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

Wiktionary - Recent changes [en]

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

Apr 27th 2013, 01:41

Revision as of 01:37, 27 April 2013 (edit) Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (Talk \| contribs)		Latest revision as of 01:41, 27 April 2013 (edit) (undo) Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (Talk \| contribs)
Line 2,814:		Line 2,814:
	== [[trata]] ==		== [[trata]] ==

−	Noun sense. — ''[[User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV\|Ungoliant]] <sup>([[User Talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV\|Falai]])</sup>'' 01:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)	+	Portuguese noun sense. — ''[[User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV\|Ungoliant]] <sup>([[User Talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV\|Falai]])</sup>'' 01:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:41, 27 April 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:

[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". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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)

diff. This is the same user that keeps adding unattested Gothic words and ignores all requests to stop. —CodeCa t 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. [18]), 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)

An opsimath. The given citation is a mention. I cannot find uses anywhere. Equinox ◑ 23:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

RFV failed; tagged for deletion. Equinox ◑ 15:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: The outback; the middle of nowhere.

Appears to be an error for Woop Woop.
(OTOH, an onomatopoeic sense looks citeable.) — Pingku^dimmi 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). --Wiki Tiki 89 08:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

metonymy Equinox ◑ 10:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, don't we consider metonymy to be SOP? --Wiki Tiki 89 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? --Wiki Tiki 89 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? --Wiki Tiki 89 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. --Wiki Tiki 89 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? --Wiki Tiki 89 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? --Wiki Tiki 89 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. --Wiki Tiki 89 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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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)

I've added some citations. -- Curious (talk) 20:17, 5 April 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. --Wiki Tiki 89 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 --Wiki Tiki 89 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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —An gr 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 [19]. The term is mentioned in numerous Java programming guides and in these books [20], [21], [22], 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)

I believe this entry is now cleaned up, with a fairly complete citations page. The original usage seems to be 1788, French Undécembre and Duodécembre. (See link on Duodecember.) I have found two independent cites for Undecember. Curiously enough, I've found four cites for Duodecember, but only two independent for Duodecimber.

In the citations page, I included a bit from a Java reference manual regarding its Java definition. This is 100% mention, of course, and is not being counted to get to 3, and it is obviously irrelevant to a human language dictionary what terms some programming library comes up with, but I think it should be present for the sake of all those who got all excited about it anyway. I deleted the (computing) tag and any reference to the Hebrew calendar. Perhaps a "see also" to Adar rishon would be appropriate?

There is a challenge in defining the non-existent, and currently it's not meeting the challenge. By being mushy enough, "a proposed name for any month that immediately follows December" covers suggestions to rename January "Undecimber" and to be the thirteenth month, and the like. Precision requires two or maybe three senses for the word, but that would run afoul of citing each sense. Suggestions? Choor monster (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2013 (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". --Wiki Tiki 89 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. --Wiki Tiki 89 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)

RFV failed; tagged for deletion. Equinox ◑ 15:21, 15 April 2013 (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? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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)

I have seen it used in reference to any convincingly feminine individual with a Y chromosome, whether there is hormone modification or not.69.198.206.106

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-failed. - -sche (discuss) 16:59, 7 March 2013 (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)

--Wiki Tiki 89 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. --Wiki Tiki 89 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. --Wiki Tiki 89 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)

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)

RFV failed; tagged for deletion. It looks as though this was created as a promotional stunt. Equinox ◑ 15:24, 15 April 2013 (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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —An gr 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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —An gr 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. —An gr 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. —An gr 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)

Not exactly. We have two choices:

We can put our definition in Appendix:Glossary and link to it.
We can change the text of {{eye-dialect}} to something else like "pronunciation spelling" (or do a redirect etc.).

The second option might compel us to be more specific about the nature of dialect that was being represented. DCDuring TALK 10:41, 27 March 2013 (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)

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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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.) —Ruakh_TALK 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... —CodeCa t 20:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps move to Appendix:Old Church Slavonic/носъ as a reconstructed term? --Wiki Tiki 89 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. —An gr 22:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

That is certainly helpful. Are those manuscripts available anywhere online? —CodeCa t 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. —An gr 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? —CodeCa t 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. —CodeCa t 20:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

[edit] снъха

Again, same. —CodeCa t 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)

Based on the book search, I think the British meaning is "to scare" (which I've just added and cited) while the challenged sense is Australian. Should be citable too, but it's bedtime. Equinox ◑ 02:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Citations added. I agree with the Australian, but it is perhaps not solely so. One citation might be US. — Pingku^dimmi 08:01, 26 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)

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)

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). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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)

Esperanto: androgynously. Yeah right. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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}}. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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 —CodeCa t 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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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? —CodeCa t 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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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: [23]. 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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:51, 5 January 2013 (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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was in the local Mary Poppins translation. So that's one cite. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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 [24] 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[25]. 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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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)

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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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? —CodeCa t 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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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... —An gr 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... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 08:24, 18 March 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: [26], 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)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 08:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] 䦉

All language sections. - -sche (discuss) 00:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Verifiable: [27], from the Dictionary of Variant Characters by the Ministry of Education of Taiwan. 129.78.32.23 04:43, 11 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)

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? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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"? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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) 04:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be used [28][29][30], but I did not find anything durably archived. Possibly a slang expression. It also appears to be a dancing and/or music style [31]--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)

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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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)

Marked the legal senses as "archaic". Rfv closed. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:26, 25 March 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)

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) 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 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)

"Starfish" in text messaging? I smell troll. Equinox ◑ 17:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't this nominated before? --Wiki Tiki 89 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)

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 "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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

A rough Google Books search is sufficient to verify this: [32][33][34][35]. 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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

below [36]. 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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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." --Wiki Tiki 89 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)

RFV failed; tagged for deletion. Equinox ◑ 15:26, 15 April 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.

[37][38][39]

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. —An gr 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. —An gr 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.) —An gr 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 passed since we have 4 Usenet citations from User:Astral. Equinox ◑ 15:28, 15 April 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)

RFV passes, clearing. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:26, 1 March 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)

w:en:Pandeism#Notes, + 100k google hits, suggest it's substantive. Or memeness gone amuck. - Amgine/ ^t·e 02:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh there's no doubting that "Pandeism" as defined at pandeism (combining pantheism and deism) is a thing which exists, and is well enough attested. That's what the Wikipedia article is about, and what its notes bear witness to. But this challenge is not to that definition, but to the 'secret cult' sense solely set forth here under the capitalized variation, a sense which lived and died fairly exclusively in the mind of one man. And most any further reference to this especial meaning will arise, I'm certain, from plagiarists of material once found in Wikipedia, but removed therefrom for lack of notability or verifiability or some like Wiki watchword. DeistCosmos (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: An impoverished servant.

There is but one cite for this sense. DCDuring TALK 17:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted the entire noun section as uncited. I also wonder if the citations currently under the adjective section might be scannos or typos. - -sche (discuss) 08:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Per WT:ID#mot-dièse. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 08:56, 6 March 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)

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)

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)

Finnish misspelling, per Talk:vuorottainen. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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)

Dutch, per Talk:fanel. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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 passed. Equinox ◑ 15:30, 15 April 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)

Plain Google search returns many English hits. Google Books search returns some hits in English as well. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:15, 3 April 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. —CodeCa t 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. —CodeCa t 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). —CodeCa t 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.
- [40] appears to be a business name in a telephone directory, so that probably doesn't meet CFI
- [41] is in Chinese, so ditto there.
- [42] is a TOC listing, pointing to [43], 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...
- [44] is a dupe of the above quote.
- [45] is basically another dupe of the above quote.
- [46] 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.
- [47] 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. —CodeCa t 02:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Done ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

RFV-failed (again). - -sche (discuss) 20:35, 3 April 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." [48] 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: [49], at around 1:26). — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 00:42, 11 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. —An gr 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]]. —An gr 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)

RFV-failed, deleted and stricken from the conjugation table. - -sche (discuss) 08:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"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)

Deleted the sense. Rfv closed. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:31, 25 March 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". —CodeCa t 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? —CodeCa t 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. —CodeCa t 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. —CodeCa t 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. —CodeCa t 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, [50], 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)

RFV Passed: The sourcing issue has been resolved. --Neoconfederate (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"a new digital currency that he called bitcoin" fails the use-mention distinction: can we get a better one? Equinox ◑ 20:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Note Reopened by User:-sche. Still not satisfiably attested. Equinox ◑ 15:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Note that the challenged citation is from an article on Bitcoin. Click through and you'll see numerous better citations. Naturally enough, the article opened with mention, giving a definition of sorts. But the rest of the article is pretty much all use.

I added two citations from The New Yorker, two articles posted on-line earlier this month. Note that Bitcoin Magazine is a genuine real-world hard-copy mostly-monthly magazine, for sale in better Barnes and Nobles everywhere and from Amazon.com. Curiously, the website doesn't seem to acknowledge its paper version, but it definitely exists. (There was also a NYT op-ed on Bitcoin from Paul Krugman the other week.)

If you look on Amazon.com, you'll find several titles containing Bitcoin. (Plus Bitcoins for sale.)

For what it's worth, Parmy Olson We Are Anonymous (2012) has several mentions of Bitcoin. Choor monster (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Per WT:FB#chiarifimento. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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? —An gr 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: [51], "Add a little "opa!" to your life", [52]. 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. —CodeCa t 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. —An gr 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. —An gr 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)

One cite comes up at google books:"look like they're made in China" which subsequently explains itself in the next sentence in such a way that I think it counts. google books:"crappy made in China" and google books:"crap made in China" seem to rather fruitful collocations of this sense. Clearly, the writers don't care about where the plastic crap was actually made when they say that. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:07, 27 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: [53], 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.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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)

I think if "los" is considered English, "el" certainly should be as well. I've never actually heard los used this way, but I have seen newspapers use ad hoc compounds like "el stinko", which is clearly English, not Spanish with an English loanword. You could even find "el house-o" etc. For Los Lonely Boys I'd say you could analyze it either way, or even just as a mixed language neither English nor Spanish. Also, I guess my "el" examples are actually examples of "el .... -o".Soap (talk) 12:34, 10 March 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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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)
I found an Ido listserv post that uses it, but I doubt I'll locate three durably archived uses. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Is it really three for Ido? How much durably archived Ido is there? We have the power to change it to one, remember. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
It already is one. All languages are considered LDLs unless they appear on the list of WDLs, which Ido doesn't. —An gr 20:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Ido does appear on WT:WDL; line 8, "approved constructed languages."--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Does that mean all conlangs that we accept here are considered WDLs? That seems to raise the bar unfairly high for them. I'd have thought Esperanto is the only well documented conlang. —An gr 22:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Purges in languages that we know are easy; someone can actually look things up. If we don't have an editor fluent in or willing to work in the language, then you could get rid of a lot of citable vocabulary quickly. Ido is probably a hard language to cite, since it's on the WDL and its heyday was probably in the 1920s and 1930s, where Google doesn't display.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
As the author of the "approved conlangs" clause, I'd like to explain myself. Conlangs that have been approved for the mainspace have only been ones with followings — that is, auxlangs. Most auxlangs work by creating more and more terms, enough to fill every gap, by adding prefixes and suffixes (Esperanto), regulated shifts from one phone to another (Afrihili), declining excessively (Volapük), or by compounding idiomatically (Toki Pona). Ido may be documented no more than an LDL, but because it has word-producing superpowers most LDLs don't have, and because it has followers who will add terms in it with dedication that most LDLs don't have, it is a danger in my mind. Sure, my logic has holes, but I just want to prevent an abuse of Wiktionary space. So, yes — I set the bar higher for conlangs, but I did it for a reason. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that policy has a side effect which makes it easy to impoverish Wiktionary of conlang equivalents of technical terms, like formal words for small bones rarely mentioned in everyday conversation. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It only deprives Wiktionary of terms that are used exceedingly rarely, or not at all, and are thus basically neologisms. It seems that zigomatala is a prime example of such a word. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems no more neologistic to me than its (also unattested) English equivalent zygomatic. Just uncommon. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Since when is zygomatic unattested? It may not have citations added to the entry, but a Google Books search turns up lots of uses. I even remember it from a Physical Anthropology class I took a couple of decades ago. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I meant unattested here, not unattestable. I fully expect it would pass RFV if anyone put us to the trouble of verifying it. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:53, 5 March 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)

I've cited the final sense ("skit or instance"); this is countable ("I've done many cosplays"), whereas the "art or practice" is not ("I enjoy cosplay"). Equinox ◑ 21:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a real word (certainly Hindian is citeable) but it may be too much of a neologism to be citeable. Don't get fooled by the Indonesian hits and the British eye-dialect hits. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: flatulent. I can't find anything but haven't looked very hard (it's difficult for a common term like this). The meaning is not even in Urban Dictionary, leading me to think its addition was spurious. I'm listing it here just to be sure though. This, that and the other (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "London". The sense "village in Nottinghamshire" is also suspect, so I guess I'll RFV that too. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

For details of the village in Notts, see GENUKI. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

According to the entry itself, Gotham doesn't mean London, one author used the word Gotham to refer to London (and in Latin, not English!). The definition seems to be claiming this is not CFI meeting (only used by one author, and not in English). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense x2: "A speaker of Hindi, as opposed to other languages of India; or more generally a Northern Indian (Aryan) as opposed to a Dravidian." and "An Asian Indian, as opposed to an American Indian (Amerindian)." All I see clearly on BGC is the Hindu nationalism sense and the two geographical senses. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

'Zubr' is a slavic (Russian, Czech, Upper Sorbian, ...) word for wisent / European bison (Bison bonasus). I've never encountered it as an English word before and found it it none of my dictionaries. --JaS (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

google books:zubr found me several citations pretty quick. I don't have time to type them up, but finding them was not hard.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I cited it and split it into two entries, though the first could use cleaning up by someone with more knowledge of the species involved then I have. There's a modern use that's cited with not great cites that clearly refer to the extant European bison, and then there's an older use. I used copious cites on the first to make it clear that the authors were not entirely clear on what the zubr was, and certainly not agreeing with each other on where the lines were; perhaps someone can clarify the definition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks more SoP than Phrasal to me. (And I'm extremely lenient with possible phrasal verbs). Any cites showing phrasal-ness? -- ALGRIF talk 14:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

What would such citations look like? DCDuring TALK 15:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense for "carry" definition, as it's uncited and not in the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Similar as for 優 listed below -- I think whoever added that was confused about how we do things here. To "carry" and to "bear a burden" are basically the same thing. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Definition: :A traditional weapon/tool used by the prehistoric settlers in the Maltese Islands. The anastasi had a phallic resemblance."

