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

Aug 26th 2013, 02:03, by BD2412

Revision as of 11:32, 25 August 2013 (edit) DCDuring (Talk \| contribs)		Latest revision as of 02:03, 26 August 2013 (edit) (undo)
Line 18:		Line 18:

	= December 2012 =		= December 2012 =
−
−	== <s>[[tsunamî]]</s> ==
−
−	Kurdish. Seems believable, but is this actually used? —[[User:Metaknowledge\|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge\|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge\|deeds]]''</sup></small> 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. --[[User:Hekaheka\|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk:Hekaheka\|talk]]) 20:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
−	::I found the word on two Swedish Kurdish-language pages. As no evidence for non-existence is presented, I proceed to un-tagging. --[[User:Hekaheka\|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk:Hekaheka\|talk]]) 14:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
−	{{look}}
−	:::That is '''not''' how RFV works. Is this word in use, or is it not? [[User:-sche\|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche\|(discuss)]] 20:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
−	: It is used in a Kurdish news website, but I couldn't find any durable citation. — ''[[User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV\|Ungoliant]] <sup>([[User Talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV\|Falai]])</sup>'' 15:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
−	* '''Rfv-failed''': the entry was deleted on 18 August 2013 presumably because no quotations were provided; there are no quotations at [[Citations:tsunamî]] anyway, a location that is kept even when the entry itself gets deleted. --[[User:Dan Polansky\|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky\|talk]]) 18:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
−
−	== <s>[[ллъон]]</s> ==
−
−	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 {{temp\|LDL}}. —[[User:Metaknowledge\|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge\|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge\|deeds]]''</sup></small> 22:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
−	:No relevance, but this is so awesome I hope it passes. [[User:Mglovesfun\|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:-sche\|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche\|(discuss)]] 23:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
−	:: English has numbers for counting sheep too doesn't it? [[w:Sheep counting]] {{User:CodeCat/signature}} 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 [http://www.smg.surrey.ac.uk/Archi/Linguists/lexeme.aspx?LE=5052 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. —[[User:Metaknowledge\|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge\|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge\|deeds]]''</sup></small> 23:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
−
−	: '''Referenced'''. — ''[[User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV\|Ungoliant]] <sup>([[User Talk:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV\|Falai]])</sup>'' 16:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

	== [[superoptihupilystivekkuloistokainen]] ==		== [[superoptihupilystivekkuloistokainen]] ==
Line 62:		Line 41:

	= January 2013 =		= January 2013 =
−
−	== [[䦉]] ==
−	All language sections. [[User:-sche\|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche\|(discuss)]] 00:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
−	:Verifiable: [http://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/yitia/fra/fra03284.htm], from the ''Dictionary of Variant Characters'' by the Ministry of Education of Taiwan. [[Special:Contributions/129.78.32.23\|129.78.32.23]] 04:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
−	:: Clocked out, uncited. [[User:Mglovesfun\|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk:Mglovesfun\|talk]]) 10:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
−	'''Sense deleted'''. [[User:BD2412\|<font style="background:lightgreen">''bd2412''</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412\|'''T''']] 12:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
−
−	== <s>[[sale]]</s> ==
−
−	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. [[User:Mglovesfun\|Mglovesfun]] ([[User talk: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. [[User: DCDuring \|DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring\|TALK]]</small > 01:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
−	::'''Clocked out'''. [[User: DCDuring \|DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring\|TALK]]</small > 16:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
−	'''Sense deleted'''. [[User:BD2412\|<font style="background:lightgreen">''bd2412''</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412\|'''T''']] 14:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

