieval Czech document, where spelling is silently modernized as a matter of course in every Czech-published medieval text I've ever seen. Medieval Polish and German texts are far less susceptible to such normalization. And yes, I know about searching BGC using inflected forms or the advenced search tool, but in situations like this one I find that it's not any more helpful. I tried several searches on afri, afrae, and some others earlier this evening. Mostly I got works with those words in the title, dictionaries, works in other languages, catalogs of Latin works (again using it in a title), and uses that were of the noun rather than the adjective. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense: Adjective. Is this actually an adjective (like woolen) or simply attributive use of the noun? --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC) How the hell can you tell? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC) My assumption would be that if we can find no differences from attributive use, then it's merely a noun. Like you, I have no clue how we'd go about looking for such a thing in this instance, but someone else may have an epiphany. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Wiktionary:English_adjectives#Words_that_are_also_nouns suggests that "plastic" (made of the material) is not a true adjective, but our entry has it. Equinox ◑ 07:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC) That doesn't mean that we should have it, however, but thanks for providing some broadening information. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC) ... and the plastic example differs because there really is an adjective "plastic" with a different meaning. Dbfirs 10:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Appears to be a protologism. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I can find a BGC cite dated 2002, although it's hyphenated as "Adam-teasing". --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Now cited. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks. Two out of your three cites use the hyphen. I think the alternate forms are OK as cites, but it appears the hyphen is more common, so we should move the entry to Adam-teasing. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I don't think we can make a call of "more common" on the basis of just three cites. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC) RFV-sense "musical tune". Had been tagged {{fact}} and not listed. - -sche (discuss) 00:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC) [edit] 䥑 RFV-sense "meitnerium". As above. - -sche (discuss) 00:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Google cannot search for this, but even the Chinese Wikipedia uses this character for their article on meitnerium. Is this enough to keep under the clearly widespread use clause? -- Liliana • 21:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Surely this is trivial to find if you know Chinese; it shouldn't be that hard to find a source that names the elements. If you can't, then is it truly clearly widespread use? —This unsigned comment was added by Prosfilaes (talk • contribs). Well it's a transuranic element, and those are rather uncommon. On top of that, this is a CJK-A character which b.g.c does not support. -- Liliana • 17:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Verifiable: [38], by the National Academy for Educational Research of Taiwan. 129.78.32.23 04:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC) [edit] 䲜 RFV-sense "fresh fish". - -sche (discuss) 00:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC) [edit] 䦉 All language sections. - -sche (discuss) 00:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Verifiable: [39], from the Dictionary of Variant Characters by the Ministry of Education of Taiwan. 129.78.32.23 04:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Luciferwildcat entry. There does seem to be a valid 1998 Usenet citation, but that's it. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Web hits are sparse but there are enough to make me think that this is real — just not something that has been written about much. I agree we probably cannot attest it per CFI. Equinox ◑ 11:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense: "A particular opportunity for a sale". I'm not quite sure what this sense is getting at, but I think it's a misunderstanding of things like "there's a sale to be made here", which refers to an actual sale (instance of exchanging a good for money) rather than an 'opportunity'. Compare something like "there's a chance of a goal here" where there's no sense at goal to cover an opportunity. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Several dictionaries have the sense in almost that wording: MWO, RHU, WNW, AHD, Collins. I'm not familiar with the sense. Webster 1913 had the wording most of these have: "Opportunity of selling; demand; market." The usage example is from that master of the idiom of commerce, Spenser: They shall have ready sale for them. This looks like a job for the OED. DCDuring TALK 01:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC) In 2008, the sense "political movement supporting the equality of both genders" failed RFV. Thereafter, the entry had the definition "advocacy of the rights of men or promotion of values which are typically male; machismo; anti-feminism". Today, an editor split that into three senses: Support for male domination of women, for patriarchy; opposition to equality for women; anti-feminism. Promotion of values which are seen to be typically male; machismo. Advocacy of equality for men. What new citations have become available since 2008? The first sense has two citations already and only needs one more, the second needs two. (If they can't be attested separately, they can be recombined.) The last sense has one citation below it, but I'm not sure the citation supports the sense. - -sche (discuss) 04:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Oh, and there are several citations I wasn't sure of the sense of. - -sche (discuss) 04:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC) I've cited the first sense, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 04:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC) To take a walk (a calque from Indonesian). DCDuring TALK 01:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC) There are several senses, largely unciteable, including meanings "to fart" and to "run away" and calquing tongues ranging from Samoan to Nepali. There are sufficient cites, but tney are all borderline. Here are three from BGC: "I had once invited him to makan anjing (eat dog) instead of makan angin (eat the wind, or go for an evening stroll)." "The only time it has been possible to be out of the house, has been in the early morning and in the evening, hence it is the custom with European residents to rise a little before sunrise and take a long walk as the natives say "to eat the wind," […] " 'Just walking, just eating the wind,' said Robert Loo in Malay. Do they count? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC) RFV-sense "Mormon name for honeybee". I'm guessing it's not a proper noun even if it is attested, and I'm curious whether it's capitalized or not. - -sche (discuss) 02:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Technically, it's in the Mormon language, which is a conlang not approved in the mainspace. That said, it has been borrowed into English in lowercase to mean the honeybee in the Book of Mormon, so that's one cite. Is this book (which incidentally quotes the use of the term in the Book of Mormon) a use when it says "So just what is a deseret anyway"? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Is Book of Mormon a well-known work? — Ungoliant (Falai) 03:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Perhaps, but it immediately defines what it means by "deseret", so by the spirit of the law, it shouldn't count IMO. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC) I just checked four editions of the Book of Mormon: one from 1840 and one from 2004 use "deseret", one from 1852 and one from 1881 do use "Deseret". None put the term in italics, though only the 2004 one uses italics anywhere. That a definition immediately follows doesn't necessarily disqualify the use; WT:CFI explicitly calls "They raised the jib (a small sail forward of the mainsail) in order to get the most out of the light wind," a "fine" use. - -sche (discuss) 04:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC) I'm not saying that the Book of Mormon isn't a use. I'm saying that because it defines the term, it quite possibly doesn't deserve to be considered a well-known work (IMO the criterion was put in for rare terms in widely read texts that people might look up in confusion). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Funny, I thought the Book of Mormon was written in English, not Mormon. The "Mormon language" is just American English with a few variations, Deseret being one of them Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC) If it is English, then why does the given citation say that Deseret is "by interpretation" a honeybee? By interpretation from what language? Equinox ◑ 20:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC) The Book of Mormon is indeed in English, but deseret is given as the word for honeybee in the language of the Jaredites. Non-Mormons would say it's a word belonging to a conlan peculiar to a single fictional universe. Mormons would say that it's a mention of a foreign-language word, just like all the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic words and phrases mentioned in the Bible. Or are you suggesting that "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" is English by virtue of being in the King James Version of the New Testament? Chuck Entz (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2013 (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. The Book of Mormon is an English-language text; it uses the term "deseret"/"Deseret". Wiktionary does not recognise Jaredite as a language and grant it a code or a header, so "deseret"/"Deseret" cannot have the language statement ==Jaredite==. It has not been (and, I believe, cannot be shown) to deserve any header other than ==Jaredite== or ==English==. Ergo, it must be ==English==. Compare ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn#English. As EP suggested regarding that entry, perhaps "we should explain with Usage notes that the phrase appears in English fiction, and so is technically English, but is intended to represent" Jaredite. (But as demonstrated in the preceding paragraphs, it cannot be ==Jaredite==.) Note that it is possible to make an end run around this logic, and do away with the mainspace entries for ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn and the BOM citation of deseret/Deseret, by approving Jaredite and Cthulhuese as appendix-only or even main-namespace constructed languages. It would then still remain to be seen if "deseret"/"Deseret" is used in any English-language texts, in which case it could still be English (like "à la", etc). - -sche (discuss) 21:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC) — Ungoliant (Falai) 04:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC) — Ungoliant (Falai) 04:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC) It appears to be used [40][41][42], but I did not find anything durably archived. Possibly a slang expression. It also appears to be a dancing and/or music style [43]--Hekaheka (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC) I had found two Google Books hits for the dance. Most hits were for an onomatopoeia for drinking from the bottle (in this sense usually hyphenated and with three "gute"s). — Ungoliant (Falai) 22:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Glossed as a slang term for "petty criminal". There do seem to be some online references for this, but we need some citations. – Krun (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC) RFV-sense "protect". Bumm13 (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC) How precisely do we go about verifying a translingual Han character? We could verify a Mandarin definition, but there isn't one added yet. I'm not sure what to do in this case. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC) My understanding of previous discussions is that Translingual sections of Han characters should not, in an ideal world, have any (or at least, nearly as many) meanings; the meanings should be moved to every specific language they're found in. For historical reasons, however, a very large number of Han characters have Translingual sections with definitions in them, and proposals to remove them all by bot have rightly been shot down because semi-misplaced information is more helpful to readers than no information. But whenever it's possible to correct an entry by hand, we should. If this character means "protect" in Mandarin, let's move the sense. And if it doesn't mean "protect" in some language, it'll fail RFV. - -sche (discuss) 03:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Let's see: the only language on the page is Mandarin (because that's the only language Unihan lists). I have no idea how they got the pīnyīn value "shi", though, or even the character. My Mandarin dictionary does not have it, and there are no BGC hits, excluding scannos. So unless surprising new evidence emerges, I reckon we ought to delete the entire page, and fix shi if it links to it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Must be a very odd character if it occurs neither in Kangxi nor HDZ. Chances are, it's a mistake that somehow slipped into Unicode. -- Liliana • 02:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense: Loosely, a small amount of a substance, especially a countable number of atoms or molecules. I believe that Any SI or other exact unit can be used in approximations, like in "I got a great catch with many fish in the ten-pound range". In order to justify this sense, quotes are required to show that zeptomole is used more liberally than units in general. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Yes, I don't believe the word is used in that way. The current word-of-the-day definition is just plain wrong. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC) I did find cites, a year ago, to show that the informal usage is more common than the precise SI unit. I should have added them at the time. I'll search again when I can, though many usages are ambiguous. Alternatively, we could amalgamate the separate senses if that would be preferable. Dbfirs 16:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Was this ever used in Latin running text? DCDuring TALK 13:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Yes and no... Searching for inflected forms such as albifronte, albifrontis, and albifronti turns up a decent number of hits, but they all seem to be specific epithets. Searching for albifrons itself would be an exercise in futility: Google Books returns over a quarter-million hits. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC) I think that we would be likely to find at best some use in a Latin species description for such terms. Should we leave it as Latin, though unattested, or make it Translingual? We don't have an efficient way of discriminating between true Latin terms, used in running Latin text (sentences), and terms used only as specific epithets, which Latinists sneer at. I no longer have the patience to even try to resolve this. I suppose we could just let any terms such as this which happen to have a Latin L2 header remain with such header, whether or not they would be likely to meet RfV. For specific epithets now redlinked, it seems easier to add them as Translingual, for which the attestation is trivial, and let the Latinists claim whichever of them they deign to, whenever they get around to it. As SB has noted in this regard, most users just want to know what a term means and don't care about the L2 header (and many other things, for that matter). DCDuring TALK 19:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC) I would make it Translingual. (Newcomers to this multifaceted debate, please see Talk:neanderthalensis among many other discussions.) - -sche (discuss) 20:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC) But it's not translingual. This word is not defined by any international organization (although it's included in some scientific official names). The only possible header is Latin, because is is Latin (classical Latin, maybe, I don't know, but scientific Latin, clearly). Lmaltier (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Words don't have to be defined by an international organization to be translingual. They just need to be used translingually. If I thought that these terms would be successfully implemented as Latin terms without interminable debate and worse, I would be happy with that outcome. Not bloody likely, however. DCDuring TALK 23:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC) What I was meaning: this word has no meaning at all, except as a Latin word. Some words have a conventional international meaning, but it's not the case here. Lmaltier (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Yet if this RFV shows that albifrons is never used in Latin (and no use in Latin has been shown so far, only use in translingual species names), it cannot have a meaning as a Latin word, and only has a meaning as a translingual species name-part. - -sche (discuss) 07:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Please, understand that scientific names are composed of Latin words, even if these words are new. They get a Latin gender, and (normally) follow Latin grammatical rules. Sometimes, names are changed to follow Latin grammar (if the genus is masculine, the specific name cannot be a feminine adjective). In most cases, this is not classical Latin, sure, but this is Latin nonetheless. Lmaltier (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC) It's a fascinating test case. Yes, it is used in running Latin text — but no, it is not used outside of specific epithets (generally 19th-c. cites). In this case, I think I would actually prefer the Latin header, as long as its clearly marked as a scientific epithet, because Translingual entries don't get declension tables, and this is clearly attestable in several declined forms. Finally, DCDuring, you seem to have a very negative view of Latinists. I personally don't count as a true Latinist, but if you are including me, I hope I have not offended in previous discussions. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC) For context, the French Wiktionary does not use {{mul}} it uses its own {{conv}} for "international conventions". I think this is what Lmaltier is referring to when he says "Some words have a conventional international meaning". Obviously, since we're not the French Wiktionary, we don't have to adhere to this. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC) @Metak: My problem is that the taxonomic names has been left a mess for so long mostly because the applicable policies that should apply were scant, but criticism of contributions based in claimed expertise was abundant. @LMaltier: Specific epithets are not entirely "arbitrary signs", but have meaning in terms of other words. Epithets have been selected to have meaning somehow applicable the grouping named, which, at least, should appear in an Etymology. How they end up being applied in each particular case would make for etymology that would be peculiar to the name, to the species description history, and applicable rules of the naming bodies as they have evolved over time. DCDuring TALK 13:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC) On the subject of neglect: of 119 species entries with redlinked specific epithets, 14 are probably Latin (classical through medieval), 105 are "New Latin". Of 69 species entries that have blue-linked specific epithets, 61 have Latin L2 headers and 8 have Translingual. Some of those with Latin L2 headers are probably not found in Latin before New Latin and are not found in running Latin text. So we might have some 2,000+ species entries out of 3,300+ that do not have specific epithets, 1,600+ of which are probably New Latin, a supermajority of which would probably not qualify as Latin if the requirement is attestation in Latin sentences, ie, not isolated binomial names. When one considers the very small number of species entries that we have compared to the number of species (some of which have not just a taxon, but also one or more synonym}, this should be addressed in some way that does not leave us with any needless barriers to the creation of entries. A simple practice of entering all specific epithets as Translingual, pending the determination that the epithet is attestably Latin, would lead to the creation of entries which could be the basis for Latin entries. Also, assertions such as "Translingual terms do not inflect" should really be qualified as Umbelliferae, umbellifera, and umbelliferus clearly share a common stem, and suspiciously resemble true Latin forms. Remember, too, that most Latin terms do not have any attestation for most of their inflected forms. DCDuring TALK 18:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC) What I meant by inflection is this: Back in the earlier days of Latin literature in biology, if somebody found two female specimens of Tyrannosaurus rex, they would inflect it thus: Tyrannosaurae reginae. If they wanted to say "I consider the specimens to be T. rex, they would put it in the accusative: Haec specimina Tyrannosauras reginas esse existimo. That would be using it in running Latin text, but it would also be using it inseparably from the generic epithet, likewise inflected. That is beyond the umbelliferus example, and this is precisely the case in question here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Where are the citations? DCDuring TALK 20:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Do we have a single Latin L2 section for a term that is a specific epithet that has cites in the entry for the sense reflected in the specific epithet? DCDuring TALK 20:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC) That's why M-K called it a test case: there are enough examples in the searches I linked to that could be added as cites, if we decide we want to. Scientific nomenclature is really a sort of hybrid between Latin and translingual, or an entity that evolved from one to the other. It started out as straightforward Latin, with a name consisting of a Latin phrase describing the organism: the (hypothetical) equivalent of "large sparrow with white on the forehead". Linnaean binomials were an abbreviation of that, keeping "sparrow" as the generic name and "white-forehead" as the specific epithet. It also dictated that only one taxon at a given rank above the level of species could bear the same name, and only one sister taxon at the level of species and below could bear the same name, this making all names unique (there are separate naming systems for plants, animals, etc., so a plant name can be the same as an animal name). Pre-Linnaean taxonomic names were clearly Latin, and modern names that are described in non-Latin languages are clearly translingual, but early Linnaean names are a gray area shading from one to the other over time. Part of the ambiguity comes from the fact that Latin was originally considered by scientists to be an international language, since it had long since ceased to be the native or even official language of any country in the world. In that way scientific Latin could almost be considered inherently translingual. That's why it was originally required that all original descriptions and other taxonomic acts be written in Latin. I think an argument could be made for taxonomic names being both translingual and Latin simultaneously. That's why it's hard to decide which to use. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC) No, but only because taxonomic names are capitalized, unlike Latin nouns. Otherwise, you would have been right. albifrons is not a taxonomic name, it's a Latin word used to build taxonomic names. Lmaltier (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Specific epithets are the whole problem. Many of the most common ones are (or are the same as) classical or medieval Latin, or pre-Linnaean scientific Latin. But even for these, the terms have developed senses that are at least specializations of the Latin senses. Others are more recent but may have been used in scientific Latin texts in full Latin sentences. The entire period of scientific Latin seems to have seen a flowering of creative combination of Latin morphemes with each other, with morphemes derived from Greek (following the practice of classical Latin), and with morphemes taken from many of the world's languages. More recently, the practice of honoring biologists, their friends, and their patrons has led to a another set of macaronic creations. As Chuck said, some of the words are attestably Latin in some scientific Latin uses, including as part of taxonomic names, and also Translingual in that they have developed specialized senses not necessarily found in Latin attestation, mostly by metonymy. Perhaps there is no getting around the need for both Latin and Translingual L2 sections. As a practical matter, attestation for some Translingual "senses" may not be so easy, just as Latin attestation for some New Latin terms may not be forthcoming, especially not in some more recent usage. I suppose this means that some specific epithets will have an Etymology section which might suggest a likely meaning, but no attestation of that meaning. Thus its only defensible definition might be a non-gloss definition like "Used as a specific epithet for animals". DCDuring TALK 01:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC) A couple of examples that illustrate the problem with speaking of taxonomic names as strictly Latin: Although its specific epithets have to agree with it in gender as if it were a Latin noun, Muilla (the name for a genus of plants) is really just Allium spelled backwards, because the original describer thought it resembled the other genus. And then there's the specific epithet johntuckeri (a species of Quercus). Treating this as Latin means we have to assume that there's an unattested Latin word johntucker, of which this would be the genitive