This was added by an IP years ago. I was tempted to speedy this, but truth can sometimes be stranger than fiction, so I'm bringing it here. Among other reasons this looks suspicious: use of the word "traditional" for something presumably only known from archaeological remains, and the reference to "a phallic resemblance". Chuck Entz (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

"A person who supports another person because they are of the same gender." Virtually nothing even in a Google Web search. Equinox ◑ 21:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense for "of quality" definition, as it's uncited and not in the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I suspect it's a misunderstanding of how senses are organized here -- "of quality" could well be considered a synonym of "excellent" or "superior", which we already have listed. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Added repeatedly. Supposed to mean "LOL", or "hello", or "I'm kidding you". Unbelievably etymology. Equinox ◑ 22:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleted as blatant vandalism and page protected. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Archaic and regional, not widely used. Maro 18:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

So, you're confident this exists? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Can be found in some dictionaries from 19th c., but I don't know if it's Polish or Kashubian. Maro 18:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Two hundred years ago Kashubian was considered as a Polish dialect so this word was in "Polish" dictionaries. Maro 18:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you think it's definitely citable in a language (just not necessarily Polish)? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
It's in the Słownik Etymologiczny Kaszubszczyzny, volume 2 (ISBN 8386619813), so it appears to meet the CFI to which Kashubian words are subject (one durably-archived reference mentions it as a Kashubian word). A number of durably-archived references, including dictionaries of Polish, mention it as a Polish word, too, but (as Maro says) they date from an era when Kashubian was considered Polish. (They're also not uses, so it's unclear whether or not this can meet CFI as a Polish word after all.) I created this entry and the following one; would anyone object to me changing their L2s to ==Kashubian==? - -sche (discuss) 21:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] glomzda

Archaic and regional, not widely used. Maro 18:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Well here's a couple of examples of people making this mistake online: http://www.sofieloizou.com/blog/p,43/ https://twitter.com/TheMaggieDoyle/statuses/213018991906656256

At least it is obvious enough that I knew right away that it was Polish. :)
Is it really Polish? A native Polish speaker would probably never write it like this. Thus it must be some other language, but which? --Hekaheka (talk) 06:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I deleted it. Definitely not Polish. Some illiterate expats may have used it using English letter to approximate (and incorrectly) the Polish pronunciation. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Not entirely certain where to start with this. —This unsigned comment was added by ‎66.170.252.1 (talk • contribs).

Well, a good place to start would be Google book search, where you will find many hundreds of usages of the word. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is this here? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Because an anon had never heard of the word, and couldn't be bothered to see if it actually existed. Shall we just remove the section? SemperBlotto (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Passed as in clear widespread use. - -sche (discuss) 20:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Urban dictionary has it, but nothing obvious on a Google book search. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Before I read this, I saw the entry, checked Google Books and Google Groups, found nothing, and speedied it. The clincher was the link that was provided in the entry- to a Reddit thread stating that the word had just been made up. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Turkish. Our IP user has made up a new word... (Do we really need to verify obvious vandalism?) -- Curious (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

For the benefit of those of us who don't know Turkish, why is this obvious vandalism? This page suggests the identification of gündizme with "calendar" may be accurate. —An gr 21:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not whether you speak Turkish, it's whether you remember the previous history with this person. According to Curious (talk • contribs), they're trying to wipe out all the non-Turkic loanwords, one protologism at a time. Curious (talk • contribs) also mentioned an online Turkish dictionary that "coincidentally" adds entries for these new words at the same time they're added here. I just checked Google Books and Google Groups: zero hits. Apparently the correct word is takvim, but that's from Arabic, so it looks like they've made up a replacement from Turkish word-elements or by modifying a word from some other Turkic language. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

When I listed this word yesterday, there were about 10 Google results, including some duplicates. 24 hours later, there are ... 6810 Google results. Impressive! (The high number is caused by the "new" section on every single page of certain websites.) Googling again, this time with "gündizme -borg" to filter those out, gives me just 19 Google results. Looking at those 19, I see: a) several spam accounts of this user, all spamming the same weird words that this IP user also adds to wiktionary; b) dictionary www.ingilizce.g3n.in , a dictionary created by this IP user, containing his invented words, c) online dictionaries that can be freely edited by any person; d) non-Turkish (Kazakh); e) duplicates. Google again tomorrow, and you'll see more spam accounts of this user and more online dictionaries being affected. This spamming is happening to all words that this user is adding to wiktionary. "Verifying" the words of this user simply means that we are watching the online word-spreading activities of this user. I know that what I wrote here has no effect on the outcome of this verification process, but I believe the community should know what is happening. When evaluating Turkish entries added by an IP user, please remember that seeing "thousands of Google results" and/or an entry in an freely editable online Turkish dictionary doesn't mean anything: it could all be produced by the IP user himself.

@Angr: that page is made by this IP user. -- Curious (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

What are you maundering about? --88.238.184.199 02:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This is non-sense. If there would be an effort for trying to wipe out all the non-Turkic loanwords, why that online dictionary displays both Arabic and Turkic ones together? Or why do i not change the calendar entry by replacing Arabic origin "takvim" with Turkic origin "gündizme"? You say often something like "Google Book has no hits...". The copyright conditions are more restricted in Turkey than many other countries. For example (as far as I know) a book is not copyrighted after 50 years since its publishing date in USA but it is not copyrighted after 100 70 years since the date of its author death in Turkey (think about the difference).There is a wrong derivated word in Turkish "alınık". It is a new addition in Turkish, perhaps some authors used it in their books but if they do not make their books "public license", Google can not publish them. So, if you search Google, you can see this word is very commonly used in Turkish, but there is no result in Google Books. If a Turkish learner saw this word and looked up Büyük Türkçe Sözlük (published by Turkish Language Association), this word is not listed there (probably because of it is a wrong derivated word). So, this kind of words may not be added to wiktionary? If the answer is "no", how do the people learn their meanings? If you are talking about Google Groups, it is not very commonly used in Turkey. (I am not so good at English, if you don't understand something or what i mean, you may ask me and i may explain it again). --88.238.184.199 11:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The strategy is obviously based on unobtrusiveness: removing commonly-used terms would be too obvious and too disruptive and would invite a backlash that would expose the attempts at manipulation. Simply adding the new terms without explanation increases the chance that people will pick up the new terms without realizing they're new. As for your comment about Google Books: their database is full of copyrighted works. If a work is still in copyright, they show it as a hit on searches, but limit the display of the text: either showing just a snippet that includes the highlighted search term, or just showing general information about the work without any text from within it. I would be extremely surprised if they handled this any differently for Turkish works. By the way, I don't know where you got the 50-year figure. Sites like the Internet Archive and Google Books seem to follow a 90-year standard for US works- currently they limit access by default to anything after about 1922. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
For the US, it's 95 years from publication or published pre-1923, as the last copyright extension was not retroactive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, search the word "alınık" in both Google Search and Google Books search, and then see the difference between them. Your criterion is not working with the Turkish vocabulary. (I've searched it again, noticed there is one result with the same meaning, but it is very little comparing the Google Search results.) --88.238.184.199 02:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I read somewhere it is 50 years or perhaps i remember it wrong (confuse with an other country). Anyway, it doesn't matter. The vocabulary of Turkish has been being changed since the foundation of TDK. If you compare Redhouse's Turkish dictionary (1880) with present Turkish-English dictionaries, you can see many differences between the Turkish vocabulary of that time and the present one, while English words mostly remain the same. It's not important if this word will be removed from Wiktionary, but that person whose user name is Curious, says "our IP user made up...". I don't accept that. This word is a derivation from Kazakh, some people wrote something about it a few years ago. I guess, he thinks I made this word or I am the only person who writes about these words on internet and he is kind of blaming me for this. He says even that i am a language purist but i am not. I am using both foreign origin and Turkic origin words in daily life or on internet. Even if the only ones who use these words were language purists, is this a criterion? Why this comes again and again as a matter? Then some people may say "let's delete X word, because it is used by communists". Tell me what the official ideology of Wiktionary is, then i can think about which words may not be accepted here. --88.238.184.199 16:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Shall we just do this the normal way? Three durably archived citations spanning at least a year. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Obviously "not envied". However, there are no results on Google Books or Google Groups, and there is precious little in a general Web search, so I think this just might not be a word that has been used. Equinox ◑ 23:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This word is spelt almost every way imaginable... except, it would seem, this way. I see only one BGC hit and a suggestion that the OED may have it. - -sche (discuss) 02:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Foolishly added this entry for completion. I can't find enough citations in books from the 17th or 18th centuries. As for Google Groups, I am hesitant. --Æ&Œ (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

"(slang|offensive|AAVE|ethnic slur|by extension) Any white male, especially large and clean shaven." Equinox ◑ 20:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Specifically referring to its use as a general term for flash cards. Memory Stick (Wikipedia link) is a specific brand and set of formats of flash memory card created by Sony and largely used on their cameras, camcorders etc, and other Sony devices such as the PSP (Wikipedia link). While there is no doubt that the term exists, I do not believe this to be a genericised trademark and is thus not synonymous with flash card (but rather a subset of it).

I am unsure of the rules regarding trademarks and capitalisation (and I couldn't find anything on the topic of trademarks beyond WT: Trademarks, which doesn't really go into detail), but judging by how things like German nouns are treated I would imagine that even if its inclusion as a specific sub-type of removable flash media card were permitted, it would have to be capitalised and thus belong in Memory Stick rather than memory stick. Also, the current translations (which include things like SD-Card (the Germanisation of SD card, see Secure Digital (Wikipedia link)), a distinct flash media card format) would be invalid if used in that sense.

I did do a quick search for Memory Stick on Google Books, but it is difficult to sort through as it would appear that Google treat "memory card" as a positive match. Whether that indicates that it is treated synonymously, or that Google simply broadened the results, based on the match with "memory" as the first word of the term, I am unsure. A second search with Memory Stick in quotes narrowed the field significantly. A search for SD card didn't seem to have the same problem, quotes or otherwise.

Of the results I did get that matched "Memory Stick", the vast majority referred to either the specific type of Sony cards (including variants such as Memory Stick PRO Duo, Memory Stick Micro etc) or to the other sense as a colloquial term for USB flash drives. There was however one which was ambiguous as to whether they were referring to the specific type of card, or cards in general: this entry, which refers to memory sticks (uncapitalised) but to the reader as a "memory card reader"/"memory card slot", multiple times. This seems like a strange difference to employ if not referring to the Sony cards, but there doesn't seem to be any reason for them to use the specific version given the context. There were also a few other uses, such as this one, which was published almost a decade before either the Sony cards or USB drives came along; I think they are referring to RAM DIMMs (Wikipedia link), as RAM is often referred to simply as memory, and DIMMs are often referred to as sticks (in various constructions, e.g. RAM sticks, sticks of RAM, DIMMs of memory etc). My search was not exhaustive (I went up to the fifth page on the "quoted" search), but that was the closest I found to an attestation.

Alphathon (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know if this belongs here, but it is related: it seems dubious that the given etymology applies to the second definition (i.e. USB flash drive). How would that be rectified (referring to formatting, page structure etc)? Alphathon (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone? Alphathon (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

- -sche (discuss) 16:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I think someone may come here and write "every single Google search result was written by our IP user, he is a spammer bla bla". Can you delete that entry without waiting for this? --88.238.184.199 01:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

There is 1 Google Books result, some dictionaries (which are not open ones) contain this word (e.g. TurEng and Gurafe), there are some forum posts dated 2011 contain this word (that means, it has been being used for more than 1 year). --85.102.151.232 00:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Citations. You need 3 for Turkish.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Some Google search results:

Çağalar ma sınalgı: The infants and the television (10/27/2011)
Uyduyu sınalgı yerine monitöre bağlamak mümkün mü? Is it possible to connect the satellite to a monitor instead of a television? (10/24/2011)
Sınalgı hırsızlığına gözaltı Custody for stealing television. (10/28/2011)
Sınalgı (TV) kartı olmadan video Video without TV card (10/24/2011)
Lifeview TVR Sınalgı programı (Türkçe yama) Lifeview TVR Television programme (Turkish patch) See the screenshot: [54]

All these forums and download websites have moderation. So, why the moderators (or admins) did not remove these topics? And many dictionaries contain this word (TurEng, kurgun, gurafe, g3n.in, e-okulum.org, and some others.) and these dictionaries are not open for editing like wiktionary. --85.102.182.123 11:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting but not relevant. As you say those forums are moderate so not durably archived (it is possible to remove material) and dictionaries aren't primary sources. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Failed, zero citations provided. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian, meaning "slowworm". Tagged by an IP. - -sche (discuss) 17:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The Serbian Wikipedia for "слепић" (slepić) (which is listed as a synonym for už) lists "ужак" (užak) and "гуж" (guž) as colloquial synonyms. The Russian "уж" (už), an obvious cognate, means "grass snake". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] увет

Serbo-Croatian; tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 17:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Like "už"/"уж" above, I think it's regional, specific to Croatia (Ekavian) and less known in others, which happens with Serbo-Croatian, which has a few standards and a large number of dialects. The creator is a native Serbo-Croatian speaker. The stem is definitely Slavic, it's also a word in other Slavic languages, including Russian (archaic), possibly borrowed from Bulgarian. The Ijekavian form "увјет" and "uvjet" are easily verifiable (the Ekavian is harder to check as it's used in other languages) and is used in the modern language. Since Ijekavian увјет/uvjet exist, the Ekavian увет/uvet are also valid. By checking this, I had another confirmation that Serbs also use Ijekavian. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

RFV of the two "Hanseatic League" senses: are they citable in this capitalisation, as opposed to Hanse? - -sche (discuss) 17:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I highly doubt the adjective is comparable. I find exactly one citation of the phrase "(it was) more Hanse than (the Hanse towns)", and that's of the capitalised word. - -sche (discuss) 17:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion moved from WT:RFD#Persil.