	== [[eat the wind]] ==		== [[eat the wind]] ==
Line 89:		Line 55:
	:Do they count? —[[User:Metaknowledge\|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge\|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge\|deeds]]''</sup></small> 03:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)		:Do they count? —[[User:Metaknowledge\|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge\|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge\|deeds]]''</sup></small> 03:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
	::In the entry the third would. If there aren't more, this will fail. [[User: DCDuring \|DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring\|TALK]]</small > 00:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)		::In the entry the third would. If there aren't more, this will fail. [[User: DCDuring \|DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring\|TALK]]</small > 00:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
−
−	== <s>[[zeptomole]]</s> ==
−
−	Rfv-sense: Loosely, a small amount of a substance, especially a countable number of [[atom]]s or [[molecule]]s.
−	: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. --[[User:Hekaheka\|Hekaheka]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:SemperBlotto\|SemperBlotto]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Dbfirs\|''<font face="verdana"><font color="blue">D</font><font color="#00ccff">b</font><font color="#44ffcc">f</font><font color="66ff66">i</font><font color="44ee44">r</font><font color="44aa44">s</font></font>'']] 16:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
−	* '''Rfv failed''': no citations provided for the sense. --[[User:Dan Polansky\|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky\|talk]]) 17:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

	== [[albifrons]] ==		== [[albifrons]] ==

Latest revision as of 02:03, 26 August 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 \| old 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 \| archives 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:

irha[edit]

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)

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)

Clocked out I have inserted the one cite I found at google books, news, and group. It's not from a well-known work. DCDuring TALK 02:48, 18 August 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)

It seems to be used in 砵蘭 (Portland) as a stand-in for the syllable, "Port" (蘭 being "lán"). See, e.g., 2007, 黎誌添 (Lai Chi Tim), 廣東地方道教研究 (Guangdong local Taoist Studies), page 177:
9 、郭道院砵蘭街
10 、鄭梯道院砵蘭街
11、清華道院砵蘭街
12 、金玄道院砵蘭街

Translated:
9, Guo Tao Yuan Portland Street
10, Zheng stairways Portland Street Hospital
11, Qinghua Road House Portland Street
12, Kim Hyun Road House Portland Street.

Clearly this does not constitute the word, "syllable", but perhaps that was intended to indicate use as a syllable in transliteration. bd2412 T 13:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Striking this as failed for "syllable"; adding a usage note about use as a transliteration syllable. bd2412 T 17:30, 18 August 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: [3][4][5][6]. 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 [7]. 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)

I contacted the user who added it. Give it a month or two more; that book is not a linguistic resource, so probably not acceptable for verification. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 12:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

As the user who added this, I have to sadly say that I can't recall where I found "katal" and its meaning. It wasn't the Royal Society reference linked to above but I'll keep looking (it may have been in Legendary Tales of the Australian Aborigines by David Unaipon (a Ngarrindjeri man). I'll see if I can find the book again. --Roisterer (talk) 07:35, 14 August 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.

[8][9][10]

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)

I think this one has been overtaken by events. bd2412 T 16:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Why? And how is it relevant? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Google "Manti Te'o" "catfish", and you'll get about a million results describing how Te'o was deceived by a catfish, or in a catfish scam, when he fell for a fake internet identity. There are many news and discussion hits as well, and these will likely continue for years to come, since Te'o is at the beginning of his professional football career. The etymological issue aside (clearly there is only one etymology here), the term has entered widespread use as defined. bd2412 T 17:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

For example:

2013, Jim Edwards, "Hearst Exec May Have Been Victim Of 'Catfish' Sexting Scam", Business Insider (April 12, 2013):
Scott Sassa, the former president of entertainment and syndication at Hearst who left his job after sexual text messages he wrote were sent to the company's legal department, may have been the victim of a "catfish" scam, three sources tell Business Insider.

bd2412 T 18:00, 31 July 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)

It seems to me that any insect or worm name can be used as a disparaging reference to a person, particularly one who grovels. bd2412 T 15:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"You ladybug, you." "What a centipede." "Lower than a bumblebee."