case. Should we make johntucker the lemma, and johntuckeri a form-of entry? Chuck Entz (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Indeed. For specific epithets only known in species names there is a strong case for just having the actual form(s) used. Perhaps the implied lemma could appear in the etymology. I have seen cases where somewhat arbitrary letters or syllables are added to a genus name to create another genus name that still evokes the first. Not to mention the intentionally humorous ones, like Ba humbugi. DCDuring TALK 03:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC) I agree with you. We should not invent a word johntucker to create a new entry in such a case. Anyway, this derives from John Tucker, not johntucker. This is a special case to be explained in the entry. Lmaltier (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC) I also want to change a bit what I stated above. Actually, there may be a section for a taxonomic name in any language: this is useful, especially for the gender used in the language, usage notes and citations, and pronunciation in the language (I've got a book providing the English pronunciations of scientific species names for Australian fish, but this is very exceptional, and our added value would be huge). Why not a Latin section for the name, if it's used (as a taxonomic name, and therefore capitalized) in texts written in Latin? Lmaltier (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense (three legal senses). These are directly from 1913 Webster's. I do not find them in modern dictionaries, usage seems to be scant and mostly from 19th century. Should they be tagged "archaic"? --Hekaheka (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC) In my years of legal practice, I have not come across these, although they may be Britishisms. Here is a 19th century example for the gifting-power sense: 1841, East India Company, Great Britain, The law relating to India, and the East-India Company, page 514: And be it enacted, that all such regimental debts shall and may be paid without probe paid without probate of any will being obtained, or any letters of administration, or any confirmation of testament, or letters testamentary or dative, being taken out of any person; and the surplus only of such arrears of pay or allowances, prize or bounty-money, equipage, goods, and chattels, or the proceeds thereof, shall be deemed the personal estate of the deceased, for the payment of any duty in respect of any probate, or of any letters of administration or confirmation of testament, or letters testamentary or dative, or for the purpose of distribution as personal estate. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC) "(mineralogy) Describing minerals containing divalent europium." Contrasted with europian (trivalent). I can't seem to find this being used anywhere. Google Books only seems to have scannos for European etc. Equinox ◑ 18:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Well, at least they weren't just making this up. Google Books has examples here, here, here, and here. Oddly enough, they seem mostly to be non-English sources describing English terminology. The evidence would then seem to be mostly indirect (another line of evidence is that a parallel -ian vs. -oan distinction can be seen in use for other elements such as copper (cuproan vs. cuprian). I'm not sure if this is enough for CFI, but it suggests that the term is at least plausible. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC) A few minerology references give explanations such as this for -oan and its chemistry/mineralogy relatives. DCDuring TALK 03:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC) RFV-sense "A person of European descent." Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 20:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Here, here, here, here, here, here, and here are examples in the plural.Here is one in the singular. Here, here, and here are hyphenated examples. You may notice that none of these represent primary sources, but are instead reported or fictional speech. I would suggest that whiteface is a convention for relaying "primitives'" talk about white people. Someone, somewhere may have talked that way at some point in history, but I doubt most of these are authentic. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Passed. - -sche (discuss) 22:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 20:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Tagged in these edits but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 20:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC) [edit] irha Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 20:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC) A commenter on the talk page has provided a few leads. - -sche (discuss) 09:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense for given Vietnamese reading, as it's uncited and not in the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense for given Vietnamese reading, as it's uncited and not in the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense for given Vietnamese reading, as it's uncited and not in the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 07:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Does occur in the chu Nom database. -- Liliana • 02:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense for given Vietnamese reading, as it's uncited and not in the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense for given Mandarin Chinese reading "gē (ge1)", as it's uncited and not in the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense for the Vietnamese reading, as it's uncited and not in the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense for given Vietnamese reading, as it's uncited and not in the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense for given Vietnamese reading, as it's uncited and not in the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Does occur in the chu Nom database. -- Liliana • 02:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense for given Vietnamese reading, as it's uncited and not in the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Does occur in the chu Nom database. -- Liliana • 02:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense for given Vietnamese reading, as it's uncited and not in the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense for given Vietnamese reading, as it's uncited and not in the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC) "Starch" in text messaging? I smell troll. Equinox ◑ 17:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC) First thing that came to my mind was Dr. Rabbit. Seriously, YTP has ruined my life. :( On that note, delete. -- Liliana • 02:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC) "Starfish" in text messaging? I smell troll. Equinox ◑ 17:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Wasn't this nominated before? --WikiTiki89 17:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC) It was RFCed WT:RFC#Special:Contributions.2F194.83.24.240, but not RFVed. - -sche (discuss) 22:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC) See more entries like this at Special:Contributions/194.83.24.240. - -sche (discuss) 22:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense for given Vietnamese reading, as it's uncited and not in the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense for given Vietnamese reading, as it's uncited and not in the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC) List in slang dictionary as "pulling in the pieces". Want to know if progressive is the only form. Found one instance in Google Books but it's modern, others don't seem to apply. Certainly this isn't made up? DAVilla 19:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Ungoliant (Falai) 19:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Ungoliant (Falai) 19:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC) "The propensity to derive sexual pleasure from mutilating dead bodies" versus primary sense of murdering to have sex with the corpse. Added by an anon today. Equinox ◑ 21:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Lots of Google Books hits. --BB12 (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC) If they support this sense, and not the other sense, please add citations! Equinox ◑ 05:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC) — Ungoliant (Falai) 00:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC) — Ungoliant (Falai) 00:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC) — Ungoliant (Falai) 00:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Seems to be widely used in Spanish, though. — Ungoliant (Falai) 00:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Yeah, that's what I'm seeing, too. - -sche (discuss) 00:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC) — Ungoliant (Falai) 00:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC) I've actually heard this a few times, but no luck finding cites. — Ungoliant (Falai) 00:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Surprisingly, not even the short form (first half, with the second half implied) gets any Usenet hits, though I see a few non-durable Groups hits. Citations, it seems, are not like butts. - -sche (discuss) 01:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC) I just found out why, the actual form is opinião é como bunda (with the second part varying much, and sometimes having a third part) which gets many Google Groups hits, but none of them are in Usenet. — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense for given definition "syllable" in Translingual section, as it's uncited and not in the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC) This spelling of a Czech word does not seem to be attested, unlike "bazmek". Searches: google books:"basmeg", google books:"basmegy"; for the other spelling, google books:"bazmek". --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense: Describing any organic compound containing a carbon to lithium bond The adjective sense seems just an attributive use of the noun sense. If the nomination is controversial, please move to RFD; otherwise, let us seek evidence of distinctly adjectival uses. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Very many Google book hits for "organolithium compound" and "organolithium chemistry". Would they count? SemperBlotto (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Would many hits in google books:"lithium compounds" make "lithium" an adjective in your eyes? I think what is interesting is that Google search for "organolithium" seems to find very many attributive uses of "organolithium" and very few standalone noun uses. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Yes, I see what you mean. In fact, chemists virtually never use the term as a simple noun, always using "organolithium compound" or "organolithium reagent" and so on. Of course, if we delete the adjective sense, then we have nowhere to hang the translations (I am having trouble finding translations of the noun). SemperBlotto (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC) I am striking and retracting the nomination, as it seems to do more harm than good, per "chemists virtually never use the term as a simple noun". --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense "abbreviation of Fujian province". Quite possible, as it would be the transliteration of the Mandarin sans tones, but I'm not sure it actually exists in durably archived media. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC) A rough Google Books search is sufficient to verify this: [44][45][46][47]. 129.78.32.21 04:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC) One of the links I can't view, two of them fail the use-mention distinction (must be uses, not mentions), and one of them is good. So we still need two more. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC) below[48]. 129.78.32.21 04:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC) They both appear to be using a different sense from this. The first one is referring to the language, the second one to the people. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC) You don't even seem interested in finding some quotations yourself. If you are only using this as a way of nitpicking anon edits, using your own far-fetched version of the attestation criteria, then I can gladly revert my change and I'd like to rfv-sense all senses in Min#English. 129.78.32.21 05:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC) I probably will, I just feel like working with a different language right now. It's not my "own far-fetched version", honestly, it is our standard procedure. I think that you realize yourself that RFVing every sense is being a troll... but since you've done that, I guess we'll cite 'em. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC) I'd tend to say the 2nd, 3rd and 4th links are not mentions. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Ngarrindjeri: "talking tree". Another case of "If we can cite it, it's an automatic FWOTD". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Here's two: a place name and an explanation that's unfortunately only a snippet. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC) I managed to read more of your second link. It has a song in Ngarrindjeri but it doesn't use the word Katal. — Ungoliant (Falai) 15:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Even if Ngarrindjeri is a language that only requires one mention, and not necessarily any uses, the term mentioned in the second link seems to be 'katal not katal. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Really? Sum of parts? Wrong capitalisation? SemperBlotto (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Computing sense at well-known might be relevant. Equinox ◑ 23:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense: Portuguese, "(mathematics) sine" — Ungoliant (Falai) 03:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC) First-page estimate of 1700 gbc results for "sine 45". 24 for "seio 45", none of which are relevant. Fwiw.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense: "Any small internal organs." I don't think that this literal sense is attestable. It was illustrated by a usex for a figurative sense, now present. DCDuring TALK 18:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC) That's not even grammatical, is it? Would that be "Any small internal organ"? Such as "the kidneys are guts"? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC) I would have defined it as "(usually plural) Any internal organ, especially in the stomach region." --WikiTiki89 19:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Supposedly an alt form of "half birthday". Created by Acdcrocks (Luciferwildcat) and thus probably based on scannos in Google Books, where it cannot be found on the page as written. Equinox ◑ 18:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC) At least it's not halfbirfday "AAVE spelling of half birthday" with an Irish cite :-) — Ungoliant (Falai) 05:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Etymology 2: (Internet, psychology, slang) a person who sets up or runs a false puppet social networking identity profile for fraudulent or deceptive purposes. A neologism c. 2010 that needs cites. Also, is this really a separate etymology, rather than a different sense of the same cat + fish etymology with different glosses on cat and fish? DCDuring TALK 16:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC) The derivation is not from the word catfish, but from the use of catfish. It derives from this quote They used to tank cod from Alaska all the way to China. They'd keep them in vats in the ship. By the time the codfish reached China, the flesh was mush and tasteless. So this guy came up with the idea that if you put these cods in these big vats, put some catfish in with them and the catfish will keep the cod agile. And there are those people who are catfish in life. And they keep you on your toes. They keep you guessing, they keep you thinking, they keep you fresh. And I thank god for the catfish because we would be droll, boring, and dull if we didn't have somebody nipping at our fin. [49][50][51] So it is a different etymology, since it has nothing to do with the origin of the older word "catfish", but with the use of catfish in the fishing industry. -- 76.65.128.43 08:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Using an existing word in a different way doesn't make it a new etymology. Quite the opposite in fact, words acquire new meanings all the time, like random meaning 'unexpected' or 'for no apparent reason'. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC) However we want to note it, I think we should point out that it's not, as DCDuring puts it "a different sense of the same cat + fish etymology with different glosses on cat and fish", but instead of a metaphorical use of the catfish fish.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Marrovi (talk • contribs) in this edit blanked the entry and added a {{delete}} tag, with the edit summary "(No ist Classical nahuatl this word)". I reverted it as the wrong way to do it, but the basic point needs to be addressed: Is this spelling attestable as Classical Nahuatl? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Though the quotations at ātl seem to attest it as a variant spelling of that word it's really more a of a misspelling at best. Even though the spelling of Classical Nahuatl wasn't fixed when it was still a spoken language, writing -tl as -thl isn't widespread and in any case doesn't represent a true alternative form or a different pronunciation. Some other variant spellings for Classical Nahuatl entries are useful because they see widespread use in contemporary Classical Nahuatl sources and serve as a link to entries using normalized spelling conventions for someone consulting a primary source. Though the Codex Magliabechiano (from where the quotation for athl is presumably taken) is in fact a primary source, the spelling used for that particular word is (as far as I know) unique to that source. Keeping athl as a separate entry would make it somewhat of a special snowflake among other entries for alternative Classical Nahuatl spellings, and so in my opinion it shouldn't be kept as such. –Koszmonaut (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Or maybe it should? I'm not sure what the policy is considering Classical Nahuatl has limited source material. —Koszmonaut (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC) For a language like Classical Nahuatl, I'd say if it's attested only once in a single manuscript, we should list it (and provide the source!) as an {{alternative spelling of}} the normalized spelling. Which means, if someone can definitively confirm that it is in the Codex Magliabechiano, and can add the sentence or wherever in which it occurs to our entry, I would consider that adequately verified for our purposes. —Angr 16:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Definitely keep if attested once. For the moment, athl doesn't contain an attestation or a link to one, so don't keep yet. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC) The quotation attesting the spelling athl seems to be taken from folio 12r. of the Codex Magliabechiano (as pictured here on the far right). The text corresponding to the quotation is already found at ātl, is it necessary on the page for athl? —Koszmonaut (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Why not? I sometimes use quotes written in pre-reformed Irish spellings both on the entry in standard spelling and on the entry in original spelling. —Angr 20:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC) If this spelling is usd in the manuscript, I think we should keep it and keep the normalised spelling, as we do for Old Norse (compare hljóð, hliod). - -sche (discuss) 21:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC) In Timonize, you can read: French: timoniser (regular), Timoniser (rare). Verbs are not capitalized in French. But, anyway, does this verb exist? Lmaltier (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Nothing on Google books. Ƿidsiþ 11:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC) The Livejournal cite is obviously inadmissible (otherwise I could just post it in my Livejournal and that would be a third cite). I don't know what Jukeboxx Media is. Probably also inadmissible, but what is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC) It appears (from its website found via Google; I won't bother adding the linkspam) to be a Kansas City-based company that offers music, photography, and videos for weddings. Presumably it has its own blog at LiveJournal. I agree it's not admissible for RfV purposes. If I ever heard the term "couplezilla" I don't think I'd interpret it to mean a couple preparing for marriage; I'd interpret it to mean any couple who thrust their coupledom in the faces and down the throats of everyone they encounter. (You know the kind, always calling each other sickly sweet pet names in front of others, engaging in PDAs at every opportunity, pointedly always saying we rather than I, that sort of thing that drives their single friends up the wall.) —Angr 14:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Seems to me a simple case of analogy from bridezilla, along the lines of groomzilla, as a misguided attempt at thoroughly covering all the possible permutations of the concept. If there were single-word terms for "mother of the bride", etc., I'm sure -zilla entries for them would have been added at the same time. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Found four cites on Usenet. See Citations:couplezilla. Astral (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC) The reality of couples making a formal commitment through marriage has changed enormously since the sexual revolution. The bride and groom used to get married at a younger age, had not really had a career, and left their parents home to get married. The parents paid for the wedding. Nowadays, both the bride and groom have moved out of their parents homes, have their own place, have worked for years, have a career, have often lived together for many years. They are the ones planning the wedding, paying for the wedding, setting the rules and the schedules for the wedding party and the guests. The parents no longer have an influence on the event, they are simply guests. Weddings have become a flourishing industry, and people get really bazinga. Either the bride, either the groom, or both of them. Hence the words that have appeared. --Bouleau (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense: A disparaging reference to a person, particularly one who grovels. I am not familiar with this in contemporary English, though worm is certainly possible, if perhaps dated. Webster 1913 has "A mean, sordid person; a niggard. Norris." I can't find a quotation from Norris, except in a dictionary, where is seemed "poetic", a merely literary metaphor. MWOnline dropped it. OED? DCDuring TALK 20:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense - collective noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense - collective noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Another supposed collective noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC) I've added two cites. I think there are more on Usenet, but I haven't time to look now. It seems to not be a collective noun: see the cites.​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC) The second cite looks like a collective noun to me. In effect, it's making the point that 5 people would make up a whole group. As for the term itself, the Middle English spelling of it can be found in the Boke of Seynt Albans, and all the other collections of collective nouns, such as An Exaltation of Larks, have copied it from there. Sort of like a dictionary-only term, but limited to lists of collective nouns, instead. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Could we possibly cite this without using only the rec.juggling Usenet group? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC) I don't think so. But I've dug up enough additional Usenet cites from rec.juggling for this to pass muster. Astral (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC) "First attested in use in a Usenet discussion in 1993." That's a much stronger claim than I think its penner realized. DAVilla 05:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC) If the random Tumblr link is an indication, this is a joke based on a seemingly unintelligible morse code message that features in an episode of BBC's Sherlock. "Have UMQRA" and "do UMQRA" get a few scattered hits on Google, but this looks like a protologism to me, so I'd say delete. Astral (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC) The link strongly suggests that this does not mean sexual intercourse. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Deleted as a protologism. - -sche (discuss) 22:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense Pandeism, etymology 2, occurs, in all of human history, in precisely two books. One, being the cited-in-article Anacalypsis, of Godfrey Higgins. The other being the Oahspe Bible, which includes sense two solely because it plagiarizes broadly from Anacalypsis (not just a line or a paragraph, but entire chapters). This ought not count for anything at all. The word is mentioned--but not actually 'used'--in Jesus in Kashmir: The Lost Tomb, which is itself simply poorly copied plagiarism of older versions of the Wikipedia articles on Anacalypsis and its author. That source simply recites that Higgins called his theory 'Pandeism.' Additionally problematic is that the text of Anacalypsis is so arcanely and metaphorically written, and so interpretable as to suppose that its author was simply speaking of the traditional notion of Pandeism, ie pandeism-- that his supposed "secret sect" simply propounded the notion of 'God having become the Universe,' as might as well have been a reasonable interpretation in light of the Hinduism which the original theorist seems to have placed at the seed of his supposed sect. If some author were to suppose that at one time Christianity or Judaism or Mormonism had been practiced as a secret sect (which all undoubtedly have been in the times when they were publicly persecutable) would that in itself require a separate definition of these terms as a secret sect? DeistCosmos (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC) I couldn't find anything else in Books, Scholar, or Usenet. DCDuring TALK 01:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC) A misspelling, not common except among us seniors too proud to wear spectacles. DCDuring TALK 01:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Unfortunately, it's also a not-uncommon scanno, so it will take a while to confirm the obvious. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Oh gawd, is it eugenia? If so, this child of mine is dead to me and can be aborted (unless anyone really wants to verify a misspelling). Equinox ◑ 01:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Yes, the error seems to come from the source file that also was used to produce this. Speedied as a mechanical copy of someone else's error. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense: An impoverished servant. There is but one cite for this sense. DCDuring TALK 17:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Per WT:ID#mot-dièse. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Google Groups new infinite scrolling system is irritating, but I've found one definite use, from January 23 2013! " Il y a des gens qui suivent le mot-dièse Ruyer ?" (there are people following the hashtag Ruyer?) in the Usenet group fr.soc.religion. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC) I glanced at Usenet cites yesterday, but gave up quickly, since I couldn't distinguish uses from mentions (not knowing French). That said, there was at least one from 2011.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Noun. late#Etymology 2: (dialectal or obsolete) Manner; behaviour; outward appearance or aspect. (dialectal or obsolete) A sound; voice. There is a single citation for the second sense. Is this attestable in Modern English? It seems more likely in Middle English, though Middle Scots is also a possibility. I cannot find the single citation given (of the second sense), except in other dictionaries. It might be from works or fragments dated between 1275 to 1499 or even later editions with altered spelling. DCDuring TALK 15:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Attestations into the EME period (post 1470ish) are usually as lait and are all apparently Scottish. Leasnam (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC) It's a misspelling of lenteada, but even that is uncitable. — Ungoliant (Falai) 19:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Three senses that look a bit dubious, especially the last POVvy one. Equinox ◑ 23:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC) With respect to the third and fourth, if it is used to mean an act, you would expect "a misandrism" to come up, but it gets only one hit on Google, none on Google Books. It seems like a reasonable use, just not one that has manifested itself in writing yet. --BB12 (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC) [edit] arkeopterigino [edit] virarkeopterigo Some unlikely Esperanto. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Yeah. Not sure why Hans made those. Maybe he was just testing out my leonido/leonino/virleono animal template. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense The first two senses I can find references to throughout google books, however, I can only find references to the spine definition in dictionary style books, so nothing first hand. Speednat (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC) I can't verify the "spinal column" portion of the definition based on the three human anatomy cites that I found. But I didn't look a Scholar. DCDuring TALK 22:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC) "One who cuts their own hair." Only in word lists? Equinox ◑ 04:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Only a few thousand Google hits, many of which are derived from Wikipedia. It could use some citation. Dominic·t 06:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Ive definitely seen it outside Wikipedia, including on websites that are very unlikely to have borrowed the term from Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia seems to prefer the spelling w:aptronym. One site that I contributed to that had a list of aptonyms has moved, and I can't really prove that it was older than the Wikipedia article other than the fact that I remember where I was living and I moved out in 2004. The Wikipedia article began on March 30, 2005. Soap (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Cited IMHO. DCDuring TALK 01:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Passed. DAVilla 04:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense: preposition: (informal) Away from the center. The {{rfex}} for this sense, added June 2008, has yielded no fruit. I haven't found the sense in OneLook dictionaries. DCDuring TALK 22:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense for entire Korean (L2) section information, as it's uncited and not in the Unihan database. A Google search also yielded nothing for me. Bumm13 (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC) German adjective, sense 2: "menstruating" (slang). Never heard of it. Added back in 2007 by an anonymous user. Longtrend (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Finnish misspelling, per Talk:vuorottainen. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC) I would say it is common enough to be mentioned given that Finnish is a small language with only 5 million native speakers. There are 106 BGC hits and more than 8000 ordinary google search hits. In the botanical sense (alternate) it is much more common than the "correct" form. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Further, I have understood that our Finnish index (index vu) is based on Kotus wordlist, and it has both vuorottainen and vuoroittainen. It is true that vuoroittainen is grammatically correct, but there are lots of Finnish speakers who either don't know or don't give a damn. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC) RFV-sense "A particular instance or piece of research." Tagged {{fact}} and not listed. - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC) I'd close this based on widespread use. See google books:"a research was". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC) That's fine by me, and I see Equinox has added a citation, too. Duly de-tagged. - -sche (discuss) 02:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Dutch, per Talk:fanel. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC) It is probably obsolete. I found the adjective "fanellen" Jcwf (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Nu legt men 's avonds vaak 't fanellen borstkleed af En staat verwonderd, dat men 's morgens ligt in 't graf,[1] ^ De terugkomst van den zomer, in: De gedichten van den schoolmeester. Jacob van Lennep 1872 Etymologically it does not make much sense though: there should be an "l" in it as it is supposed to be a loan from English. Jcwf (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC) The only citation given italicises the term as a loanword, a German word used in English, not an English word... can more convincing citations be found? - -sche (discuss) 05:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC) RFV-sense 2x. I doubt the Heathen sense (the third sense) is attested separate from the other senses. - -sche (discuss) 05:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Dictionary-only word? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Cited. Astral (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC) RFV of the conjunction. Is it attested in modern English (and I use "modern" very lossely: "post-1500")? - -sche (discuss) 03:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Hard to search for. This needs the OED or an EME corpus. DCDuring TALK 15:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC) And a corpus with powerful search that doesn't treat al as a stopword. DCDuring TALK 16:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC) "Player 1's turn." Whoever added this must have been referring to the fact that some games announce "1UP" when it's player 1's turn to take the controls (and "2UP", etc. for other players). But "1UP" does not refer to the turn, as defined here: it refers to the player himself. It's as if it was Joe's turn, and the game announced "JOE" on screen: that doesn't make Joe mean a turn. You also see forms like 1UP START and GAME OVER 1UP. Equinox ◑ 14:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC) From my Nintendo days, I remember when playing Super-Mario in two player mode, the 1UP was directly above Mario's head and 2UP above Luigi's head indicating which player the character belonged to. I would therefore define this as the character controlled by player 1. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 21:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC) English L2 only: Constanta, Romania. I have so far found this orthography only in Romanian running text. DCDuring TALK 18:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC) I was very surprised to see that this failed RFV, because it seems like a fairly well-known term. I think this is more a case of nobody bothering to look for citations, than that there actually aren't any. So I'm re-nominating it so that the entry can be restored. See also Talk:henohenomoheji. —CodeCat 22:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Sadly, that does happen from time to time (that no one bothers to cite something). If nothing else, could someone create the Japanese (romaji) entry the talk page suggests is attested? - -sche (discuss) 23:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC) I can't cite this for the life of me. There's nothing on Google Books, save a volume compiled from Wikipedia articles. There's nothing on News or Groups either. Astral (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC) So nobody who speaks English has ever talked about henohenomoheji in a durably archived source? Do only Japanese people talk about it? I find that hard to believe, really... Still, if we can't find any cites for English, we should definitely have at least a Japanese definition on this page. —CodeCat 14:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC) I've restored the entry so that the content that was deleted before can be reused, to make a Japanese entry (or to make an English one if this passes). —CodeCat 14:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Here's what I could find. google books:"henohenomoheji" -wiki -wikipedia -wiktionary shows 12 hits, 5 of which appear to not actually contain the term. [52] appears to be a business name in a telephone directory, so that probably doesn't meet CFI [53] is in Chinese, so ditto there. [54] is a TOC listing, pointing to [55], a description of the "Kakashi Hatake" character from Naruto (bolding mine): His second unique ability is the pack of eight ninja dogs (忍犬 Ninken) he is able to summon to his side. The dogs are capable of talking. Each one has a henohenomoheji on his back, a face used on scarecrows. He primarily uses them for tracking purposes... [56] is a dupe of the above quote. [57] is basically another dupe of the above quote. [58] doesn't show the content of the book, but the title is Japanese Word Games: Shiritori, Henohenomoheji, Dajare, Uta-Garuta, Kaibun google books:"henohenomohe" -wiki -wikipedia -wiktionary shows two more hits, of which only the first hit actually includes the term, with the -ji on the end with a hyphen. [59] has the following quote: When discussing the farts and the heavy use of the fart letter へ he in Japanese, I mentioned a picture, a "fart-face" made from it. Such a picture, called a へのへのもへじ henohenomohe-ji (also, へへののもへ（い）じ), or へのへの he-no-he-no for short, generally has seven letters. Even should this term fail RFV for English, it's all over the place in Japanese, so we should convert the entry to a JA entry rather than just delete it. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC) If it is not English and not loaned into English then it cannot be verified or kept on the English wiktionary.71.142.71.205 21:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC) No, that's not how the English Wiktionary works. We are a dictionary of all languages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC) No, pay attention, the English wiktionary version's English language entryspace is not a Wiktionary for all languages it only holds English terms, I cannot add in words from Chinese as English words unless they are loanwords and therefore English.71.142.71.205 01:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC) 71, your exhortation misses the mark here, as I believe Prosfilaes *was* paying attention -- the wording in your previous post really does sound like you want to remove all non-English entries from the entire English Wiktionary site. The phrase "kept on the English wiktionary" is where the confusion arises. For instance, the Japanese term 菩薩 is "on the English wiktionary", but is listed as a Japanese term. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I suspect that 71 misspoke, as it were -- if we cannot cite use of the term in English, then we cannot keep it as an English entry. Provided that that is what 71 meant, then I agree. If 71 intended instead that we should remove the term altogether, then I wholeheartedly disagree and must point out what Prosfilaes says here -- Wiktionary is intended to be a dictionary of all languages. And since we *can* cite henohenomoheji in use in Japanese, and since we are including romanized entries of Japanese terms, then we must keep the term, but as a Japanese entry. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC) We should probably have へのへのもへじ too. —CodeCat 02:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)  Done ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC) RFV-sense: "An individual who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ." What, like, his BFF Pete? Or how is this distinct from the two preceding senses? - -sche (discuss) 08:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC) I'd just remove it. It's basically worthless as a definition. —Angr 16:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Really not an RfV issue - easily verified, but redundant to definition 1, since belief in the existence of such a relationship is an aspect of belief in the religion as a whole. Otherwise, we might as well add other senses for "An individual who believes the New Testament is true", "An individual who believes in the resurrection of Jesus Christ", etc. bd2412 T 17:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC) OK, I've removed it. - -sche (discuss) 18:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Princess Alice of Battenberg at one point believed she was having a sexual relationship with Jesus Christ. Perhaps that's what the definition is referring to. Only kidding! But for all the sense the definition makes, I might as well be serious. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC) I am so delighted to learn this, I'm actually looking forward to the next time a Christian tells me they have a relationship, not a religion. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Isn't the se nse of "group of officers, generals, etc. in charge of issuing commands, directing a war effort, etc." (as in "high command") missing here? I don't see it in any of the senses listed in this entry. Should it be modified? --Pereru (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC) I think you've ended up on the wrong page. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Striking (cannot detagged entry; never tagged). Mglovesfun (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense for hù (hu4) reading, as it's uncited and not in the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC) I would remove these uncitable pronunciations on sight. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 21:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC) I've had trouble citing this in either solid or two-word forms. So far I've found only one usable cite for "beer dick." [60] Astral (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC) The second use here looks good to me, but I couldn't find anything else. DCDuring TALK 04:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC) RFV-sense "Naked but for a waist band with knife sheath, arm bands, footwear, weapons in hand, etc." - -sche (discuss) 05:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC) WT:BJAODN (unless it's real of course). Mglovesfun (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense: "To take up a profession." In "go to be a teacher", surely it literally means to "depart in order to be a teacher"? I don't see how this is a separate sense. This, that and the other (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Vietnamese section; tagged in this edit. - -sche (discuss) 07:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Cantonese. Tagged in this edit. - -sche (discuss) 07:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Japanese. Tagged in this edit. - -sche (discuss) 07:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Tagged but not listed. (Compare 䦉.) - -sche (discuss) 07:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Japanese. Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 07:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 21:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Totally wrong. If it's a verb - it can't be defined as "the action of ...". I would have just reverted it. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Yes I just formatted it (and it's still bad after that) so I wish I'd just killed it with extreme prejudice. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC) It sounds like lazy usage of scribble. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 22:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC) "Pertaining to the genitalia." The only example given is "private parts" (which already has its own entry). If this really means "pertaining to the genitalia", I would expect it to be able to replace genital generally, but such phrases like "private tumour", "private examination", etc. presumably don't exist. Equinox ◑ 02:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC) This looks like more of an rfd issue: it's really redundant- or should be- to one of the other senses: they're "private parts" because one keeps them to oneself. Besides, it's somewhat circular: genitalia is synonymous with private parts, so substituting it would yield "(pertaining to (private parts)) parts". Or perhaps rfc for the whole entry, because the senses overlap in vague sorts of ways, with the first being worded in a rather overly-inclusive way: "Belonging to, concerning, or accessible" looks like what would have been there before some of the other senses were split off. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC) I don't think it's an rfd issue, if it's attested to mean genital#Adjective it's probably distinct. Let's cite it first, if we can, then worry about if it's redundant or not. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC) "Private area" gets a lot of hits on GB, and "private section" gets one relevant hit as well. I wonder if this meaning can be used with any other words, however. How about a usage note saying something like "with words such as "parts, area and section"? --BB12 (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC) But also "private organ". I'd think that's more than sufficient evidence. DAVilla 04:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC) But what makes you feel sure that, in "private organ", private means "relating to the genitalia", rather than it being the same as "private parts" where it seems to mean something hidden away that you don't show to the public? Equinox ◑ 04:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Because in at least one case, the man "exposed his private organ" which does not make it any more public. DAVilla 05:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC) If a man showed his "private diary" to the police, or to a crowd, or posted it online, it only means that it was private beforehand. Am I missing something? Equinox ◑ 05:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC) In this case "private" applies to the nature of such things as a class, not to the details of a particular example. In the same way, they're called "reproductive" organs, even if they belong to a child or a lifetime celibate. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I think I agree with Equinox here. Ƿidsiþ 06:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC) "Extreme levels of foolishness" supposedly.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Seem to be adjectival in its usage mostly. To go full retard is the phrase. It's also used to refer to a person who is stupid that he/she has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Not sure about the current definition though. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 09:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Do films count as durably archived? It occurs in Tropic Thunder. — Ungoliant (Falai) 15:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Explicitly yes, WT:CFI#Attestation "Other recorded media such as audio and video are also acceptable, provided they are of verifiable origin and are durably archived." Mglovesfun (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC) OK. I added a cite from it (here's a scene where it occurs: [61], at around 1:26). — Ungoliant (Falai) 00:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Sounds like a failed coinage to me, and there are no references. Googling for "anigif" shows only occurrences in the names of particular software programs, plus results where Google has auto-corrected it to "animated gif". Rspeer (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Added three citations from Usenet newsgroups. Equinox ◑ 13:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Done and dusted by ◑. Clearing the RFV. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I am not convinced that this is an actual English word based on a single citation for each entry. The references given could just as well be misspellings or typoes. Googling for "antecipate -anticipate" (and skipping the auto-correction) gives results that are primarily in a mix of English and another language. I believe this may be a misspelling that can happen when the writer's native language is one where the word for "anticipate" begins with "ante". The etymology given is not actually an etymology, and when it says "Retaining the correct ante- spelling", that suggests this entry might have been written as a hypercorrective attempt to change English spelling. Rspeer (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Let's say we find another two citations. How should the entry then look? We only have "common" misspellings. This is not going to be "common". So, if it is a misspelling, it will be deleted. But is it really a misspelling? If it is an uncommon, but defensible spelling, what do the facts of its usage say about how users should be warned against using it in normal circumstances? In Classical Latin apparently both prefix forms existed with antecipio being more common than anticipio, but antecipatio more common than anticipatio in the Perseus corpus. Google books finds but one English usage of antecipate but many of anticipate from 1600 to 1799. I would think we would want to delete this. DCDuring TALK 13:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Past tense of snapshot?! That's not what shat suggests, and I can't find it in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 21:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Speedied as obvious vandalism. —Angr 22:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC) I nominate a new coinage: snapshat (verb) past tense of snapshit: "to vandalize rapidly in small increments" -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC) I am the original author of the entry. I didn't intend for it to be vandalism. It's word in use in software development referring to the source control or environment maintenance process of "taking a snapshot" in past tense... Apparently "snapshotted" is a word but it's bulky and "snapshat" is more commonly heard. 64.208.122.50 22:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC) If you add three durably archived citations spanning more than one year at Citations:snapshat, I'll undelete it. But at any rate it looks we need a software development sense added to the verb [[snapshot]]. —Angr 22:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC) I don't think this, or any other non-third-person form in the conjugation table at nieseln, exists. I was tempted to just speedily delete it and remove the table. - -sche (discuss) 21:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC) de:nieseln leaves those rows blank. That seems to be what we should do as well. That said, I did find one use of "du nieselst" (although the quotes, and the gloss after it, suggests even the writer thought it was an odd use). Dann ist das mit dem Aufschlag aber wohl auch nicht mehr so wichtig, da du sanft zu Boden " Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC) I should add to my original comment: not every verb which dictionaries or logic claim(s) can only be used in the third person is in fact so restricted; regnen, for example, is well attested in all persons (google books:"ich regne", "ich regnete", "du regnest", "wir regnen", etc) despite the protestations of prescriptivists. It simply happens that this verb is indeed not attested in the first- or second-person. - -sche (discuss) 10:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Maybe we should discuss this more generally? Should we link to (and have entries for) unattested inflected forms? I remember that CodeCat thinks we should, and I tend to agree with her. Though in some cases those forms are really weird and it's hard to imagine that anyone will ever use them (such as subjunctive forms of very colloquial words, since subjunctive forms aren't really used in colloquial speech). Longtrend (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC) As far as I know, we've always made a distinction when it comes to highly inflected languages between individual slots in inflection tables that happen not to meet CFI, and entire sections of tables that are unattested. My understanding is that a few people oppose (especially for dead languages) but most people support including e.g. the dative masculine singular of the superlative of an adjective, even if gets insufficient BGC hits, when the other forms (nominative masculine singular of the superlative, etc) get enough hits to prove that the superlative exists. In contrast, when we've found that no superlative forms meet CFI, we've correctly listed various adjectives as non-gradable, and when we've found that no plural forms meet CFI, we've correctly labelled various nouns as uncountable. I've only known one user to favour adding their own made-up plural forms to such entries, and when the RFV has determined that such forms specifically do not exist, I've removed them. Likewise with verbs: if all the other forms of akkumulieren are attested, but the second-person plural past tense happens not to be, I think it's OK to include it: but if no non-third person form of nieseln is attested, and other dictionaries agree that no such forms exist, I would oppose any effort to include them. - -sche (discuss) 19:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC) [edit] 鮟 -- character etymology Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium#.E9.AE.9F. "The term used to show approval, acceptance, or general agreement." Huh? Equinox ◑ 00:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense: "to tear down and rebuild". This sense is not found in other dictionaries. --Hekaheka (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Perhaps it was sarcastic (renovating a home to such an extent that you are practically rebuilding it from scratch). This, that and the other (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Dictionary isn't right place for sarcasm, methinks. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Looks just plain wrong to me, unless we can find some evidence to say it isn't wrong. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense for "docile" reading, as it's uncited and not in the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Apparently derived from the Shuowen Jiezi definition: "順皃。从人委聲。《詩》曰："周道倭遟。"" Some interpret (eg. Hanyu Da Zidian) 順 as "along, following, in the same direction as" to explain the quote of Shijing in that definition (倭遲: winding, circuitous), while others explain 順 as "docile, submissive" (see Names of Japan). Wyang (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense: (vulgar) A weak person. Rfv-sense: erectile dysfunction, impotence, whiskey dick. I am requesting an attestation for two noun senses, written with hyphen. Used search strategy: google books:"limp-dick", google groups:"limp-dick". Unfortunately, the search strategies do not yield results constrained to hyphenated uses. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense: impotent, infertile The form to be attested is "unvirile" rather than "un-virile", in the particular sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC) "The first series of the Star Trek franchise", as distinct from the primary sense, so e.g. "I watched Star Trek" is not a clear enough citation. Equinox ◑ 16:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I doubt this. "I watched Star Trek" could be any Star Trek product, and even "I watched Star Trek" could be the full title of either Star Trek (the 1966 TV show) or Star Trek (the 2009 film). Fans distinguish the first Star Trek TV series from "ST:TNG" (Star Trek: The Next Generation), "ST:DS9" (Star Trek: Deep Space 9), &c., as "ST:TOS" (The Original Series). ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Just delete it, IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Just deleted it. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Moved from WT:RFD#bitcoin. Somebody flagged this for quick deletion citing a lack of proper references. However, I have in fact cited two notable and reliable publications indicating the use of this word. In the case of reliable citations, I believe this word should be kept. --Neoconfederate (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Additionally, I can provide more notable references upon request. There is a television episode from The Goodwife that covers bitcoin exclusively. There are numerous mainstream publications that can be used as references. --Neoconfederate (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Please see WT:WFW, in particular the section "How we provide references and citations". —CodeCat 01:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I have fixed the formatting of the citations. --Neoconfederate (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure if they are actually proper citations, though. Are they from a source that Wiktionary considers durably archived? —CodeCat 02:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Of course, check the links. Reuters, Bloomberg, Wired and CBS broadcasting provide widely syndicated and archived materials. These materials will be available on the internet archive and their respective websites indefinitely. These are major media companies. The first two are highly relied on in the financial community. --Neoconfederate (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC) That's not actually an answer though. I specifically asked if they were from a source that Wiktionary considers durably archived. Sources that are maintained by a single party, or that can be removed by their maintainers at the request of a third party, are not considered durably archived. So none of those sources are reliable as long as they are the only ones that own/maintain the material. As far as I know, the only online source that is currently considered durable enough is Usenet. —CodeCat 02:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC) The CBS source is durable enough since it is not online. Television shows are not revised on the fly and are available on DVD. I can provide durable copies of the online material from The Internet Archive since they provide all revisions of the material. --Neoconfederate (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC) The Internet Archive isn't considered durable either, because they do on occasion remove material when requested. Durability for our purposes means "no single person, entity or event should be able to prevent Wiktionary users from viewing the source". I think some people have said in the past that it can be interpreted as something like "has to be able to survive a disaster, either natural or man-made". So if a meteorite could hit our source and wipe it out, or if a government or corporation with a problem could get rid of it, it wasn't durable enough. —CodeCat 02:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Surely this is an issue for RFV, then, not RFD? Furius (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I agree... I've moved it. —CodeCat 02:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Three durable sources: The Goodwife (Season 3) on DVD is a durable source. I've quoted from it. I've also added an issue of Wired Magazine. I will be adding an issue of Forbes Magazine as well. --Neoconfederate (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I have added the applicable ISSNs for the published materials. If there are no more questions, this should be considered verified by all objective measures. --Neoconfederate (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC) "Bitcoin for Dummies" The Goodwife (Season 3). CBS. 2012. DVD. "..but I'm ready to rule. Bitcoin is a currency." Wallace, Benjamin. The Rise and Fall of Bitcoin, Wired Magazine, Dec. 2011. Print. ISSN: 1059-1028. "...a man named Satoshi Nakamoto posted a research paper to an obscure cryptography listserv describing his design for a new digital currency that he called bitcoin." "Nakamoto himself mined the first 50 bitcoins—which came to be called the genesis block—on January 3, 2009." Greenburg, Andy. Crypto Currency, Forbes Magazine, April. 2011. Print. ISSN: 0015-6914. "'Bitcoin is designed to bring us back to a decentralized currency of the people,' says Andresen, a 44-year-old software developer and entrepreneur..." --Neoconfederate (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC) The easiest way to cite things is through Google Books (singular, plural, and singular), or Usenet via Google Groups (here, [62], here, and a reference to bitcom mining here). I would say there are enough cites without resorting to wikilawyering other sources into CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Per WT:FB#chiarifimento. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Wow, it seems to be really not out there at all. I have one Google Group hit which isn't a Usenet hit anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I wonder which text I originally found it in. I see that it is also in User:Matthias Buchmeier/it-en-c, so he must have seen it somewhere. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC) User:Matthias Buchmeier/it-en-c is like Index:Italian/c, it just mirrors our main namespace. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Has anyone noticed that the page title doesn't match the headword line? This, that and the other (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Oh bugger, no! chiarificamento is attested, it seems to be dated or obsolete, there's a 2008 citation on Google Books, I wonder if that's quoting an older text though. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I'm going to be bold and delete it (and the plural). Even chiarificamento is vanishingly rare. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC) How did you search? books.google.it has 20 hits for it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Is this word really used in English? Or is it just used transliterated in English-language texts where it's clear someone is actually speaking Greek? —Angr 13:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Yes, it's used in English, but as a stereotypical Greek expression. As I mentioned in my reply over at Feedback, it looks like it's one of those cases like Gott in Himmel where it's supposed to be the other language, but isn't quite the same as it would be in that language (here, mostly, the difference is in the semantic scope of the term). But, of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the cites... Chuck Entz (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Here's a few: [63], "Add a little "opa!" to your life", [64]. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC) This is different from Gott in Himmel because this is written in another script, so any uses of opa in that spelling, while meant to be Greek, can never really be Greek and shouldn't have a Greek heading. —CodeCat 17:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC) This is different from Gott in Himmel because "Gott in Himmel" is ungrammatical in German and thus never used in German, only in English, while opa is just Greek transcribed into the Latin alphabet for the benefit of English-speaking readers. That doesn't make it English. —Angr 17:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Perhaps olé is a better comparison: I'm sure people who use it are aware of the Spanish word, but is it really Spanish when used in English? Chuck Entz (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Opa Gangnam Style? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Hello all, Gangnam Style is irrelevant. I am the one who added the definitions for 'opa' (disclaimer: native Greek speaker). I just created this account, I am new in this so please be patient with me. The notion that it is 'an expression of cheer' derives probably from media, and the way 'modern traditional greek fun' is depicted in movies. In practice, 'opa' (greek: ώπα) is more frequently used in modern informal everyday speech much like the expression 'oops!', and its use as an expression of cheer is rather rare in my opinion. Hope I am of help, I use the site quite a lot and I will be contributing as much as possible in my spare time. At your service for further clarifications.GoodMeteors (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC) What I don't understand is why you want to spend all this effort on an English entry, when the Greek entry at ώπα has the same definition- which everyone will agree is totally wrong for that entry. In fact, if this fails verification, the English entry is going to be deleted- so your edits will disappear, anyway. If it's kept, it's likely the definition will be different than that for the Greek entry: English speakers mostly only know what they see in movies and in advertising for Greek restaurants. Their usage is bound to be based on a skewed stereotype of Greek culture- but English isn't Greek. It's a lot like "gesundheit", which in English is nothing more than what you say when someone sneezes. In German, it's always capitalized, and means "health". A similar example is bona fide, a two-word Latin phrase meaning "in good faith", with the second word pronounced approximately like "fee day". If you pronounce it that way in English, though, most people who don't know Latin won't recognize it: the most common pronunciation (at least in the US) rhymes the second word with "fried", and runs it together as if it were spelled "bonified". The meaning is different, too: something along the lines of "real" or "genuine". Purists may disagree, but I would contend that the "bonified" pronunciation is good English- even if it's very bad Latin. We're a descriptive dictionary, which means we document the way people actually use words and phrases, not how they should use them. The purpose of the Request For Verification page is to have people look at examples of how terms are used (or whether they are), and to verify that our entries correctly reflect that. The prevailing English usage may be ignorant and wrong regarding Greek culture, but pretending that it's something it isn't would be ignorant and wrong regarding the culture in English-speaking countries. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC) The difference between gesundheit and bona fide on the one hand and opa on the other is that the former are actually used in English, and I don't believe the latter is. That's why I brought it to RFV, to see if citations can be brought forward showing that it's actually used in English. Gesundheit and bona fide are used by people who have no knowledge of German and Latin respectively; people don't even necessarily realized they're using a foreign word when they say them (which is why bona fide is so often misspelled bonified, because it's been reinterpreted as an English past participle). I just noticed the links you provided above, which are interesting in that of the three only one is used in a Greek context; one is in Lebanon and one is in Brazil. —Angr 08:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC) My Gangnam Style reference was a joke by the way. I wonder if GoodMeteors doesn't realize that Greek here is written in Greek script, and thinks that we're missing opa, whereas it's actually at ώπα. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC) It is nice to see that discussion is lively and ongoing. I understand the argument regarding the dictionary being descriptive, and how the more frequent meanings of 'ώπα' can be irrelevant here. That, of course, may result in an english speaker completely misunderstanding a person's apologies during a hypothetical minor accident while on holiday in Greece, misinterpreting them as an expression of 'cheer and good mood'. Anyway, I now see that the entry for the Greek language is also incomplete, as it is a copy of the one for the English language.GoodMeteors (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Entry added by anon IP who also engaged in other disruptive editing, removing an {{attention}} tag from another entry that clearly still needs help. Entry links to a ZH WP article that doesn't exist. Term also not found in the ZH WT. My Chinese reading comprehension isn't up to the task of verifying this. Can anyone else help? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC) The correct word is 火焰噴射器/ 火焰喷射器 (huǒyàn pēnshèqì). Without 器 (device) it means "flame throwing". Will have to change and reformat. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Brilliant, thank you Anatoli, much better! -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC) No worries. Moved 火焰噴射 to 火焰噴射器, created the simplified and reformatted. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC) 火焰噴射器 looks like SoP to me. Wyang (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC) The term can be decomposed into 火焰 + 喷射 + 器, no doubt, which will help for etymology (just created 喷射) but it's defined in many dictionaries as a single word - CEDIC, 火焰喷射器 on NCIKU. It's also a single word in English. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense for "hurt" definition, as it's not in the Unihan database nor referred to in several websites that reference the classic KangXi and Hanyu Da Zidian dictionaries. Bumm13 (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense: "(botany) Pertaining to the girth of an organ, rather than its thickness or length." -- Looks unlikely, and I don't find it in other dictionaries. The only botanical sense I came across says that the word is used of leaves, branches or buds that protrude directly from the stem of a plant. --Hekaheka (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC) "(idiomatic) Of poor or low quality." Needs citations that do not primarily fall under the other two senses, viz. "Cheaply manufactured in East Asia" and "Manufactured in the People's Republic of China". Equinox ◑ 18:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC) [edit] Hiberno English The entry Hiberno English (unhyphenated) is presented as an alternative spelling but it is, in fact, a misspelling. It should be deleted or, alternatively, changed to a redirect to the proper spelling, Hiberno-English (hyphenated). Leaving it in situ as an officially recognised alternative merely suggests a false legitimacy. This unhyphenated entry was originally defined as the main definition with the hyphenated entry defined as the alternative spelling. I corrected this error today by switching them around and defining the unhyphenated one as an alternative spelling but, in truth, it is just a mispelling. The following references attest to the proper, hyphenated spelling, Hiberno-English. Collins Dictionary Merriam-Webster Dictionary Oxford English Dictionary (subscription required) A Dictionary of Hiberno-English A Dictionary of Hiberno-English (another one) Wikipedia article O'Dea (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC) The misspelling of template is also a possibility, if it's common enough (which I doubt). Equinox ◑ 20:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC) It is not easy to find out if the misspelling is common (I have almost never seen it) because googling the incorrect spelling lists mainly results with the correct spelling. O'Dea (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC) They have the same spelling, just this uses a space in place of a hyphen. Honestly I'd just speedy keep this entry. We all seem to agree it exists, and it cannot be a misspelling if it has the same spelling as the supposed 'correct' spelling. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC) But Hiberno isn't an English word, for one thing — only a prefix. Equinox ◑ 22:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Good spot, I withdraw my comment. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC) If my request to delete this misspelled entry is acted upon, I suggest that the contents of Talk:Hiberno English be moved to Talk:Hiberno-English first. Thank you. O'Dea (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC) I'll do a full 180 then, just delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC) "(trademark) A female fictional character introduced in the 1930s." Hardly a useful dicdef. Needs to meet WT:BRAND, which is conceivable I suppose. Is there any generic sense: "a Betty Boop"? Equinox ◑ 23:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Dutch, meaning "diaper". There is an entry in this dictionary: [65], reflecting the dictionary content of 1922. Other than that, I can't find anything. Maybe it's dated, dunno. (The Google hits for the diminutive are for something different...) -- Curious (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC) English, meaning 'the'. Los Angeles isn't from los + Angeles but wholly from Spanish (see angeles). Is this used to mean 'the'? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC) The one example is simply wrong, historically. The city of Los Angeles was originally named (in Spanish), as "el Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula", the Town of Our Lady the Queen of Angels of w:Porziuncula, "el Pueblo de la Reina de los Angeles", that is, "the City of the Queen of Angels", for short. Over the years it shortened to "Los Angeles". Most residents who don't speak Spanish would have no clue what "angeles" means, since it's never been used as an English word hereabouts as far as I've heard in my half-century-plus living here. It may be possible to cite in terms like "los guys", but I think this is code-switching by Spanish-English bilinguals, i.e., Spanglish. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC) How does that make it not English? (PS: Los Lonely Boys comes to mind.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC) How about some citations? I bet what emerges is that there are some expressions like "los boys" and "los guys" that are acceptable, but general usage such as "los publication in an ophthalmological journal" isn't going to work. --BB12 (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC) That ignores the nature of code switching: choice of a given language is usually associated with a particular attitude, feeling, or context. For a Spanish speaker in an English-speaking society, Spanish may be the language of the familiar, the informal, or the heart-felt, so one would say los guys, because one's buddies are of personal emotional significance to the speaker, but "publication in an ophthalmological journal" generally isn't (a few wannabee published ophthalmologists notwithstanding). That said, code switching is a real minefield, because it could lead to entire semantic categories of terms in other languages being potentially deemed as English, because they can show up in grammatically-English sentences of code-switched English. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I feel that having citations is critical to determining what sorts of phrases "los" is used with. That will also help determine if there's code switching going on or if it is a genuine English word. If "los" is used in a clearly English context, we still need to determine what the semantic scope is. Can it be used for singular nouns? Can it be used in formal contexts? Those are all questions that have to be answered by citations. --BB12 (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC) I think it's significant that it's the name of a band. You can easily find all kinds of odd constructions in names of bands and book, movie, or song titles. There's no requirement for them to be grammatical, but there's plenty of motivation to play games with language to make them distinctive and memorable. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Sense: "To be in a high state of anxiety or fright." That regional slang tag is so useful I was going to take it to the tea room, but decided that either it can be cited (which would help us put a region there) or it can't, and we should just delete it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC) That's brick it (as the sense line states): it shouldn't be at brick. Equinox ◑ 00:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Portuguese rfv-sense: (uncountable, slang) money No luck finding cites in Google Books nor Usenet. — Ungoliant (Falai) 00:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Portuguese rfv-sense: (slang) a woman who has a beautiful and attractive body, but hasn't a so beautiful face — Ungoliant (Falai) 00:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Butterface? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC) — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Rfv-sense: (slang) smegma — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Nothing in Google Books or Groups. Podreel (capitalised) seems to be a specific software brand, not a generic noun. I cannot locate the verb anywhere. Equinox ◑ 16:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Same with podreels, podreeled, and podreeling. When this is deleted, don't forget the inflected forms. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Ido. I think we have on the order of thousands of unciteable Ido words; someone needs to go on a purge. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Anyone can purge; it seems a little obstructive to do that when you have no one who can cite.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Dunno what you mean by "no one who can cite". I agree that constructed languages should be subject to the same criteria as other languages; this needs to be used in an Ido text, not just 'if anyone were to use the word, this is what it would be'. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC) RFV of three of the entry's four senses: The first, "a costume that imitates a (usually fictional) character, especially from Japanese media", should almost certainly not be restricted to Japanese media if it is attested at all; see the talk page. The second sense, "the subculture centered on people wearing such costumes", may just have been an attempt to cover what the third sense covers ("the art or practice of costuming oneself as a fictional character"). The fourth sense, "a skit or instance of such play", is in dictionary.com, but would benefit from citations, and might even be redundant to the first sense somehow. - -sche (discuss) 04:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC) There is definitely a noun sense of the word. The best definition would probably be "The action of wearing a costume" of the type described in sense 1. bd2412 T 04:54, 24 February 2013 (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