Survived RFD back in '06, but back then things were different. A brand name of a detergent. --Noodlefrow (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Take it to RFV to see if it passes WT:BRAND. Siuenti (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

google books:"some Persil" and phrases like "catch a Winston Churchill, wash him in some Persil, hang him on the line to dry" suggest this should pass. - -sche (discuss) 18:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, I find deleting "Persil" inadvisable. "Persil" is an attested single-word proper name whose entry can host English pronunciation. Unfortunately, WT:BRAND in its current wording seems to be supported by consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

RFV-sense "a brand of consoles". The citations currently under this sense verify the "a console" sense, not the "a brand" sense, and I expect that any citation that verifies the brand sense — e.g. "Sony considered selling PlayStation and two other brands to another company" — automatically fails WT:BRAND (for which reason, note the simultaneous RFD). But perhaps someone will surprise me and find citations of the "brand" sense that nevertheless pass BRAND. - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

RFV-sense "a corporation which produces plastic containers". Can any citation of this sense pass WT:BRAND? Also, can any citation that distinguishes the second sense from the third sense pass BRAND? If not, they should be combined. - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I added a tag to the third definition showing that it is trademark erosion. I think they should be split. --Dmol (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
How are other cases of trademark erosion handled? I note "bic" has only a general sense; "refidex" has only a general sense, but mentions the brand in the etymology; "kerlix" has only a general sense, but has a usage note; "Zamboni" has an ambiguous definition that might refer to any ice-resurfacing machine or only to those of the particular brand. I haven't found any other entries that split brand-specific from trademark-eroded senses (but then, I haven't found many entries at all, so examples may be out there). - -sche (discuss) 22:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a family of four related adverbs (compounds of "there", "here", "where"). I can only find results for "hier tevoren" and such (with a space, which would be an alternative spelling), and they all seem to be from very old texts, several hundred years ago. Are there any modern attestations, or any without the space? The latter two entries don't exist, but they appear in translation tables so they should be deleted from there if not attested. —CodeCa t 22:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The language indicated in Wiktionary for the first two entries is Dutch.
google books:"daartevoren" yields hits confirming the existence of the form. The first three hits are the following: [55] (1801), [56] (1856), [57] (1896?). Clicking further hits in the search shows occurrences written solid, without a space. Thus, the first word is easily attested as obsolete or archaic.

google books:"ertevoren" seems to only find non-Dutch hits including Norwegian ones, and Dutch hits with spaces.

google books:"hiertevoren" seems to find attesting Dutch hits, such as this: [58], [59], [60].

google books:"waartevoren" finds only two hits, both Dutch, one written solid: [61].

--Dan Polansky (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

RFV-sense: do citations of the sense "a company" which meet COMPANY and BRAND exist? See my comment about #PlayStation, above. - -sche (discuss) 22:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

A Turkish native speaker Sabri76 (talk • contribs) thinks this is not a word in Turkish. I cannot find this would-be word in Google books search, so I request attestation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

If you consult to any Turkish native speaker, it will be proven that there's no such thing in Turkish language. I do not want to blame anyone but it's a fact that some Turkish people hate Turkish words of foreign origin. They always create new words that using "Pure Turkish" affixes, suffixes, stems and bases. This word is one of them. They proposed this word instead of elektronik on some forum pages. elektronik is a frequently used word and it's hard to change people's habits. If we use this word, noone can understand what we mean. Indeed, there's no information in dictionaries of Turkish Language Association. In the light of these facts, it's so meaningless to discuss it.--Sabri76'^talk 09:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
The English Wiktionary looks for 3 uses in print or other durable sources. It's entirely possible for çıncalık to reach that status without being a word the average user would know or use, and quite possibly without finding its way into dictionaries. We have a lot of obscure English vocabulary that way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
However, there's no such durable sources for it. You can find this word just in some blog pages and Internet forums in a title of proposed words of Turkish origin. As far as I know they're not durable sources...--Sabri76'^talk 10:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I request attestation of this Turkish would-be word in the sense of "electron". Entered by an anon who created çıncalık, whose existence was questioned by a Turkish native speaker. google:"çınca" electron puts in doubt the hypothesis that this is a Turkish word meaning "electron". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It's same as the discussion about çıncalık.--Sabri76'^talk 09:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I can find no evidence that "nedvěd" is a Czech word meaning "bear", even if a dialectal word. The usual Czech word for "bear" is medvěd. An etymological dictionary does not count as evidence. I have never heard or seen "nedvěd" as a Czech word. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, here is what looks like attestation: [62], [63], [64], [65], [66]. Retracted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting one. I thought Polish niedźwiedź was the only Slavic one with initial "/n/". Ukrainian ведмідь (vedmídʹ) had a /m/ and /v/ transformation. Will add to Appendix:Proto-Slavic/medvědь. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A Latin neologism meaning "user". This seems to be pretty recent, and I've also seen usuarius, but I don't think that either of those is citeable. Note that we interpret the CFI to require 3 uses for a Latin term only used in medieval times or later, like hamaxostichus. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

usor tends to be used fairly regularly on the Latin Wikimedia sites (eg. Vicipaedia, Victionary, Vicimedia), although I can't find any outside usage. It's probably idiosyncratic.

On another note, I found this interesting discussion about whether usor or usuarius should be used. - Znex (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: A casual sexual partner that is exclusive to the men of one fraternity; a slam piece.

Entered by a noted lexicobungler. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

RFV-sense "(also with lower case p) Describing a person set in their ways or doesn't smoke, drink or have sex, particularly one religious and/or Scottish; a Puritan." Note that presbyterian is missing such a sense. - -sche (discuss) 20:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

RFV-sense "branch of Islam". Isn't the branch called "Sunni Islam"? Is it ever called plain "Sunni", the way "Christianity" is "Christianity"? Sentences like "his religion was Sunni" strike me as using the adjective, not a proper noun. If a proper noun does exist, how common is it? - -sche (discuss) 01:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

In Turkish we say "ben sünnîyim" (lit. I am Sunni). --Furious (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Google results:

Turkish usage:

"Ben bir Sünniyim" (lit. I am a Sunni, noun): 62.500

"Ben Sünniyim" (lit. I am Sunni, adjectives): 6.090

English usage:

I am a Sunni, noun or adjective (a Sunni Muslim, etc.): 295.000

I am Sunni, adjective: 282.000 --Furious (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
...I don't see how that's relevant. - -sche (discuss) 03:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
They are used interchangeably. Similarly to "I am Shia, one could say "i am Sunni". See

Adil's wife was Sunni, the Prophet was no more Shi'ite that he was Sunni, They asked him if he was Sunni or Shiite Pass a Method (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you are looking for Sunnism. Pass a Method (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Those are uses of the adjective. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 15:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, as Ungoliant points out, the sentences you've posted are irrelevant. Even if "I am Sunni" were using a noun, it would have to be using a noun meaning something like "a follower of Sunni Islam", not "a branch of Islam", unless religions themselves were having an meeting. "Hi, I'm Christianity. — I'm *Sunni. — I'm Hinduism." That is what I'm looking for: proof that "Sunni" is (as our entry currently claims) a noun meaning "a branch of Islam". I think the nounal names of the branch of Islam are "Sunni^adj Islamⁿ" and "Sunnismⁿ", not *"Sunniⁿ". - -sche (discuss) 19:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I think what we would be looking for is someone saying that they or someone else "belong to Sunni" or "follow Sunni" or "practice/believe in Sunni". All three of those look wrong to me, but, as I've said before, truth can be stranger than fiction. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I think I've cited it. Please take a look. DCDuring TALK 21:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Also the adjective, including as a comparative. DCDuring TALK 21:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the Teju Cole quotation counts; it seems to be using three adjectives, and I note we duly don't define "Kurd" as "a tribe..." but instead as "a member..." (the tribe being "Kurds") and also don't define "Shiite" as "a branch of Islam" but instead as "a member of the Shia branch of Islam". - -sche (discuss) 21:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first could be interpreted as a case where Sunni is modifying an understood but not expressed noun. The second is possible, but not ironclad. The third is a one-off bending of the grammatical rules by treating adjectives as if they were nouns- unless you think we should add a "religion" nominal sense to Shiite and a "tribe" nominal sense to Kurd.

I checked Google Books for the wordings I gave above. Almost all of them had the phrase in question followed by a noun which "Sunni" modified: Islam, branch, faith, belief, custom, etc. There were at most a couple of ambiguous, but not particularly compelling exceptions. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
@Chuck: Ah, the old fused-head argument. I know it well. But "one-off bending grammatical rules" seems to me to be begging the question. If a word is used as a subject, then there is a prima facie case that it is behaving as a noun for some users.

@-sche: I was mainly interested in the foundation point as to whether it is used as a proper noun. If the definition needs adjustment, so be it. It looked encyclopedically - and normatively - over-precise to be a real-world definition anyway. We don't want Wiktionary to get all Victorian, do we? DCDuring TALK 23:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
re "whether it is used as a proper noun": in that case, I'd point out that I still see no evidence that the string of letters S-u-n-n-i has any proper noun sense, as long as "Christianity", "Catholicism" etc are considered simple ===Noun===s. (The string does have, I think we all agree, at least one common noun sense: "a believer of the other major branch of Islam besides the Shiite branch".) - -sche (discuss) 00:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if there are citations of "Sunni" being used to mean "a branch of Islam", that phenomenon seems significantly less common than the use of "Sunni Islam" and "Sunni" as an adjective, for which reason I still think the entry needs to be overhauled (to put the ===Adjective=== section first). - -sche (discuss) 00:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd think the proper definition, if there indeed is a single one for these cites (I don't think there are many more.), is "Sunni Islam". DCDuring TALK 00:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The arabic noun is "sunna", so the english equivalent "sunni" is correct, Leave it as it is Pass a Method (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Shi'a

As above. (Actually, I would be less surprised if this were, as claimed, a noun, than if Sunni were a noun.) By the way: "Christianity" and "Islam" only claim to be nouns; are "Sunni" and "Shi'a" really proper nouns or should they be simple ===Noun===s, too? - -sche (discuss) 19:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

One of two of the cites for Sunni (proper noun) would seem to also use Shi'a as a proper noun. And similarly for any adjective sense. DCDuring TALK 21:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

RFV-sense "immorality in general". - -sche (discuss) 01:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

In Turkish, we use the word "puştluk". It means both "sodomy" and "immorality". --Furious (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
But the disputed definition is English.--Dmol (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I think that sense reflects what many young children (to whom the other definitions have not been explained) are told or gather from the way the word is used. It reminds me of the explanation my father gave me for SNAFU: "situation normal all fouled up". I was perfectly happy with that explanation until early adulthood. DCDuring TALK 15:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this attested as an idiomatic expression? With a little effort, I can find books that use "gods bless you" not as part of a larger expression like "may the gods bless you", but those books also seem to be using it as a straightforward, SOP request for gods to bless someone. - -sche (discuss) 02:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you make of these: [67], [68], [69], [70]? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 02:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I saw Black Road before I posted, and thought it seemed like an unidiomatic use. I can't see the Perdido Street Station snippet, but China Miéville's other books contain various "gods" phrases used in imitation of "God" phrases, so his use probably is idiomatic. True Jersey City Story uses "Gods bless you" (capitalised mid-sentence), though it uses it as idiomatically as can be expected. And I can't find the phrase in the Usenet thread. - -sche (discuss) 03:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Perdido: 'Gods bless you,' she screamed down the slate, into the night.

Usenet: Gods bless you dear.....*wiping the tears of sentiment away from my grizzled 34 yo eyes*......GODS BLESS YOU! *G* // "God"? That should be "Goddess" less you be FAKE
— Ungoliant ^(Falai) 03:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "To obtain from a proper authority". As a humble non-native opinion, it would seem to me that "to issue by" would be closer to the meaning than "obtain from". --Hekaheka (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The existing definition is not wrong. Other dictionaries have "to obtain by legal or official process" and "to procure by application". In the citation the council was not issuing an order, which is an example of the language used for it doing something within its power, but applying to a court for the court to issue an injunction or court order.

I prefer something like the broader definition "to procure by application" as it covers things like loans and insurance policies, membership (in an organization that has dues or some kind of restriction), library cards, as well as injunctions, patents, etc. DCDuring TALK 12:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I got it now. Please go ahead with your def, I think it would make the entry clearer. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (Shakespeare) A creative and unpredictable jokester, a constant source of entertainment and surprises. WT:RFC#pistol brings up the issue of whether it exists at all. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Widespread colloquial use in the US. I think of it as a euphemism for pisser. "She's a real pistol." DCDuring TALK 13:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if sense 4 is redundant to sense 3—can the term really be applied only to small boys in the Southern U.S.? —An gr 21:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I managed to not see sense 4. Yes that is a tame version of the definition. The sense formerly marked Shakespeare looks like a PoV definition to support a particular theory for the derivation of the sense. A case could easily be made for it being metonymously derived from hot as a pistol. DCDuring TALK 21:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone without any religious affiliation.

We now have none#Noun, attested. Is this capitalization really attestable? DCDuring TALK 13:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There are more capitalised refs at Nones Pass a Method (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It's also worth checking whether this isn't just a general term for anyone who falls into a none category (religion or otherwise) in a survey: e.g. people with 2+ children, people with 1 child, and "nones". Equinox ◑ 20:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Daukei, ostensibly from Kiowa?

An anon added this term. I have no knowledge of Kiowa other than what I've just read these last few minutes. I do note that this e-text lists a term Da'-km, of uncertain orthography, as translating to English "Great Spirit", possibly synonymous with the "Creator" sense given by the anon. Then again, google:"Daukei" suggests that this might be a surname.

Can anyone verify this term, and possibly fill out the entry a bit more? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

All the Google Books and Google Groups hits are for an American Indian surname. Nothing remotely connected to "Creator". There's definitely a Kiowa term often translated as "Great Spirit" or "God", which is quite similar. The spelling "Daw-kee"/"Daw-Kee"/"daw-kee" seems to be the most common. "Daukei" might be interpreted as a variant transcription of the Kiowa word, but as English, it seems to be nonexistent. I suspect someone with the Daukei surname is trying to promote a connection between the surname and the Kiowa word (or is suffering from delusions of grandeur). Chuck Entz (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

okey-dokey-smokey (the hyphens vary) is attestable from Google Books. Not so sure about this form. Equinox ◑ 09:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Cited as okey-dokey, Smokey. Astral (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I was somewhat surprised by this meaning. It would make it a cognate to Natter, but without the n- (which also happened to Dutch adder and English). Is this just an alternative form of Natter or are both actually used distinctly in the same language/dialect? German Wikipedia has nothing about this on its disambiguation page w:de:Otter (Begriffsklärung) so it can't be all that well known. —CodeCa t 20:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does. Directly above "Kriegsschiffe" it says, "deutsche Bezeichnung der Vipern, z. B. Kreuzotter". And it's certainly well enough known that people sometimes refer to the mammal as Fischotter to distinguish it from the snake, though in most circumstances that isn't necessary since they're different genders. Etymologically it is a by-form of Natter; Kluge says it's the East Central German form but points out that the Swabian/Allemannic word, as well as the Breton word (in addition to the English and Dutch words), also loses the n-. —An gr 22:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Should this really be defined as {{dialectal}} {{alternative form of|Natter}} then? —CodeCa t 22:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
No. It's etymologically a dialectal by-form of Natter, but synchronically they're both words of pandialectal standard German, and they mean different things: an Otter is a snake of the family Viperidae, while a Natter is a snake of the family Colubridae. —An gr 22:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Strike this then. —CodeCa t 23:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This is actually quite plausible: there is apparently a Swahili word mzingi, and different Bantu languages have different noun-class prefixes, so it's entirely possible that some language in southern Africa has this word for some species of weaverbird. "Plausible" and "attested in English" are two entirely different things, though. There are simply no Google Books or Google Groups hits at all for this as a word with this spelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
If you study the edit summary on the left, it seems he's saying Jezenga is his own surname. I also notice that he literally can't spell his own first name (the user name and the one in the edit summary are different). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
He seems to be saying his name is "Tinashe Jezenga" and his user name is Tinashej, which is first name + initial. If so, the second part of your comment is totally out of line. Choor monster (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
This spelling and some wild-card variants Not found in Avibase nor OneLook.