In any event it is a matter of verification. DCDuring TALK 16:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I would say that six months without a response requires this sense to be deleted as unverified. bd2412 T 17:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The number of gbook hits for grovelling earthworm leads me to conclude that the only reason this has not been cited is laziness and disinterest rather than a dubious definition. Spinning Spark 19:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

When I enclose "grovelling earthworm" in quotes I get a large number of usages that refer to literal earth-worms, others that seem mere metaphors. At best this is a dated literary expression. But I don't see the cites to support it as given. DCDuring TALK 20:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I, too, am often shocked at the laziness and disinterest of contributors and discussants. They seem almost like humans in their behavior. DCDuring TALK 20:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said, "many insect or worm names" can be used as a disparaging reference to a person. Gnat, mosquito, nightcrawler, maggot, cockroach, etc. Henry Fielding has a "grovelling maggot" and one George Marshall Sloan has a "grovelling centipede". However, I see no evidence that "earthworm" unadorned implies "grovelling". bd2412 T 12:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Clocked out DCDuring TALK 02:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sense deleted. bd2412 T 15:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense - collective noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Definitely only in dictionaries. It's much harder find a sowse of lions than it is to find a mutation of thrushes. bd2412 T 04:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Failed. Moved to Appendix:English collective nouns. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 12:41, 6 August 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)

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)

Failed. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 12:43, 6 August 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)

Clocked out OED, anyone? DCDuring TALK 03:08, 18 August 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)

I couldn't find support for the "vertrbral column" portion of the definition, so I deleted it. Otherwise, Cited IMHO. DCDuring TALK 03:03, 18 August 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)

Deleted. bd2412 T 22:59, 21 August 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)

RFV of the conjunction. Is it attested in modern English (and I use "modern" very loosely: "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)

Here's one:

Harlington Wood, Jr., Atari v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp., 672 F.2d 607, n. 2 (7th Cir. 1982):
Before any player registers points, the PAC-MAN scoring table displays in white "1 UP" and "2 UP" where the scores will appear.

See also this faithful reproduction of the Frogger 1998 - Walkthrough:

  +--------+  |        |  |        |  | 1-UP   | This is the players turn (1-up or 2-up)  | 00000  | This is the players points  |        |  |        |  | xxx    | These are how many lives you have  |        |  | O      | This is the level you are on o=1 oo=2 ooo=3 ETC  |        |  | ______ |  ||______|| This is your time meter - it will slowly run down  | __     |   ||__|TIME|  |        |  +--------+

Cheers! bd2412 T 00:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

In all of those screenshots, and in Jamesjiao's example, 1UP could simply mean "player one" — not "player one's turn" or "the character controlled by player one". After all, in a textbook diagram, we would label the lung as "lung" and not as "the thing denoted by lung". Equinox ◑ 11:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

If so, then the definition needs to be changed, but is still a sense distinct from "an extra life". bd2412 T 14:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it means any of those things. It is comparable to next up. If it simply meant "player 1" then we might expect game instructions and rules to commonly use the term interchangeably, but they do not. It explicitly means player 1's turn and is mostly seen in real time during gameplay for that reason. This is also the reason we are struggling to find cites. Spinning Spark 16:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Bear in mind that early Japanese arcade games (where this apparently originated) did not usually come with (English) instructions; in fact some are notorious for their confusing "Janglish". 1UP seems to be something used on screen rather than in text. If it means "Player 1's turn" then why would (as Jamesjiao says) one game show 1UP and 2UP simultaneously on screen and immediately above the heads of those two players? Surely there it has the function of indicating player 1 and 2, not their turns. Also, since it's often shown beside a score ("1UP: 1000, 2UP: 1050") then how is that a turn? You might as well argue that it means "player 1's score". But no: other games would show "Player 1: 1000, Player 2: 1050". Equinox ◑ 16:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the Frogger, Galaga, and Zaxxon screens, each only shows 1UP or 1-UP. For Astro Invader, one is in yellow and the other is in red, which might indicate that one is an "active" color and the other is a "not your turn" color. For The Main Event, 1UP has a pink bar showing the players "energy" number, while 2UP, 3UP, and 4UP all have a blue bar reading "insert coin", which suggests that player 1 is the active player, and other players must wait for player one to finish his turn (unless their is an option for two players to play against each other, in which case it may be possible to have, say, 1UP and 4UP at the same time).
Other examples of video game screen-shots showing only 1UP on the screen include BreakThru, Bubble Symphony, and Dig Dug. See also Chopper I, showing only 2-UP on the screen. bd2412 T 20:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I have amended the definition to: "An indicator or identifier in a game with multiple players identified by number that shows that it is player 1's turn, or that player 1 is active". I believe that this matches the evidence from the citations and screenshots. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I still don't agree with this but there's nothing I can say that I haven't already pointed out above. Equinox ◑ 22:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you disagree with; I modified the definition so that it no longer exclusively reflects the player's "turn". You cannot possibly think that the citations and images provided indicate "an extra life", which means that a second definition is needed to explain them, so how would you define "1-up" as it appears in those citations and images? bd2412 T 22:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I would define it as simply "player 1". Not player 1's turn, or score, or move. Just player 1 — sometimes used as a label. Equinox ◑ 05:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I changed the definition to: "In a game with multiple players, an indicator or identifier of player 1". Kosher? bd2412 T 02:03, 24 August 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)