I have mzingi referring specifically to w:Quelea quelea, the red-billed quelea which the WP article calls the most abundant bird species in the world, found in much of Africa. DCDuring TALK 11:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Google books for "weaver jezenga" turns up a hit on an English-Shona dictionary without preview or snippet. My guess is that it's a native word, it probably is used locally to name the bird in question, whether speaking English or Shona, but outside its use as a family name, it hasn't made it into print yet. Books on birds often include the native names, but frequently just as a mention, not use. Choor monster (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much stock to put in a single hit with no preview or snippet, given that both Weaver and Jezenga are surnames that might conceivably show up in the author/editor list (among other places). Chuck Entz (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Of course we don't rely on it. Just like we don't rely on Tinashe J. But it seems plausible enough. So it was an open invitation for someone to look it up off-line. Choor monster (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
If someone were to create Appendix:Glossary of unattested Shona terms and put a few items in it, we could use {{only in}} to direct users there without violating WT:CFI. This approach might work more widely. DCDuring TALK 16:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

WT:COMPANY. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's also the name of a city in Ibaraki Prefecture: Hitachi,_Ibaraki. I'm fine with the company name being dealt with however is appropriate (probably by being removed), but we should add the place name as a proper noun.

I've been tied up for most of my free time today with a response to Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2013/February#Stripping_extra_info_from_Japanese_romaji...

Anyway, I'll get around to 日立#Japanese at some point. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've expanded the entry to cover other senses, proper noun and otherwise. However, I'm not sure if that satisfies the stipulations of WT:COMPANY for purposes of retaining the company name sense. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The company called Hitachi is a world known brand, much more known than the place name. Having another meaning should make sure that the entry is kept with all senses. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, move to keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Kept. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense for given Korean readings, as it's uncited and not in the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 06:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense for given Korean readings, as it's uncited and not in the Unihan database (same as above). Bumm13 (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Every one of the citations of the noun is hyphenated, as is every one of the first two pages of google books:"stay behinds". Do unhyphenated citations exist? If so, are they more common than hyphenated citations? If not, the lemma should be moved. - -sche (discuss) 16:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've created stay-behind and moved the original citations. Also I found some citations for the term/form in question. The discussion remains open for now. You confused me a moment with the "two pages," but then I remembered my setting of 100 per page is not the default... :) — Pingku^dimmi 13:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! RFV-passed (with stay-behind as the lemma). - -sche (discuss) 17:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

German for "masturbation". There are three "cites" on the page, but at most one of them seems to be an actual cite rather than merely a mention. The term seems to have been coined by some author but then not really used by others... Longtrend (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I found a 4th citation and added it today.

The WT:CFI only require 3 citations spanning at least one year. But now we have a total of 4 citations for the term "Sünde der Affen" and they span three centuries.

So I think there is clearly enough evidence for the historic use of the term "Sünde der Affen" and therefore we should keep the page.--Tissot2013 (talk) 05:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
The last "citation" is definitely only a mention: Also Michaelis kennt verschiedene Modi von Masturbation, die er "die Sünde der Affen" nennt. In the third citation, Google Books doesn't show me the context that the phrase is used in. The second citation raises the suspicion that "Sünde der Affen" is not an idiomatic unit but simply SOP, otherwise it shouldn't be possible to add a second possessor: Die Selbstbefleckung ist die Sünde der Affen und Meerkatzen... Only the first citation that you added recently seems to be ok, but it's still consistent with my theory that it's just SOP. Longtrend (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

How in all worlds can this be a valid pinyin syllable? -- Liliana • 17:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

In pinyin transliteration, characters are written with a tone number, such as ma3 or li4 (this is to enable the indication of tone where a diacritic can't be used). "Toneless" characters are sometimes written with a "0" or a "5", to indicate that there is no missing tone number, but in fact an intentional lack of tone. An example would be ma5. Since hm is a valid pinyin syllable, and since it typically has no tone, it is properly transcribed in pinyin as hm0 or hm5. bd2412 T 04:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Is it? Since when can pinyin syllables have no vowel at all, in any form? -- Liliana • 07:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
If English syllables can, why not Mandarin pinyin ones? —An gr 08:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. hm5 is one of several possible transliterations of the Chinese way of saying hmm (I suppose a Chinese speaker might ask how in all worlds "hmm" could be a valid English syllable). bd2412 T 12:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Correct, no vowel. From ABC dictionary: "噷 - hm intj. (of reproach/dissatisfaction) humph", also transliterated as hèn (hen4), hēn (hen1), hm (hm5), xīn (xin1). hm and hm5] are variant pinyin forms, the former is toned (neutral tone, so no tone mark), the latter is numberer pinyin. One syllable numbered pinyin is allowed here. Another example of a pinyin syllable without a vowel is character "嗯" - ń (n2), ň (n3), ǹ (n4), ńg (ng2), ňg (ng3), ǹg (ng4) or ēn (en1) (a non-verbal exclamation); ńg intj. What?; Huh?; ňg intj. How come?; Why?; ǹg intj. O.K.; Agreed! --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I asked a few native speakers who regularly use pīnyīn what they thought. None of them had ever seen any of these vowel-less transcriptions and a few said that they must be mistakes. One who is also fluent in Cantonese said that they would be fine there, but unacceptable in standard Mandarin texts. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The pinyin is from the respectable ABC dictionary (I couldn't find an online version). Ask your friends to check Wenlin (a must have tool for Chinese learners). You won't find pinyin without vowels in the tables for standard Hanyu Pinyin, and some dictionaries replace with syllables from those tables but it's not what is actually pronounced, so other dictionaries attempt to record the sounds more accurately. Characters like "噷" or "嗯" are used when what is said is non-verbal, some mumbling like "hmm", "huh?", e-er. The actual tone and pronunciation differs depending on the speaker and the mood. The characters are seldom used in standard Mandarin texts, I agree, you'll notice if you watch Chinese movies/drama with subtitles. Interjections are often omitted or replaced with more formal words. E.g. if a person says "OK" (common in colloquial Chinese), the subtitles will say "好" but "噷" or "嗯" are used when it's important to convey exactly what a person says. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I note that, although this entry is said to be a romanisation of 噷, zh:噷 includes several possible romanizations, but not this one. - -sche (discuss) 00:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Most likely their source for pinyin is different. Usually hanzi entries are imported from somewhere. I quoted exactly the entries from the "ABC Dictionary" above (ISBN number is 978-0-8248-3485-2), no online version but there's an electronic version incorporated into Wenlin software. Here are two more confirmations

1) 噷@Kxue Please search for [②]［hm˙］叹词。表示申斥或不满意。 (on two lines), hm˙ expresses hm in neutral tone. "叹词。表示申斥或不满意" means "An interjection. Expresses reprimand or dissatisfaction".

2) Pleco Dictionary - a world known dictionary producer for PC's pocket PC's and mobile phones - I have an electronic version on my android has pinyin "hm" for "噷" and an example sentence "噷，别提了。" (hm, biétí le) - "Humph, don't bring that up".

I can say the same thing about "嗯", don't make me search for it. :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Mandarin -- Liliana • 17:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: A female rabbit. Sometimes also used to describe a female ferret, weasel, or wombat.

I can't find it in online dictionaries. Of course, I am using dictionaries only as a hint; what is requested is attestation in use rather than referencing from dictionaries. Entered by a red-linked user in diff in 2009. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It's in Webster's Third New International with the meaning "female ferret", and everything I can find on Google Books seems to refer to ferrets—even when my search string was «rabbit "the jills"». See [71], [72], [73] —An gr 10:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: A female goat.

Not in dicts; is it attested in use? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Surely this is widespread use. I had never heard them called anything else. It's only when I went checking that I found they are also called does. --Dmol (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
It is true that online dictionaries tend not to have this meaning at nanny alone, but only at nanny goat/nanny-goat. Nevertheless here are some uses of "nanny" alone (I actually searched for "nannies" to filter out uses of "nanny goat"): [74], [75], [76]. —An gr 10:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Cited. Astral (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Portuguese rfv-sense: season

I can't think of any sense of vez that is equivalent to any sense of season. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 18:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I've actually seen this word in running French text, but I'm not so sure it's citable. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

My first impression upon seeing this in the edit history was to think about the program Equinox linked to elsewhere, and the taxonomic names Ochisme, Polychisme, Nanichisme, Marichisme, etc... Chuck Entz (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

My first thought was that it was lolspeak, and that, "No, I don't wantokisyu." -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Uncitable misspelling of Nietzschiano that doesn't pass WT:FICTION. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 13:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Certainly makes sense etymologically, but I can't find any usage. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Word for word copy from [77] - deleted. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The last entry looks off "An unpleasant or poorly executed idea or project.". Pass a Method (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've heard this before. I'd say it could be considered a variant of sense 7 though, since generally no one intends for art to be ugly on purpose, it can only happen when something goes wrong, which is what sense 9 is. Soap (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added 3 citations. Equinox ◑ 23:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Pyro-technical drawing

Technique or method of using the element of fire in the composition of art. Been using this method since 1985. Drawing and effects with metal stencils on timber using a hand-held blow torch.

Is this a correct and verified term?--Cjfinlaysonart (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)or here first. 19 March 2013 > www.finlaysonart.co.nz

No Google hits for "pyro-technical drawing" two for "pyrotechnical drawing". --Hekaheka (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete per self-nomination. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

English: "the nose". I was going to delete it as nonsense until I noticed that it was added by a good contributor back in 2006. I'd still like verification. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

google:"hit him on the boko" and google books:"hit him on the boko" seem to find appropriate hits. Including one from Wodehouse. :) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 04:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't heard anyone use this term for many, many years. The OED has it as slang, possibly pugilistic. I've marked it as dated. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Added three cites. Equinox ◑ 23:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A user on the feedback identifying himself as a retired biology professor has asserted this term is wrong and only phytotelma is correct. Boogle Gooks has only 4 hits, all of them in the species name Smittium phytotelmatum. —An gr 12:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

But there are very many hits for the the more common plural phytotelmata. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
But that is also the plural of phytotelma, which the retired biology professor (not to mention Wikipedia) identifies as the correct word. It's one of those Greek words in -ma whose plural is in -mata. To the extent phytotelmatum exists at all, it's probably a back-formation from the plural phytotelmata. —An gr 13:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely. The ph and the y are dead giveaways that this is from Greek, and Greek -ma / -mata is a very common nominalizing suffix. In Latin, one would have to assume a neuter participle of a non-existent verb *telmō, since, according to Lewis & Short on Perseus [78], there are no lemmas ending in -matum. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this (phytotelmatum) was an error from the start. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Phytotelmatum is wrong and should be removed. word phytotelma (plural phytotelmata)

Deleted. The singular of phytotelmata is phytotelma. —An gr 19:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense - business sense. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It's in the context of labor and politics and probably not in "business". It is the kind of thing that folks complained about concerning "efficiency experts", at least since F. W. Taylor. DCDuring TALK 17:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
It is hard to define the term as a "demand by an employer" without it being PoV. Is a usage such as the following supportive to some kind of generic rhetorical usage?
1989, Jesse Jackson, Frank Clemente, Keep Hope Alive: Jesse Jackson's 1988 Presidential Campaign, page 116:
Like workers on an assembly line, families face a kind of "speedup" — working harder than ever just to stay in the same place.

I am reasonable sure that many more such usages will be found. DCDuring TALK 17:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to reword the definition without taking into account the cite above. This is a term that clearly generates a visceral response and has more than its literal meaning. I'm not sure how one gets cites that unambiguously support the "no increase in pay" part of the definition. DCDuring TALK 17:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

RFV-sense "school". (I do see some non-durable blogs comparing schools to jails.) - -sche (discuss) 19:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

[79] [80] [81] One for "jail", two for "prison". Choor monster (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I can only see the middle link, and it's not using the word prison with the definition "school", it's referring to school metaphorically as a prison. —An gr 22:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Debatably it's not even referring to the school as a prison, but the education system as a whole. This isn't relevant anyway, as the whole point of referring to the school as a prison is that it's a place for incarcerating criminals. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Here since 2007, one of two ever edits by 72.71.195.168 (talk • contribs). Mglovesfun (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "metaphor": you can't use that as a negative, since secondary meanings are quite often fossilized metaphors, so ingrained that we don't normally even notice. One meaning of "school" is the building education takes place in, but another meaning is the system as a whole, or at least the part that can be "in session". And what is the relevance of the nonrelevance of prison being a place for incarcerating criminals? (I'm missing your point, obviously.) For what it's worth, a prison is also a place for incarcerating innocent people, although normally that isn't anyone's intention. I presume the metaphor is that schools and prisons are places where people are tightly confined against their will. Choor monster (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
No one has a problem with dead metaphors and mostly not with those that are on life support. (Are we missing this kind of metaphorical usage? Only RHU has the metaphorical sense, for the adjective form.) It is live metaphors and similes that are not likely to be found entry-worthy by lexicographers. In a cross-cultural dictionary, there is arguably some warrant to explaining the metaphor to someone not exposed to the underlying literal referent, so as to have difficulty understanding. I don't think that applies much to this sense of jail. DCDuring TALK 13:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
There's no problem; in your citation (to Choor monster) the author is comparing a school with a prison, not with a school. This school is like a school doesn't mean this school is like a school, so there shouldn't be a sense at prison for school based on metaphors alone. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it would be hard to find citations supporting the usage that a prison is a school for developing skills that can help one succeed as a criminal after release. Is either a "meaning" of the respective word? Including them will create a model for contributors to amuse themselves with by following, finding all the metaphorical usages of words with three attestations. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Added by an anon, probably our magic-obsessed UK resident. Could use a check by someone fluent in Chinese. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, only the Traditional and Simplified need to be attested; as long as the pinyin transcription is correct, it doesn't need to be attested in running text. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That's correct. We have a hanzi entry - 妖怪. Converted to a standard pinyin format per Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Pinyin entries. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: Given to excesses.

Is there such a broad sense of the term? Note that I have split this off from a definition that contained parts separated by semicolon. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Two sections up, a request to verify that "yāoguài" meant "a supernatural being, a monster, an apparition; bogy; goblin; demon; a evil spirit" was struck because the hanzi verified the pinyin: but the hanzi was created by the same IP, and the definition (which is what I imagine Eiríkr was requesting verification of) still needs verifying... - -sche (discuss) 03:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

zh.WP's entry on 妖怪 links to en.WP's entry w:Yōkai "ghost, phantom, strange apparition". Perhaps explaining why our entry lists so many translations, w:zh:妖怪 says "在歐洲語言中没有完全對應於妖怪的词汇，僅有意義相近的詞彙，例如英語的 monster（怪物）、ghost、spook（鬼）、sprite（妖精）、giant（巨人）、undead（不死生物）、devil（恶魔）、demon、fiend、evil spirit（邪靈）、elf（精灵）、goblin（哥布林）、bogy、fairy（小仙子）。" (roughly: "No European language has vocabulary which fully corresponds to this term...") - -sche (discuss) 03:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I've got the following from well-known dictionaries: monster, devil, demon, goblin, bogy. Just 妖 also gives phantom.

The Chinese Wiktionary also translates into Russian: "оборотень" (werewolf), "нечистая сила" (impure force, devilry); "призрак" (phantom, ghost), "привидение" (apparition, ghost). They all kind of similar and one can tell that it doesn't mean a very specific supernatural creature and also related to Asian mythology, not just European. The choice of words seems to be okey. See also 妖怪#Japanese. The EDICT Japanese dictionary gives "ghost; apparition; phantom; spectre; specter; demon; monster; goblin". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This is an umbrella term for any supernatural being in Mandarin. I don't like the definitions as they seem to alternate between specific creatures and creatures in general, when in fact it simply means the latter. They only serve to confuse people. I will simplify the definitions if no one else has any objections. I have also previously issued two warnings to this anon user not to touch the Mandarin entries as he/she seems to make the simplest and most ridiculous of mistakes. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 04:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Pursuant to the BP, there are 79 geological periods adjectives in lower case to check. A few is attested, but some others like gzhelian can't be found anywhere. JackPotte (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ghezelian gets thousands of raw hits at Google books., some with the and not having an explicit noun that they modify, in the usual mode of geologists referring to such things. CGEL calls that kind of thing a fused-head construction, I think. Whether we call that noun usage seems like a policy decision. DCDuring TALK 11:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue is whether it's attestable in lower case. Unlike JackPotte's native French, I don't think English uses these terms in lower case (except for rare writers' errors). Equinox ◑ 19:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I was too lazy to check the prior discussion. But why have both a proper noun and adjective sense? Adjectives can be used in fused heads that behave like nouns and proper nouns can be used attributively. Are these ever used unabiguously as adjectives, ie, comparatively/gradably "more/very Gzhelian in character" or as predicates? DCDuring TALK 20:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, the Gzhelian is a bit obscure... but exactly three good, paleontological hits come up for me when I search google books:"it is Maastrichtian". (The Maastrichtian has some truly excellent fossil assemblages, and definitely is one of the best known geological periods.) So yes, I would say that they can all be used adjectivally. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
We could continue to have the sense(s) essentially duplicated between adjective and proper noun headers or we could simply exclude one and illustrate usage as both modifier and nominal in usage examples, perhaps mentioning it as well in a usage note in the PoS we chose to retain. I personally prefer the economy of just one PoS, preferably adjective in light of the confirming evidence Metaknowledge found, but users may be less confused by having both headers. DCDuring TALK 02:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Metaknowledge, I think you also missed the point here :) The issue is whether it's attestable in lower case. Unlike JackPotte's native French, I don't think English uses these terms in lower case (except for rare writers' errors). Equinox ◑ 01:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Another by our magic-obsessed IP user. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't find any usage as a common noun on b.g.c. —An gr 22:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Grr. I was going to delete this when I saw it appear - but I got sidetracked. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This is based on the name of one fictional book in the w:H.P. Lovecraft universe, with an etymology that seems to be extracted from Lovecraft's explanation of the Greek behind the name he made up, and is highly implausible: neither Latin nor Greek seem to ever make compounds like that. There's no reason for splitting off this part of the name to make a common noun, so I doubt it has any usage- but even if were somehow to survive rfv, it's totally misleading in its current form. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This is marked as Middle Dutch, but the description mentions the Golden Age of Dutch history. That is actually the 17th century so that would make this early modern Dutch (which we group under ==Dutch==) and not Middle Dutch. Note that this proverb is still in use, but under its modern spelling de kost gaat voor de baat uit. —CodeCa t 21:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

books.google.nl has 40 hits for this. I suppose they could be all mentions. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
What is important is that the hits date back before 1500. I'm not questioning whether this exists, but whether it exists in Middle Dutch like the entry says. —CodeCa t 19:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
So worst case scenario, we can just change the header to Dutch? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess we can just change language to "Dutch". Even though spelling in this form is archaic, there are plenty of examples of analogous spelling well into early 18th century, plus from superficial googling it looks like those few who bother dating/attributing thing quote, attribute it to the early days of VOC (i.e. first half of 1600s). User:Anceurs/signature 22:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

RFV-sense "The sum total of all the complex processes of a single lightning event, including both what is invisible and what is visible or discernible to the human eye." That appears to be saying that not only the bright, well, flash of lightning, but also "the invisible processes" of it can be called a "flash". - -sche (discuss) 09:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the wording is overly verbose, but I guess it's saying the non-visible parts such as the electricity are also part of a flash of lightning. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
You are both correct. I wish "lightning" was as simple as people often make it out to be, but it's not, and it is often de facto "defined" as a verb describing the visible "flash" like a, ummmm "flashbulb" or "camera flash". :\ Here is at least one source. Uman/Rakov's "All About Lightning", the definitive guide on lightning will clearly specify as well. Let me know if you need more. Ironically, the scientific community adopted other similar verbs of what we see in lightning to name the processes [noun/proper noun] associated with it, i.e., "Strike", "Stroke", "Attachment", to name a few.... It has not made scientific/technical discussions about lightning easy. Cheers Borealdreams (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: the female genitals. Ƿidsiþ 11:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

...they would kidnap a girl and take her back to their camp where they would pull down her knickers, hoping to find hairs on her prat.

The Limerick: 1700 Examples, with Notes, Variants and Index, Volume 1 1967, p.124 (Sourced there to 1942?) :

"She's a far better piece
Than the Viceroy's niece,
Who has also more fur on her prat."

The Arms of Quirinus by Sherrie Seibert Goff, 2005. p135.:

My prat was sore from the unfamiliar activities of the night before, but my virgin bleeding had ceased, and we rode most of the day in that unworldly haze that comes with lack of sleep.

That should suffice. -- Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 08:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

See WT:ES#carpale. It's from Webster's, but the OED doesn't have it and there doesn't seem to be much use when not modifying a Latin noun (that is, when not being used in quoted Latin text). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I added 3 citations. Any good? Equinox ◑ 20:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

RFV for both JA & CMN. Added by IP anon known for rubbish. Literally means "rhinoceros dog". Maybe this should just be shot down on sight, I'm not sure. I do find some hits for JA at google books:"犀犬" "の", and some for CMN at google books:"犀犬是". Searching the wider web suggests that this might be specific to the Naruto universe, which would match this anon's known proclivities. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You're right, this character is from the Naruto universe, both Japanese and Chinese (translation from Japanese). I don't know what the deal is with fictional characters but we do have Cinderella, Thumbelina, etc., so I would keep them but correct definitions.

BTW, if you wish to check for Chinese only results in Google use character "这" or soemthing because "是" is also used in Japanese. Google automatically searches for both simplified and traditional, so a search for "这" will also find "這" (traditional). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, 是 is used in JA, but I don't think I've ever seen it right after a noun. :) I'm also most often using Windows' Japanese IME, so entering 是 is a simple matter of typing in zehi and converting that to 是非 and deleting the 非. Meanwhile, I don't know how to make the JA IME on Windows produce 这...

About this particular entry, I think there's a standard somewhere about criteria for inclusion for fictional universe terms. Ah, yes, I just found it -- Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Fictional_universes seems to suggest that anything specific to Naruto, and not mentioned in at least two other fictional universes, should be excluded.

So can anyone say if 犀犬 is mentioned in at least two other fictional universes besides Naruto? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You can type in 這う (はう) to get "這". Like I said, searches for 這 and 这 work identically. I think Google ignores spaces, so if you don't put quotes around your string, 是 can pick 是非, 這, can pick up 這う. You can't win. :) Restricting to Japanese searches is easier. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Outside of WT:FICTION? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It's used in a fictional work? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense #8: "An orderly crowd". Does it differ from the first definition "collection of people; a company; a number; a multitude"? --Hekaheka (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense Actually, any noun sense at all. (A gloss that doesn't read like an adjective would be nice, too.)
Note the already-created plural. — Pingku^dimmi 14:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

All the hits on Groups and Books are for either the Latin verb form, the English adjective, or in meaningless strings of random words. No hits in either place for the plural. Perhaps they were thinking of reboation. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I would just delete it. I think it was originally created with a noun header for an adjective, which was exacerbated by another user adding {{en-noun}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Definition:"Non-flying duties that are undesirable to pilots, such as infinite pieces of paperwork" Usage note: "Commonly used in the United States Air Force pilot community"

This interwiki was apparently the only entry for this user (here or on Wikipedia). A cursory look through Google books turns up nothing but representation of sounds and scannos for queer or queen. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Attestations found and added, 1 from Google books, two from Usenet. I also found two definite non-scannos for queep="queer person" (in the gay sense), but I have to get back to real life. Choor monster (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks cited. I can't see an RFV tag on the entry to remove. Equinox ◑ 20:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

That was me: I added the cites and removed the tag. Now I've added the strike out. Choor monster (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Please read the procedure for closing an rfv at the top of the page. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, fixed here and there, and a 4th cite added. Sorry about that. Choor monster (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I added some senses. Most interestingly, there's a sense used in w:Rowing (sport)#Equipment. I found no proper CFI sources on-line, however, the nature of the sources I found makes it seem certain there's an official definition that is being quoted. Choor monster (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
There's an invite for an RFV if ever I've seen one. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
That sounds about right. Some other rowing terms need verification, like sweep (two-hands per oar). Also, as implied above, a duo "Bitch and Animal" has introduced "queep=queer people", [82] and [83]. I presume these are not really independent. Choor monster (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Defined as "to escape, to flee". This definition seems wrong, at least for current English. No citations. Citations would help pin this down and possibly lead to removing the term from its use as a gloss in non-English L2 sections. DCDuring TALK 19:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a Wonderfool entry. Of course we judge entries by their merits not by their creators, yet I still find this relevant. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Something like google books:"fly away from trouble" where the flying is not literal flying (such as a bird or a helicopter) would do the trick. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
They are all about birds, aircraft, and fictional entities (realis) or people (irrealis) flying + away from trouble. IOW, negative evidence. We may need a more archaically worded prepositional phrase to capture older uses and more forms of fly. DCDuring TALK 15:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Mandarin entry added by known-problematic anon. Of particular note, I suspect that this term does *not* also mean necropolis, but I'm not sure how to check. A quick look by a high-level speaker would be lovely. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems OK, confirmed on several dictionaries. The translation of the Russian "некрополь" on the Chinese Wiktionary is "大墓地" (dà mùdì) "large graveyard". Nciku dictionary just uses "墓地" but explains that it's a large graveyard. Detagging. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The word for "photon" in Sanskrit. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think these two words should be given a bit more leeway. Sanskrit is somewhat not quite dead, much like Latin, and people use new words for modern terms in Latin too. I think use of Sanskrit is quite popular still in India. I would be more surprised if Sanskrit didn't have a word for a photon than if it did. So I think this nomination should be kept open until someone with enough knowledge can confirm that there are no attestations, rather than closing it because nobody bothered to check. —CodeCa t 23:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The word for "hydrogen" in Sanskrit. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

We have what seems like a good sense above this, but I'm not convinced there's a "A loser." sense independent of the more specific sense; even if there is, I doubt it's that general.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Would make a good word of the day, when verified. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The first sense would seem much harder to verify successfully, given the number of attributes in the definition. MWOnline, for example, has a much briefer definition and also has the wit to use "or" instead of "and": "a timid, meek, or ineffectual person". DCDuring TALK 00:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Questioning the note: "sometimes restricted to those which also share English cultural values such as democracy". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, something along those lines has been present since the article was 16 minutes old. —An gr 06:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

So, I'm verifying if SemperBlotto's edit was valid. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: transliteration of a Greek surname. Unknown to Ancestry.com. A Mr Papagou appears in an English book by Margaret Bullard (Wedlock's the Devil, 1951), but it could be a made-up Greek-sounding name.--Makaokalani (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, Papagos is a surname, and any women in the Papagos family would have the surname Papagou, because women's surnames are the genitive case of their father's or husband's surname. (For example, Maya Angelou, who was married to a Greek man surnamed Angelos.) —An gr 16:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, how stupid of me, "Mrs. Papagou" gets 3 b.g.c. hits. I consider the term verified. --Makaokalani (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"a disposable electronic cigarette" Possibly a brand name. Does not seem to meet CFI from usual sources. Equinox ◑ 13:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Since it says US, I assume it's a typo for vaporette or even more likely, for Vaporette. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Boogle Gooks knows Vaporette as a brand of insecticide, and regular Google knows it a German word for a vegetable steamer basket (though I can't find that on b.g.c.), but I can't find durably archived cites for it (either with or without the u) as the brand of electronic cigarette. Probably just sneaky advertising here. —An gr 16:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Text from a certain movie. It doesn't look like this is really used. -- Curious (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

However, you can find (old) attestations of déphlogistiquer (with a q, not a g). Lmaltier (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Alt spelling of racy; creator's usage note claims it distinguishes from the sexual sense. I can't find this spelling in any dictionaries and it isn't common in Google Books. I think it should be listed as a misspelling. Equinox ◑ 16:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Does not seem to be attested as a Czech adjective. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is attested, by searching for google books:"bolívarovská" and google books:"bolívarovské". I retract the nomination. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this is English. Capitalization seems wrong if the term is OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the capitalization format on Wiktionary. Make it lowercase if necessary. Looking at the Wikipedia article link would have given you verification but have added references which seem very uncommon on wikitionary entries so I originally omitted them but put the Wikipedia article link in the appropriate template. Mkdw (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
None of your references support use of the term in English. See Wiktionary:CFI#Conveying_meaning and consider making it a Chinese entry. DTLHS (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Each reference is in English and uses the word sheng nu. For example the BBC source says, "are called "sheng nu" or "leftover women" - and it stings". It does not distinguish that one is only used in mandarin and the other only in the anglophone world. Mkdw (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
But see use-mention distinction. Equinox ◑ 20:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
My question would be moving the page to 剩女 and then adding an English language alternative? Mkdw (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