RFV-failed: no citations provided for the term as an English place name. The citations need to be for the term with "ț" rather than "t"; none were provided anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:57, 21 August 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)

RfV failed; sense deleted. bd2412 T 19:26, 21 August 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)

Clocked out DCDuring TALK 03:09, 18 August 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)

By one point of view, any Chinese character could conceivably be Japanese as well. However, this particular character is not listed in the List of non-Jōyō characters; it is not listed in Jim Breen's online kanji dictionary (you'll have to copy-paste, I cannot link directly); it is not listed as having a Japanese reading in the Unihan database of characters. Unless someone can cite this, I'd say this is bogus.

FWIW, my cursory search for citations found exactly zip for google books:"䯂" は (adding the は helps filter for Japanese), and presumably 8,000+ hits across the rest of the web, but mostly moji-bake or scannos by my estimation. The topmost hit that's actually in real Japanese claims that this character is included in the JIS X 0213 character encoding scheme, but the non-Jōyō list linked above is supposedly that same scheme, and it doesn't include this character. Neither does the official Japanese government list of non-Jōyō characters, where this kanji would presumably fall between numbers 513 and 514 in the list.

Weblio's entry from KANJIDIC only lists a Chinese reading, with an explicit note that "this character isn't used much in Japanese".

Delete, unless someone can cite it. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:53, 17 August 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)

Same as for 䯂 above: delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:57, 17 August 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)

You need to separate the practical sense of private; what they managed to keep hidden, from the theoretical sense; how they felt about it. It could remain a "private diary" online, if published anonymously/discretely and/or without their knowledge, and/or it could become a "public journal" after being perhaps partly censored/promoted and/or more effectively edited.--Riverstogo (talk) 12:00, 17 May 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)

In this case the nature can be that the class is intended for "private" use, where details of particular examples are discouraged. In the same way, they're called "symbolic" organs, even if they belong to a child or a lifetime celebrity. Think about Mattel's Barbie or Caravaggio's David.--Riverstogo (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: exactly! - -sche (discuss) 21:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

@Equinox there is an overlap in the senses which allows more freedom for any individual use of private. From a distance initially, a potentially dangerous private tumour could indeed be easy to disregard, but on a closer private examination an abnormal growth may curiously stand out. Parts, area and section; being more vague terms, are more often used to refer to a private organ in public to avoid conveying too much information to those who are not ready or willing to accept the sufficient evidence of one's private belonging. At least without the safety of verification.--Riverstogo (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I agree with Equinox here. Ƿidsiþ 06:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I, too, tend to agree with Equinox. - -sche (discuss) 21:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sense deleted. bd2412 T 15:29, 21 August 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: [11], at around 1:26). — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 00:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the Tropic Thunder usage is referring to "foolishness"; I think it is referring to the degree of retardation. bd2412 T 12:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 12:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is adjectival. I also think that the meaning is more like "inappropriately excessive", rather than foolish;

Quick short jabs to the ribs work well too. There is an art to it. Only an amateur goes full retard and starts whaling away, creating a Jackson Pollack spatter effect on the walls and floor.