(Capitalisation fixed by a page move.) Equinox ◑ 20:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Each occurrence in the given references are mentions, not actual uses (they are defined in the sentences, not used naturally), and are either within quotation marks, brackets, or in italics (To show it is a foreign term, not an English one). SemperBlotto (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Well not always. The New York Times article some times plainly refers to it such as "The Women's Federation columns on sheng nu all share the same goal: convince single, educated women to stop being so ambitious and get married already" or the CNN article, "Since 'A level' women are financially independent, they won't resort to dating 'C level' or 'D level' men, so they end up as sheng nu". Most notably that Cambridge University uses it in the open, "Contrary to the assumption that sheng nu are somehow pioneers for a new, more liberated generation of Chinese women, she found that most remain keen to get married." I won't argue too strongly for it, not 'married' to the terms definition here -- I've changed it to Mandarin Chinese anyway. Mkdw (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Ugh I changed it back to English. It's not Mandarin Chinese, which we call Mandarin, because Mandarin doesn't use toneless pinyin. Are you trying to getting this entry speedily deleted? I reverted and removed the Chinese characters because English doesn't use Chinese characters. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
The Chinese characters should appear in etymology and translations sections, though. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, for Mkdw, this is not Wikipedia, we do not deal with 'concepts' so much as with 'words' and 'idioms'. So the English sheng nu and the Mandarin 剩女 may be the same concept, but one cannot redirect to the other. If both are real, they must have separate entries, each in its own language. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Using Wiktionary entries, this would be shèng nǚ with diacritics. Not sure about the space in the middle. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to get it deleted... I created the page... two editors scolded me for calling it English, something about "use-mention distinction" and "conveying meaning". Upon their recommendation, I was instructed to change it to Chinese. Mkdw (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I have added the Mandarin term 剩女 (shèngnǚ) and fixed the etymology. The Chinese definition is confirmed from Pleco and Nciku. Doesn't seem only negative (a successful single career woman) but it's made more negative by some Chinese misogynists. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, when I wrote the English Wikipedia page, I did balance the article in that there is a movement amongst some that the term could be seen as a positive to mean "successful women". I think that could certainly be added as a second meaning for sure. Most sources I found noted it as derogatory which is why I cited it as such. Mkdw (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I differ to everyone's expertise here. I'm obviously not familiar with the way things work here so if it ends up being deleted so be it. Just thought it'd be helpful since it's in the official lexicon of the Chinese government and I had been working on the article on Wikipedia lately. If it is kept, perhaps it's me, but it seems really strange that you would have 剩女, and then sheng nu with the exact same definition (both in English) but not refer to one another. No worries either way; I'll bow out at this point. Sorry for any troubles. Mkdw (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's not take it personally if people have different opinions, albeit sometimes sharply worded. Right or wrong, I added "sheng nu" as descendant of 剩女 and added "剩女" to the etymology and translations sections of sheng nu. At least the terms are now interlinked. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Sorry but the Chinese translation was added by me :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The term may be right and exists in English but the creator insists on inclusion of "The term was coined by the Government of China in 2007 to pressure unwed women into getting married.", which was removed earlier by User:Wyang, a native Chinese speaker. The term existed long before 2007, not coined by the Chinese government, there's no doubt about it and claims about what was used in China and by Chinese and since when should be supported by native Chinese sources. Seems like POV pushing. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

On the specific year - 2007. It's the year when the term started to be used in the Chinese media, not when it was coined. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
POV pushing? Why the lack of good faith or absence in looking into the references I provided? Being a native Chinese speaker has nothing to do with being "right". I have provided several references that support the position that it was by and large introduced to the mainstream by the government. Here's the direct quote from the New York Times: "the Women's Federation Web site and found that it posted its first article on "leftover" women in 2007, shortly after China's State Council issued an edict on strengthening the Population and Family Planning program to address "unprecedented population pressures." These pressures include the sex-ratio imbalance — which "causes a threat to social stability" — and the "low quality of the general population, which makes it hard to meet the requirements of fierce competition for national strength," according to the State Council. The State Council names "upgrading population quality (suzhi)" as one of its key goals, and appoints the Women's Federation as a primary implementer of its population planning policy." Also, this quote from the BBC News, "State-run media started using the term "sheng nu" in 2007. That same year the government warned that China's gender imbalance - caused by selective abortions because of the one-child policy - was a serious problem." Lastly, the Independent UK, "It has been reported that the government is trying to shame these educated women into getting married and having children in order to breed a 'genetically superior' generation and tackle unrest amongst the many unmarried Chinese men." Lastly, the The Huffington Post, "The term refers to any unmarried Chinese woman over the tender age of 27, and was coined by the All-China Women's Federation, which was founded by the Communist Party in 1949." It is possible the term had been around prior to that, but every major source largely attributes this as the origin of the term in the mainstream (the Huffington Post directly says it was coined by the government) and that it was state sponsored. I can assure you that I am not pushing any point of view other than that which I have cited from some very reputable sources. Albeit English sources, and if Chinese sources of equal reputation can show otherwise then great. But I'm inclined to stick to the cited material first and foremost, and any "thoughts" on "POV pushing" or unlikely government propaganda where this view is not shared in an independent and reliable source I hope would not be an equally weighted against argument. I have adjusted the wording to allow the possibility that the word existed prior, but that it was 'coined' and used predominately to become a mainstream term by the state run media and government. Yes? Mkdw (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, the use of the rollback tool here to revert my edit, from my perspective, seems inappropriate. I'm not familiar with the exact outlined usage of rollback on the English Wiktionary, but Wikimedia defines it as "Rollback is supposed to be used to revert obvious vandalism." The English Wikipedia and Simple Wiktionary define the use of rollback similarly. All I could find was, "An edit should be reverted if it is clearly and irredeemably nonconstructive; vandalism" at Help:Reverting. I know this has been frustrating for all of you since I am new to Wiktionary. I've sincerely done my best to differ to other editor's advice here. I've received some criticism and accusations which are not true, obviously not trying to delete an entry I created in the first place, and especially since it was advice offered by others. Also, I am not pushing my own opinion onto the content and meaning of the word. I have provided sources for everything, and I speak English which is why the sources I have added are in English. The word we've agreed is the English variant at this point, so English sources make sense to me. I think some Chinese sources would be extremely useful. It's important to note that the studies the English articles largely cite are from Chinese university's done by Chinese-English speakers, so we're not exactly getting an Anglophone only research. For example, the Cambridge study was done by Sandy To in Shanghai between 2008 and 2012 for Cambridge and partly the University of Hong Kong. I've found what I, and many others, would consider to be some of the best sources available known for their neutrality and accuracy in reported: The New York Times, BBC News, Pulitzer Centre, etc. I ask for continued patience and understanding -- I think we all want this entry to be accurate. If we could all, myself included, keep this focused on constructive discussion, allowing me to learn as we go the idiosyncrasies of Wiktionary, you will find I am generally very agreeable and formal in my approach. Thank you, Mkdw (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
At the end of the day the basic principle here is not references but citations. If pre-2007 citations can be found then the Etymology should at the very least be changed (probably along the lines of "popularised by the Chinese government..." or "officially adopted by the Chinese government..." etc., rather than "coined by"). Ƿidsiþ 08:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree. Based upon the government source User:Wyang found, it confirms that the term was recognized by the government in 2006, and not 2007. I think it's very possible that the term had been used loosely prior, but all sources at present indicate that it was coined by the government, when -- that seems open -- but that does not necessarily mean it's true, merely that the sources I have report as such. Mkdw (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the core issue here is that the Chinese-government angle is encyclopedia information, not dictionary information: the term already existed and was in general use before they put their own spin on it and made extensive use of it. It might merit mention in a usage note, but that's about it. Whether the term exists as English depends on whether it's used as quoted Chinese or as an English term for the Chinese concept. I'll leave that to others to judge. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The government has no relationship whatsoever with the usage of this term; what they did was merely publishing a report on the language situation in China that listed this term as a neologism to show that the Chinese language was continuously changing. There was an obvious misinterpretation of the original Chinese news, for some reason. Wyang (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I guess I missed that detail. At any rate, it doesn't affect my argument, which is that there was no "coining" or "popularizing" involved at that point: it was just another stage in the history of the term (at least as far as a dictionary's treatment of such terms is concerned). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

"The government has no relationship whatsoever with the usage of this term", that's your POV until you provide a reliable source that supports that position. Your argument might be true, but until you show us something that contradicts the numerous reliable sources I have found on the subject. If you have a problem about the accuracy of the New York Times or BBC, that's a completely different matter, but for now, they are regarded as reliable and independent sources and their reports should be the first and foremost driving source of the information relating to the term. I'm not here to soil the name of the government or push some agenda, it's merely what I have discovered about the term. Moreover, when we talk about 'coining' a word, it does not mean the first time a word is seen in print, but the first time the phrase or term is applied in its current meaning. For all we known shengnu could have existed before but not meant unwed women 27 years of age and older. Lastly, we have a source that says its coined by the government. A real reliable source. I cannot see us ignoring that source in place of opinions and original research offered here in the discussion pages. Mkdw (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I do doubt the reliability of those reports by NYT or BBC, as they diverged in meaning from the original Chinese-language reports they referenced. I have so far unable to find a Chinese-language source that links the word shengnu (either its coinage or "popularisation after 2007", if that indeed exists) with policies by the Chinese government. All I could find (see google:剩女 2007 教育部) is a report on the language situation in China published in 2007 by the Ministry of Education that included this word as a neologism, which is almost certainly what the NYT/BBC commentaries were in fact referring to. I therefore would not regard the secondary reports from western media as accurate descriptions of the history and development of the term shengnu. Wyang (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm concerned that 'most certainly' is your assumption of the facts. We have no idea what source they used, and whether or not they misinterpreted the source you found. For all we know, they didn't use that source at all and got their information differently. With out knowing for sure, we cannot challenge their findings because of our own findings in the limited sources we've come across. Also, I would be shy to use the word 'second hand' if that is the central argument for you to discredit the sources. Most of them are citing contributions and papers written by Leta Hong Fincher, Tsinghua University and Sandy To, University of Taiwan, and Li, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Furthermore, To's study took place over 5 years in China. We're not talking about overseas reporters writing at a desk about the matter. Mkdw (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It has been advised that work on a citation page would be useful for the definition. Would, "Contrary to the assumption that sheng nu are somehow pioneers for a new, more liberated generation of Chinese women, she found that most remain keen to get married." and "Sheng Nu want to walk down the aisle as much as anyone, but this growing class of highly-educated, high-earners also want to get marriage right." be suitable examples? Also, I wonder if "leftover woman" should have its own entry considering that its commonly used if not more than its 'sheng nu' counterpart? Mkdw (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have replied at Talk:sheng nu. Wyang (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any truly unambiguous citations. Some of them are definite mentions, some could either be interpreted as mentions (use of the Chinese term in the Latin script) rather than uses (using the word 'sheng nu' as an English word). Citations that don't mention that it's the Chinese for leftover woman would be a fine thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
This is something I can work on but have been busy with other things lately. Considering the request for citations, language, and capitalization have been met, would this meet the RFV at this point in time? Mkdw (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: An alcoholic beverage.

Any attestation of use of the term in this sense? Seems absent in dictionaries. There is an apparent plural "tiddlies". Searches: google books:"tiddly, and google books:"tiddlies". --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] 幽灵

CMN entries. Added by our obsessive anon. Checking the ZH WT showed that the pinyin was wrong. It'd be helpful if someone else could check the entry for def correctness, and to make sure I didn't screw up the pinyin in my attempt to fix it. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Checked with small fixes. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 19:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

CMN entry added by our obsessive anon. The ZH WT entry at zh:女妖 has RU ведьма (vedma) as a translation, which we have listed as meaning witch; the anon seems to think this equates to banshee. Is our ведьма entry incomplete? Is the ZH WT entry's translation table incomplete? Is this anon completely incompetent? You decide! (<-- attempt at tongue-in-cheek humor) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Checked this. Checked ведьма (védʹma) as well and added translations at banshee and enchantress. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 19:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Do the Chinese words you added as translations to banshee really refer to Irish folklore? Because that's part of our definition of banshee. I don't think the translation should be for any sort of death-presaging female spirit, but specifically for (Irish) banshees. (Incidentally, I have the same doubts about the Dutch translations fee and elf, and I really wonder what the Persian translation below the translation box says. I suspect it's more a description of a banshee than the Persian word for banshee.) —An gr 21:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Me and Tooironic sometimes add "no exact term exist". That's how Chinese borrowings often work, especially for rarely used words or mythological creatures. It's the best you can get. I added the term as SoP, you can see that there two Chinese words. The Chinese Wikipedia describes them as "Scottish" 女妖精 ("female evil spirit"). Like with goblins, elves, etc, only phonetic loanwords or cognates can more or less guarantee exactness. Another similar terms (no 100% match) are 丧门神 and 丧门星 ("messenger of death"). Chinese dictionaries use them to compare with "banshee". Will add those as well, remove Persian and Dutch "fee" and "elf". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fine if Chinese Wiktionary explains what the English word "banshee" means rather than providing an exact translation when none exists. But at English Wiktionary, which is oriented to English speakers, I think if Chinese and Persian don't have exact translations, then those languages should just be left out of the translation table. —An gr 10:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The Chinese translation 报丧女妖 is not an explanation, it's a correct translation of the word "banshee", even if it's a sum of parts with a literal "the announcing death enchantress". The Chinese term 报丧女妖 is also used for as the name of the toy. At English Wiktionary we use "{{t-SOP}}" or multiple "{{l}}" in such cases. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm a little irritated by "enchantress" here. I don't know what the implications of 女妖 are, but a banshee is most certainly not an enchantress by any of the definitions we currently have for that word. So if 女妖 means enchantress, then a banshee isn't a 女妖; and if a banshee is a 女妖, then 女妖 doesn't (always) mean enchantress. —An gr 14:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

When something is left out of a translation table, it doesn't tell me that there is no translation, it tells me that nobody has added a translation. Those translating into a language probably want something, especially if you've got a fantasy text with endless fantasy creatures with distant relationships to their mythological origins. (Banshees, of course, have always been incorporeal undead female elves.)

I'll note that 女妖 is what Magic the Gathering uses to translate banshee ([84], [85]). I would argue that when a million gamers know that 午夜女妖 is Midnight Banshee, 女妖 is an established way of translating banshee into Chinese.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 女妖 is also used as "banshee", as an extended meaning. 报丧女妖 is full term. Angr, I don't know the source for your irritation. Words change their meanings, that's common. Chinese uses 报丧女妖 or just 女妖 to mean "banshee", even if its original meaning is "enchantress" but that's not the only meaning. My Pleco dictionary gives "succuba" or female demon. As for the SoP translations, if our CFI didn't allow "bear cub" to be included, the valid SoP translation for the Russian "медвежонок" (medvežónok) or the French "ourson" would be "bear cub". If a language doesn't have a single word for "beauty" (beautiful woman) then translating as "beautiful" + "woman" into other languages is also valid. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
"even if its original meaning is "enchantress" but that's not the only meaning". That's what I wanted to know. The other meanings should be added to 女妖, because right now it's glossed only as "enchantress". —An gr 09:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It's kind of complicated again, I can't give you a simple answer without going into how Mandarin borrowings work. Consider this example: 元首 (yuánshǒu) means "head of state" but it's also used to mean "Führer". Translation of "Führer" as "元首" is perfect, that's how it's used but it's has a broader meaning but I don't it's very good to add "Führer" to the definition of "元首". 真主 (zhēnzhǔ) originally meant "the true God" but it now means "Allah". 女妖 without a qualifier means various female spirits, may also mean "kikimora" (a Russian female house spirit), like 妖怪 (yāoguài) may mean various generic supernatural beings, including goblins, demons, even if they are all very different. It may all seem primitive but as the Chinese language, due to the phonetic and writing systems, traditions and language policies is not absorbing a large number of foreign words but translates them in its own way. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
My problem is with using the English word "enchantress", which always has an implication of seductiveness but only rarely has an implication of the supernatural, as the sole translation of a Chinese word which seems (AFAICT) always to have an implication of the supernatural but not necessarily an implication of seductiveness. —An gr 10:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

"(UK, slang) idiot, stupid person". I am well aware of the Monty Python character but I've never heard this, and a quick Google Books search didn't turn up anything for e.g. "you are a gumby", "a right gumby", or other forms I tried. Equinox ◑ 10:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"To unnerve or faze." Seems like a confused error. Equinox ◑ 15:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"To show and act on deep closeness shared with another person." Not the first tense, to touch or kiss lovingly. I don't understand what this sense is getting at. Equinox ◑ 02:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This one has a weird history: it was added by a Croatian IP in this 2005 edit (the edit comment on their other edit doesn't say a lot for their understanding of English), removed by Connell McKenzie in this 2007 edit, and finally added back by an IP that geolocate shows as being in Irvine, California in this 2008 edit. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I already said something on the talk page for "viel" about this http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:viel The German word "mehr" is never declined like a normal adjective. I've checked Pons.eu and the German Wiktionary. According to them, "mehr" is not an adjective at all, just an adverb. It looks someone told a page-making bot that "mehr" was the superlative of "viel", the bot assumed that "mehr" was an adjective and went on to make pages for it like it would for any other adjective.

"mehre" and "mehren" can stay, because they are forms of the verb "mehren". Only "mehrem" needs to be deleted. Rkaup (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

A b.g.c. search reveals that mehrem was once the dative of mehr when used pronominally, as in ("He does not know about more"); everything I can find seems to come from the 17th century at the latest ([86], [87], [88], etc.), so I'd say it should be marked as {{obsolete}} or {{archaic}}. —An gr 22:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, the declension table at wenig also declines the comparative, producing things like wenigere, wenigerem, wenigeren, wenigerer, none of which exist in modern German. But I did also find b.g.c hits for wenigerem from as recently as the early 19th century, so although it's also obsolete it seems to have lasted longer than mehrem did. —An gr 22:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added the obsolete templates to mehrem, and mehre too. I wanted to add one of the quotes but I can hardly read them! It would be good to have one to show how these words were used. Rkaup (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in Google Books or Groups. There's a name, an acronym (both with different capitalization) and a completely unrelated term in Irish that seems to be occasionally used in English, so there are lots of false positives- but nothing with anything remotely like this definition. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleted - I couldn't find anything either. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I asked CokeHanx if they intended this entry for a different language, but no response so far. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense for the adjective. In a lifetime of kvetching, I've never heard or seen this as an adjective, and I can't find any such cites on BGC, although I may be searching poorly. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

[edit] catvertise

[edit] catvertisement

Previous discussion: Talk:catvertising

The following conversation is no longer live.

It has been archived here from User talk:-sche and removed from that page.

Around October 2012 catvertising was deleted for some reason but I can't locate the discussion around this. Can you point me to it? Woz2 (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

OK I found the discussion. I was taking a prolonged wikibreak and I missed it at the time... The term dates back to at least 1999

<ref>{{cite web | title = "THE first television commercial for cats was aired last night | url = http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-60242274.html | work = The Mirror (London, England). MGN Ltd. 1999. }}</ref> Can you restore it? Woz2 (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry it's taken me a bit to get back to you. I've moved the RFV discussion to Talk:catvertising. Was the term in use in books, newspapers, magazines, journals or Usenet posts as far back as 1999? If you can demonstrate that it was (or find a use of it from 2013), that'll satisfy the requirement that citations 'span a year', given that there are already citations from late 2011 and early 2012 here. Be aware that articles which merely mention the word don't count. Also, the article you link to seems to use "catvertisement", which is a different word. - -sche (discuss) 01:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:NORUSH I collected a bunch of cites in my sandbox for a wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Woz2/catvertising I'm not sure if this meets the WP:NEO threshold... I seems to me it does... The 1999 ref was The Mirror newspaper a RS in the UK. Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
This isn't Wikipedia of course. The original deletion was correct. Catvertising and catvertisement for a dictionary are two separate words, but for an encyclopedia one topic. We need to cite them separately. My guess is if they don't pass now, they will pass at some point in the future. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying wikipedia and wikitionary are the same thing... nor that catvertising and catvertisement are the same thing... just looking for general guidance from the experts here as to whether either or both terms have met the threshold for either or both works... Woz2 (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Some links that support its usage over the years 1999: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-60242274.html
2009: http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/9014
2012: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/adhocracy/the-wild-wacky-weird-world-of-webby-advertising/article2415040/

The following conversation is no longer live.

It has been archived here from User talk:-sche and removed from that page.

The section I started earlier didn't come to a resolution, so I'm reopening the request to undelete catvertising and catvertisment here. The words have been in use for more than a year:

1999: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-60242274.html (catvertisment)

2009: http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/9014 (catvertising)

2012: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/adhocracy/the-wild-wacky-weird-world-of-webby-advertising/article2415040/ (catvertising)

More here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Woz2/catvertising

Can you undelete them?

Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

...or give me a pointer as to how to move the ball forward? Woz2 (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to investigate this as fully as I'd like, either to verify that the linked-to citations are durable or to look for more, so I've moved discussion here. If the rest of you feel this term is adequately cited/citable, please do restore the entry. Remember, many an entry has failed because no citations could be found, only to pass a few years later thanks to Google Books' scanning of more libraries. :b - -sche (discuss) 08:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

See above, I couldn't cite it in March 2013 and it's now April 2013. Treat these are normal RFV failed entries and only restore with valid citations (not before). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
On the attestation section it says "this naturally favors media such as Usenet groups, which are durably archived by Google." A lot of the web is durably archived by archive.org so do web pages archived there count as durable? How about YouTube videos? Thanks!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkOQw96cfyE

http://issuu.com/creativemag/docs/november2009 Creative: The Magazine of Promotion and Marketing, ISSN 0737-5883 Vol 41 issue 4 page 80 (print mag)

Woz2 (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

YouTube definitely not durably archived; I have an account there and I can delete my own videos. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
OK How about archive.org? Is stuff there considered durable? Also one more print instance in New York Magazine Nov 28, 2011 edition:

http://nymag.com/nymag/toc/20111128/ Click on the link "Of mice and memes"

Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence for this. Equinox ◑ 16:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

1 Google Books hit for urdophone, 1 for urdu phone and 4 for urdophone (2 solid)- all, except for one of questionable ones, in French- 1 Usenet and 1 non-Usenet Google Groups hit for urduphone, and absolutely nothing for ordophone. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: A vehicle to warn other road users of the presence of an oversize vehicle/combination. Tagged but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I was surprised to see this listed, but when I looked for examples it seems to be a purely Australian thing. I've put an AU tag on it, but other than that it is in widespread usage.--Dmol (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
On second thought, I've adjusted things a bit. I have shortened the disputed sense to informal for pilot vehicle, created an entry for pilot vehicle, and have (at pilot) created an entry for the person authorised to drive such a vehicle during an escort.--Dmol (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"(slang, music) To perform, express emotion in an exceptionally exciting way." Equinox ◑ 11:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I notice we don't have any singing-related sense of wail. I think this is real if improvable. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I've added three cites and modified the definition. OK? DCDuring TALK 22:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Looks nice. Closing. Equinox ◑ 22:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be used as the name of various Web domains and Weblogs, but I cannot find any suitable citations in Google Books or Groups. Anyone else? Equinox ◑ 12:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems like this must exist...if you include the hyphenated form there seem to be enough cites, between Google Books and Google Scholar. Should probably be at non-cisgender though. Ƿidsiþ 12:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Citations:non-cisgender suggests it's totally unattested without the hyphen. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Well possibly. Personally I think an {{alternative form of}} entry is harmless. Ƿidsiþ 14:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The unhyphenated form doesn't get any hits in the usual places I look for citations. But, like Widsith, I don't see a major issue with including an "alternative form" entry for the unhyphenated form, since the hyphenated form is now attested. Astral (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Opinion is now a valid substitute for evidence, is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The search bar autofill doesn't account for hyphens, so if someone enters noncisgender, non-cisgender won't show up among the drop-down list of hits. Therefore, retaining an entry for the unhyphenated form is beneficial to readers, because it allows them to find the entry for non-cisgender, which they might not be able to find otherwise. And while I, personally, would avoid creating an entry for noncisgender if I could only find cites for non-cisgender, if an entry for the former already existed or was created by someone else, I wouldn't be of the mind that it it was worth deleting over an unattested hyphen. People often choose to add or omit a hyphen when dealing with words prefixed with non-. Astral (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

We could always replace the content of noncisgender with {{only in|Wiktionary's entry on the term '''[[non-cisgender]]'''}}. - -sche (discuss) 15:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

A bloggy thing: the verb. The noun would probably scrape through, but nobody seems to use the verb anywhere. Equinox ◑ 12:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The noun definition was inaccurate. I revised it based on the citations I was able to find. So far, I've been unable to attest usage as a verb; searching for "blidgetting," "blidgetted," etc. on Google only produces Wiktionary mirrors. Astral (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The currently only defined sense: female genitalia, specifically vis lesbian sex.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that this entry was created August 29, 2008, the day that John McCain announced Sarah Palin (then-Governor of Alaska, noted for her fondness of hunting and consumption of hamburgers made of moose meat) as his vice-presidential running mate, it stands to reason that it was created as a jab against her. Astral (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if a page made by Tbot requires an RFV, but just to be safe:

This is not in any dictionaries at hand, and I have not heard it in real life. It's just 市内 (in the city) + 電車 (train), which conjures up a lot of trains including trams, but it is not confined to trams. It is used to mean "city train" as in 長崎市内電車 but in that sense it's just the sum of its parts. As for "tram," the correct translation is 路面電車. I have talked about trams a few times and 路面電車 was used then, and no other word as far as I can remember. --Haplology (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

SOP, and not quite correct anyway -- really just means intracity train. Added by anon Special:Contributions/193.144.127.144 in this bulk addition of translations in May 2005. Delete. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 02:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A few things about the term. I first heard about it when I talked to my female friend Yukie in Hiroshima. There are not many existing tram lines in Japan. Hiroshima has quite a developed network. She called the trams just 電車. When I asked her about it, she said that to distinguish from normal trains, they call them 市内電車. I added this translation in 2007, Tbot generated the entry. Check Google with images on "市内電車" and you will mainly see trams. I know it's a bit controversial but intracity trains in Japanese are often trams. Keep and change the definition. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No it's a protologism. Killed fast. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I found a lone cite from 1992, but nothing more. Astral (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: headshot. I have heard this used to refer to any shot that kills someone (from full hit points) in one hit, not just headshots. —CodeCa t 13:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sense 2 in the Translingual section states that this is used as a ligature of the Roman letters o and u (alongside the Greek letters omicron and upsilon). Is this ever the case? I'd imagine that it was informal and/or language-specific usage if so. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a ligature; it's part of Unicode's phonetic extensions, named LATIN LETTER SMALL CAPITAL OU. (It had origins in a ligature, but surely you'd use U+0223 ȣ for that if you insisted on using a character of that.) I've added Western Abenaki to the RFV; that should be ȣ, not the small capital phonetic version.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah! I hadn't noticed that. I hope this will prevent others from making the same mistake as me. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

N.b. #Ȣ. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm just going to copy over my argument from the discussion page, as I will not be returning to this request:

You don't have a single reference for this word's existence that occurs before the 1990's. Your references are coming from periodicals or websites: media that has a known track record for spelling inaccuracies. Is everyone sure they aren't just using misspellings to support the conclusion that "sluff" is a proper word, rather than the fact that people (usually Americans) have just continually misspelled "slough" out of laziness or ignorance?

The claim has been made that this word is from the "Middle English slough". It was spelled "slughe" in Middle English, so your first bit of info is incorrect, there; it wasn't spelled "slough" until 1720. Is there any evidence whatsoever that it has been (or ever was) spelled "sluff" since the 15th century? No, so this article is already inaccurate.

There are other, more obvious origins for this word. The page should be rewritten to reflect the word's true origins (if I am incorrect), or, if they cannot be shown, the page entry should be removed. "Sluff" is not in the OED, or any dictionary in my possession, and if your theory of origin is 1995, I think you need to try a little harder: it's not jargon, it's not a new word. It is misspelled, plain and simple. Every spell-check program on my computer agrees. The word is "slough". Yabopomonofonomopo bay (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no such thing as misspelled, plain and simple, in a case like this. Spelling is dictated by usage and acceptability, and if a word is "continually misspelled", it's simply spelled that way.