The entry should probably also note that the phrase is used in a straightforward SoP way (in mechanics) as this is the most frequent meaning. Spinning Spark 09:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"The term used to show approval, acceptance, or general agreement." Huh? Equinox ◑ 00:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

See . Spinning Spark 09:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The definition is wrong then, since it is the action, not the "term". If you give someone a "click of approval" as used in the sources, you literally make a clicking sound to show approval. bd2412 T 00:06, 18 August 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)

Rfv-failed: no quotations provided. Disclaimer: I am the nominator, so in case of doubt, double-check. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:59, 21 August 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, [12], 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)

Alt forms Bitcoin, BitCoin also require removal if this fails. Equinox ◑ 23:41, 25 May 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: [13], "Add a little "opa!" to your life", [14]. 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 (ópa). 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)

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

There aren't any citations in the entry and it is not well formatted. - -sche (discuss) 17:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Sense deleted. bd2412 T 18:45, 22 August 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)

T-source smells like a Taiwan personal name character. It's eerily similar to 𢦒 and 𢦏 which do mean "cut, wound, hurt"... -- Liliana • 19:53, 4 August 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)

RFV-failed: no quotations provided. As an auxiliary check, MWO does not have the sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:13, 21 August 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)

Based on those citations, I've combined to two non-literal senses.

"(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)

I have just come across 2010, Andrew Delahunty, ‎Sheila Dignen, Adonis to Zorro: Oxford Dictionary of Reference and Allusion. This book seems to be a great resource for these kind of entries, having quotes from other works showing usage (including some dictionary usage) of figures in popular culture - for example, page 54, citing ChartAttack Live Reviews 2000:
Her voice embodied a Betty Boop sweetness, but had the power to hold out through the band's more than hour long set without losing a trace of its strength.
Cheers! bd2412 T 13:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
See also:
- 1997, David Howard Day, A Treasure Hard to Attain: Images of Archaeology in Popular Film, page 89:
  A feminist she is not, and we see her with many a Betty Boop look of horror as her two loutish pals make matchsticks out of every piece of barroom furniture in sight.
- 2002, Catherine Orenstein, Little Red Riding Hood Uncloaked: Sex, Morality, and the Evolution of a Fairy Tale, page 192:
  He sits astride a motorcycle and fingers the hem of a bright red dress worn by a pert, blonde, cherry-lipped model. Her mouth is open in a Betty Boop "ooh."
- 2005, Stephanie Lehmann, Are You in the Mood?, page 188:
  She had straight black hair with a Betty Boop bob cut and ruby red sweetheart lips.
- 2007, James Fitzgerald, The Joys of Smoking Cigarettes, page 22:
  Betty: Shall we? (Her voice has now assumed a Betty Boop pitch.)
Verified? bd2412 T 13:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Dutch, meaning "diaper". There is an entry in this dictionary: [15], 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)

btg.inl.nl links to ewn009248 which quotes Een linnen of katoenen luier noemt men zeer karakteristiek pimeldoek, want pimele en pimel is wateren en water, urine; deze laatste woorden zijn slechts voor kinderen in gebruik; in my opinion noemt men ("one says") makes it a mention (of a word used in Leeuwarders, a Stadsfries dialect), not a use. One can argue Leeuwarders is a Dutch dialect, but one mention is far from three uses. --80.114.178.7 19:19, 18 May 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)

RFV failed: no quotations provided. Can be restored when they are provided. Nominated by a Potuguese native speaker. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:16, 21 August 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)

RFV failed: no quotations provided. Can be restored when they are provided. Nominated by a Portuguese native speaker. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

— Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (slang) smegma

— Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

RFV failed: no quotations provided. Can be restored when they are provided. Nominated by a Portuguese native speaker. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:20, 21 August 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)

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)

I tried citing this, but every English hit I found was an obsolete spelling of Handia (most of which referred to Handia near Harda, instead of Handia in Uttar Pradesh.) — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 04:22, 22 July 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 failed: no quotations provided. As an auxi check: MWO has Gotham entry but not the sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:46, 21 August 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)

RFV failed: no quotations provided. The term as a whole seems absent from online dictionaries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:49, 21 August 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)

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)

Having been about agree that this defines a flash card, I look at w:Memory Stick and find that Sony have a "flash drive/card" amongst their illustrations of a "memory stick" - so I guess since its their trade mark - they can define? — Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 04:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have modified this along the lines of entries for Hoover, biro, etc. I have remove rfv - hope this is OK! — Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 04:47, 15 May 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)

увет[edit]

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)

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: [16] (1801), [17] (1856), [18] (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: [19], [20], [21].
google books:"waartevoren" finds only two hits, both Dutch, one written solid: [22].

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

I've added some citations for daartevoren and hiertevoren, and 1 for waartevoren.

The Koninklijke Bibliotheek (National Library of the Netherlands) has some interesting Dutch digital archives, like:

newspapers: [23]
magazines: [24]
books: [25]

But using those archives too, waartevoren and ertevoren still don't seem citable. -- Curious (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that is a very big problem. In Dutch, these "pronominal adverbs" always appear by four (see {{nl-pronadv-table}} as well) so I think the existence of some of them implies the existence of the rest as well. Pretty similar to how the existence of an English verb form ending in -s also implies another form ending in -ed. Thank you for your work! —CodeCa t 18:57, 29 June 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)

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-failed. - -sche (discuss) 23:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

RFV failed; striking the headword. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:24, 21 August 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)

Shi'a[edit]

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)

RFV failed: no quotations provided. As an auxi check, the sense is absent from MWO and AHD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:27, 21 August 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: [26], [27], [28], [29]? — 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: (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)

I recently added refs to Nones and closed it as passed. However, in the course of searching for those, I did not find singular capitalized forms. bd2412 T 03:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Daukei, ostensibly from Kiowa?[edit]

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)

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)

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)

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 can. "A season of happiness in his life" kind of thing. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:16, 30 July 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)

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)

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)

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)

[30] [31] [32] 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)

I found a good citation: 1966, Robert Coover, "Part II, section 11", in The Origin of the Brunists, edition first, page 218:
Taking a shower at the high school, Tommy (the Kitten) Cavanaugh kids Ugly Palmers. "Ugly, if you think the world is coming to an end," he says, "what are you wasting your time here at this jail for? You gonna need American history up there?"

Choor monster (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see that as a citation; it calls the school a jail, but it doesn't use the word "jail" to mean "school"; it uses the word "jail" to mean "jail, prison".--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:27, 25 June 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)