Oxford says it's okay in some cases. There aren't many uses for the word prior to the 1990s but a quick Google search reveals a few: this advertisement in Life in 1957, and 1982 in the bridge sense (unaltered reproduction of 1973 edition). "It was spelled "slughe" in Middle English" strikes me as unreliable; spellings in ME vary quite wildly depending on manuscript.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be a warning for an ignorant user that the spelling is regarded as non-standard by many or even majority of English speakers - a usage note or something? --Hekaheka (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Sure. I'd take note that it's found tolerable by at least Oxford for slang usages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
@Yabopomonofonomopo bay it is about evidence rather than arguments. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
In contract bridge, there is a play known as "ruff and sluff". Google Books reveals that seems to be the only spelling in bridge books. The spelling "ruff and slough" picks up exactly two hits, both to novels, and no bridge-related hits for "rough and slough". But compare Ruff and discard, which I assume reflects British usage. Choor monster (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The 1904 English Dialect Dictionary lists numerous citations to the "sluff" spelling under the "slough" entry. Choor monster (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's a related issue to ponder about: if "sluff" and "slough" are alternative spellings, why do we have unidentical definitions for them? According to the definitions we have, "sluff" means avalanche or mudslide, but "slough" is muddy area or type of swamp. As a verb "slough" means shed the skin, but "sluff" is more general in meaning, it even means shrug off or avoid working. They share the senses of dead skin and to discard in a card game. There would be a nice cleanup job for someone, it seems. --Hekaheka (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Type of weevil. Nothing on Google Web search for the phrase "a curcurion". Perhaps an error for Curculionidae? Equinox ◑ 19:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The link was just a mirror for the (former) Wikipedia article, with added spam links. This diff on Wikipedia speaks volumes. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in Books or Groups. The expected term would be curculio, from the Latin curculiō ("weevil"). The "n" comes into play because zoological family names are based on the genitive, rather than the nominative which is the normal citation form, and the genitive of curculiō is curculiōnis. It looks to me like they tried to get the taxonomic name by removing the family ending -idae, but were unaware of the spelling difference between the genus and the family. They then made the common mistake of using the same consonant twice when there are two similar consonants in the same word. It shows the danger of adding words you don't really know without checking against a reference.
Or, to judge from the talk page, the danger of transwikiing stuff from Wikipedia without verifying it first. —An gr 00:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Goldenrowley (talk • contribs) has done a lot of these (hundreds? thousands?) without verifying them. I suppose they all need checking, many have failed rfd or rfv over the years. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: peddler of sleaze. Given our definitions of sleaze, what does this person peddle? --Hekaheka (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd say sense 4 of sleaze. —An gr 22:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"An engineering reference point in a computer program that will cause some type of default action." I've never come across this one in programming, and Wikipedia does not seem to mention it. Equinox ◑ 02:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

A Reaganite is simply one who strongly supports Ronald Reagan, not one who has been deceived into an unhealthy obsession, as the phrase "cult of personality" suggests. I have long used the word to describe myself and have never come across this definition in my life until now. A cursory search revealed a few unreliable sources confirming my definition, as well as this (see Blissing Out: The Politics of Reaganite Entertainment) in which the author explicitly states that he is referring purely to the political philosophy to which Reagan was aligned, not a personality cult. He who Geezes (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

"Cult of personality" does sound needlessly negative. How about "advocate" or "supporter"? Compare Thatcherite, Blairite. Equinox ◑ 23:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, edit instead of rfv. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been bold and changed it. Equinox ◑ 11:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

RFV for the sense "A ligature representing the Latin o + u." See #ᴕ for context. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There's this (see p. 237 top), which asserts that it is "commonly used", and this, which asserts "common practice". But I can't find any uses, per se. It seems to all be in the context of Native American recording. Hyarmendacil (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm that a liguature of o and u has been used in recording Abenaki and other native American languages, but I don't have time to check which unicode character best encodes it. - -sche (discuss) 17:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not a ou ligature; it's a ου ligature. See http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/unicode/other_ligatures.html and w:Ou (ligature). I suppose if we could find electronic use of Ȣ for an ou ligature (?!?), I'd have to accept it (but argue for a proscribed note) but even if we can find a printed ou ligature, I'd argue it's not Unicode character Ȣ, unless it really was using an Algonquin letter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

"Another chance to achieve what should have been done the first time, usually indicating success this time around. (See second-guess.)" Really? A noun? How would this be used? Equinox ◑ 01:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I would think it would be used like this: "You didn't succeed on your first attempt, so I will give you a second". bd2412 T 18:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Lots of adjectives can be used this way. Do think usage such as in BD's example really cites this meaning or demonstrates the syntactic phenomenon of fusion with a superfluous second attempt? I certainly don't. If one had a sense for every such use we would have a very long PoS section indeed for second#Noun. DCDuring TALK 20:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm just trying to answer the question of how it would be used, not defending its correctness. However, I also think that a single definition would capture every use proceeding from an opportunity to repeat a thing done one time before. bd2412 T 20:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with DC. BD's example is just ellipsis for second attempt. Woz2 (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense:

(idiomatic) To attempt to predict or anticipate.
1957: "As a practical matter, a fertilizer company could not afford to second-guess the Federal Trade Commission or a jury in a triple damage case on so obscure a point." (U.S. Senate)

1995: "MacGregor avoided this trap by refusing to give managers reporting to him the opportunity to second-guess the solution he would be most likely to choose."

The example sentences are obviously for the other sense, which could use some reworking.

I was conflicted about whether to take this to rfv or rfc, because the etymologies are hideous, and there are problems throughout (mostly added by a French IP who seems to have used several similar IP addresses), but the page can't be properly fixed without addressing the issue of whether this is a valid sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hang on, you do sometimes second-guess what someone is thinking without knowing what they're thinking; that rules out the other definition. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
That's why a few dictionaries have "to criticize" as one of the two possible definitions, the other being something like "to make a prediction with the benefit of information not available to (another predictor or prediction)".

Either a person predicting or a particular prediction could be second-guessed in either sense.

It could also be used intransitively in either sense. DCDuring TALK 20:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Without gender. Plausible but just not in CFI-attestable use. The term "agender noun" (from the usex) is not found in a Google Books search. Equinox ◑ 11:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Since gender isn't an adjective, you shouldn't be able to put a- in front of it to form an adjective. Can anyone think of such a case (a noun prefixed with a- to make an adjective)? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, transgender is a prefix+noun yielding an adjective. And if there are good citations (doubtful) then we should accept agender regardless of its origins. Equinox ◑ 12:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Cited. Most of the Usenet hits are intentional/jocular (and, in a few cases, it would seem unintentional) misspellings of agenda. I'm also in agreement with Equinox that the word's origins shouldn't have a bearing on its validity. Maybe prefix + noun is an atypical way to form an adjective, but it's certainly not unprecedented. intersex is another example. Astral (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Wow! When I wrote on the talk page (a couple weeks before the entry was created), I didn't create the entry because it didn't seem to be attested... but you've found good citations. - -sche (discuss) 16:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I really do think terms only attested on the Usenet should be labelled {{Internet}}, otherwise I feel like we are withholding relevant information. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I would say the pertinent point is not that the terms are only found CFI-attestably on the Internet (since I'm sure those newsgroup posters would use the terms in speech and writing too), but that they are not found in professionally edited publications — i.e. something like a "nonstandard" or "neologism" gloss is more suitable. Equinox ◑ 16:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Equinox once again. I don't think it would be appropriate to label agender as "Internet" simply because all of the citations we were able to find were from Usenet (for what it's worth, it looks like there's usable hits on Scholar, as well). To me, the "Internet" label is for terms which originated in and are used primarily within the culture of the Internet, things like lulz, fail (as a noun), newb, etc. Astral (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I, too, would label this a {{neologism}} (probably in addition to, rather than as a replacement form, the {{rare}} tag). - -sche (discuss) 17:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The only durably-archived hits I can find on Usenet are two that use the term as a jocular counterpart to gentlemen and substitute for ladies. - -sche (discuss) 16:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Cited as a jocular/informal form of gentlewoman. I took the liberty of making that sense the definition of the term, as the original sense included by the entry's creator seems uncitable. Astral (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I've detagged the entry, now that the disputed sense is gone. - -sche (discuss) 23:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Because of certain recent events, I would like this to be featured as FWOTD. But it needs a citation and I don't really know anything about Maori, although I don't doubt that this word is genuine. Maori is a WT:LDL, so it would only need one citation, maybe even just a mention (I'm not sure what the rules are for that). Can anyone help? —CodeCa t 16:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Hyarmendacil (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

(p.s. all government documents have to be translated into Maori in NZ, so finding citations isn't really very hard)
Thank you! —CodeCa t 19:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Only occurs in the given South Park citation. Equinox ◑ 22:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

RFV of this sense: "The belief that all entities from all religions are true and do exist." Aren't some of those entities mutually incompatible with other divine entities? Does this refer to an actual (rather schizophrenic) belief, or to a hypothetical one? Whilst it makes etymological sense, is this word ever used thus? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure this exists other than as a string of six characters at the end of certain words; I think all of the derived terms are from noun + suffix -ic. Definitely autocratic is not from auto- + -cratic but autocrat +‎ -ic, or perhaps directly from French, Latin or Ancient Greek. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a RFV question. The parsing as auto + -cratic is as plausible to me as autocrat + -ic. Entry democratic claims the etymology to be "democrat" + "-ic", but I don't know how they arrived at the claim. If the English trinity of "democracy", "democratic" and "democrat" stems from French, then it is worth looking at the French trinity of "démocratie", "démocratique" and "démocrate", for which there does not seem to be the case that "démocratique" = "démocrate" + suffix. OTOH, "democratic" could stem from or be analyzed as morphologically deriving from "democracy", in which case the candidate suffix "-cratic" would not be there. In any case, again, whether there is or is not a suffix "-cratic" does not seem to be RFV-suitable question but rather a question that involves an analysis that is to a considerable degree speculative and non-empirical. Finally, the suffix is obviously present in "So-" + "-cratic" (a joke). --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it's not an rfv question. It looks to me like it started out with words like democratic and autocratic, that can be traced back through French all the way back to Greek as whole words. Those are definitely not derived by adding -ic or -cratic. Later on, though, people noticed the -cracy/-cratic pattern, and started coining words to fit it. Those later words might be analyzable as -crat + -ic, but given the -cracy/-cratic alternation, -cratic seems more likely. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Well what is it a question for? RFD seems inappropriate because its existence is in question. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the key is that rfv is for terms whose existence can be verified by examining usage. How do we verify this? It seems to hinge more on interpretation or analysis, rather than usage. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: nipples; the projections of mammary glands on female mammals

I have added this sense based on WS:nipples to the mainspace to enable RFV process. If the sense fails, please delete "peanuts" from WS:nipples. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "knowledge". Seems dubious to me. ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

google books:"proficiency in geography" and google books:"proficiency in biology" are attested, so this would cover the meaning of "knowledge" as opposed to "skill", right? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Not to me, this is sense #1, which also says 'competence' and 'ability'. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No definition here, and anyhow, just seems like a rare misspelling, no reason why we should cover it. -- Liliana • 12:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a suffix (-capade) or even just a blend (no entry). Can anyone find citations where this stands alone as a word? Equinox ◑ 21:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the etymology misses a step. The uses all seem to derive from Ice Capades. It appears in plural in numerous book and especially performing-arts titles: Borscht Capades is my favorite, but also Mice Capades, Lunch Capades, Moose Capades, Horse Capades. It also appears in combination in sex-capades and others. DCDuring TALK 23:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

On behalf of User:AnnicAllus: "A man's right hand; usually used in allusion to masturbation." I have seen this in use (only in the phrase "a date with Jill") but I can find no CFI-attesting sources. Equinox ◑ 23:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "One born in a Christian country or of Christian parents, and who has not definitely becomes^[sic] an adherent of an opposing system." If you work out the logic of this statement, it says that you can be a Christian by inheritance, and that furthermore, your inheritance is inherited by your children and so on. So basically, this definition says that people who have been agnostic or atheist for generations are nonetheless Christian if all of their ancestors were. I find that a bit ridiculous... —CodeCa t 01:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it might mean born of Christian(sense 1) parents, rather than the recursion you imply. Think of old books that talk about "all good Christian men", meaning basically well-behaved Britons etc. rather than specifically religious people. Equinox ◑ 01:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think those are examples of authors using "Christian" in a new sense. I think those are either examples of authors assuming that (all/most/many) Britons are Christians ("believers of Christianity") and disregarding the existence of non-Christian (and non-good) Britons, and/or examples of adjective sense 2, "kind, charitable; moral; a term of approbation". ("All good Christian men" does seem to be using an adjective rather than a noun.) - -sche (discuss) 02:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I think cultural Christian is the concept the definition is trying (and failing) to describe. —An gr 09:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (UK, slang) A man.

I cannot find it in dictionaries. Sorry if the existence is obvious to native speakers. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

cove is OK for this sense (but rather dated now). SemperBlotto (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: Any pink object.

Was commented out, so I have uncommented the sense, and sent it here. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense - member of UKIP. Protologism? So far, we have a citation for only 2013. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Abbreviation of veterano and of veterinário. Only found one non-durable cite in Google Groups. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"of, exhibiting, or affected with mentulomania" (which appears to be masturbation mania, but perhaps only in word lists). This word is not in use anywhere, that I can see. Equinox ◑ 23:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Latin mentulus means penis, so mentulomania should, etymologically speaking, mean penis-obsession, though the few cites for it mostly use the "obsession with masturbation" concept. It does seem to be used only in the context of defining the term. The derived forms mentulomaniac and mentulomaniacal simply don't exist in Books or Groups. Even in the regular Google search, mentulomaniac has only one hit, and mentulomaniac seems to be definition-only usage (probably most leading back to us). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
There's been a request on my talk page to restore mentulomania, to which I've said no on the grounds there aren't valid citations. To the user, consider using Citations:mentulomania. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

— Ungoliant ^(Falai) 04:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct verb at hidratar. Deleted SemperBlotto (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The noun invés is only used in the phrasal prepositions ao invés and ao invés de, so there shouldn't be a plural. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 04:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Only one possible hit on Google books. Headword needs correcting if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be only used in one book. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

google books:breastaurant. Yes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Many of these are a bit mention-y. I suggest we go ahead with the RFV to check that we can get three valid citations. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is an article about this phenomenon. --Ixfd64 (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Cited. Astral (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Can this also refer to a breast, seen as a restaurant that a (breast-fed) baby eats at? (I don't know.) - -sche (discuss) 00:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be two citations on Google Books where it's used this way. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Also cited. Astral (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

From RFD. Three cites are given, but two of them are not durably archived and the third one uses a different spelling. -- Liliana • 17:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (dated) A fool, a simpleton, a mindless person.

Rfv-sense: (childish) Penis.

Entered on 11 October 2009‎ in diff. Not in dictionaries; any attestation in use? The etymology at "doodle" entered by the same editor may be worth scrutiny. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Extended. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It is in dictionaries, but only in the etymology for the term. Our etymology is consistent with those of a couple of dictionaries that I checked. I would tag it as obsolete, rather than dated, though. The most familiar example to us in the US is in the song w:Yankee Doodle, where it's the probable source of the name. I'll see if I can find any uses in older texts. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
You are right; it is even defined in Webster 1913 as "A trifler; a simple fellow". I still request attestation, nonetheless. And I have added a rfv-sense for the penis sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
(re the fool) OED confirms it is old and backs up the etymology. Should be marked as obsolete.--Dmol (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

How about this, this, this, and this? It also seems to have been used a bit as the name for characters in various humorous/satirical pieces. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

And for the penis sense there's this, this, this, and this. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Portuguese noun sense. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:37, 27 April 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

Friday, April 26, 2013

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

Latest revision as of 01:41, 27 April 2013

[edit] Christcentric

[edit] кратъкъ

[edit] снъха

[edit] ピチャンチャチャラ語

[edit] 䥑

[edit] 䲜

[edit] 䦉

[edit] irha

[edit] Hiberno English

[edit] glomzda

[edit] увет

[edit] Shi'a

[edit] Daukei, ostensibly from Kiowa?

[edit] 幽灵

[edit] catvertise

[edit] catvertisement