Original heading: Category:en:Geological periods

Other nominated lowercase English entries: aeronian (Citations:aeronian), aptian (Citations:aptian), artinskian (Citations:artinskian), asselian (Citations:asselian), bajocian (Citations:bajocian), bartonian (Citations:bartonian), bashkirian (Citations:bashkirian), bathonian (Citations:bathonian), boreal (Citations:boreal), burdigalian (Citations:burdigalian), calabrian (Citations:calabrian), callovian (Citations:callovian), capitanian (Citations:capitanian), cenomanian (Citations:cenomanian), changhsingian (Citations:changhsingian), chattian (Citations:chattian), coniacian (Citations:coniacian), danian (Citations:danian), dapingian (Citations:dapingian), darriwilian (Citations:darriwilian), drumian (Citations:drumian), eifelian (Citations:eifelian), emsian (Citations:emsian), famennian (Citations:famennian), floian (Citations:floian), fortunian (Citations:fortunian), frasnian (Citations:frasnian), gelasian (Citations:gelasian), gorstian (Citations:gorstian), guzhangian (Citations:guzhangian), gzhelian (Citations:gzhelian), hettangian (Citations:hettangian), hirnantian (Citations:hirnantian), homerian (Citations:homerian), induan (Citations:induan), ionian (Citations:ionian), jiangshanian (Citations:jiangshanian), kasimovian (Citations:kasimovian), katian (Citations:katian), kimmeridgian (Citations:kimmeridgian), kungurian (Citations:kungurian), ladinian (Citations:ladinian), langhian (Citations:langhian), lochkovian (Citations:lochkovian), ludfordian (Citations:ludfordian), lutetian (Citations:lutetian), maastrichtian (Citations:maastrichtian), messinian (Citations:messinian), moscovian (Citations:moscovian), olenekian (Citations:olenekian), oxfordian (Citations:oxfordian), paibian (Citations:paibian), permian (Citations:permian), piacenzian (Citations:piacenzian), pliensbachian (Citations:pliensbachian), pragian (Citations:pragian), priabonian (Citations:priabonian), pridoli (Citations:pridoli), rhuddanian (Citations:rhuddanian), roadian (Citations:roadian), rupelian (Citations:rupelian), sakmarian (Citations:sakmarian), sandbian (Citations:sandbian), santonian (Citations:santonian), selandian (Citations:selandian), serpukhovian (Citations:serpukhovian), serravallian (Citations:serravallian), sheinwoodian (Citations:sheinwoodian), sinemurian (Citations:sinemurian), tarantian (Citations:tarantian), telychian (Citations:telychian), thanetian (Citations:thanetian), titonian (Citations:titonian), toarcian (Citations:toarcian), tortonian (Citations:tortonian), tremadocian (Citations:tremadocian), turonian (Citations:turonian), visean (Citations:visean), wordian (Citations:wordian), wuchiapingian (Citations:wuchiapingian), ypresian (Citations:ypresian), zanclean (Citations:zanclean)

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)

I agree with you, and they're entirely unattestable in lowercase AFAICS. I didn't miss the point, though. I was responding to DCDuring's tangent about what POS we should use. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I am renaming the heading and adding an express nomination of the lowercase entries at the top. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:10, 21 August 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-failed. - -sche (discuss) 00:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

RFV failed: no quotations provided; striking the headword. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:30, 21 August 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)

It's been a couple months. No one has said if 犀犬 is mentioned in at least two other fictional universes besides Naruto, as required by Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Fictional_universes. I'm inclined to think that this is a Naruto-only word, and thus a term that does not meet WT:CFI. Any reasoned objections to nuking this? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

OK with me. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a difficult case, but I'm slightly inclined to delete. First, this does not seem to be a Naruto-only word. I haven't heard about 犀犬 before, but the quotes below make me classify it as a mythological/folklore creature rather than a (modern) fictional character.

「話に、この犬は犀犬と稱し、これを得た家は富み榮えるといふことであったので、瑤は食物を與へた(...)」 (柴田宵曲 (1887-1966)『柴田宵曲文集』)
「(...)犀犬という名の犬で、手に入れた人の家に繁栄をもたらすといわれている。」 (岡田章雄 (1908-1982)『』)

「此名犀犬，得者其家富昌」 (in In Search of the Supernatural, a Chinese ancient literature [33])

However, every quote I found takes the form of "such a creature is called 犀犬", in other words, I only seem to get mentions, not uses. This is why I'd rather be for deletion. Any opinions? --Whym (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

My general thoughts are:
1. The first two quotes in Japanese both apparently describe the same legend, but also basically say "this dog is called [a?] 'rhino-dog'";
2. These quotes are worded in a way where it could be interpreted that "rhino-dog" is a name instead of a noun;
3. As you note, these are mentions rather than uses, and thus insufficient for meeting WT:CFI;
4. Although the third example seems to be the source of the two JA mentions (and says nearly the same thing), it is in Chinese, and thus outside the scope of this Japanese RFV.

So as far as the Japanese entry is concerned, we still have nothing outside of Naruto, and as such, this fails WT:CFI, and we should delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:20, 29 July 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 failed: no quotations provided. As an auxi check, online dicts do not seem to have a closely similar sense. There are 5 other senses referring to groups of people. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:54, 21 August 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)

RFV failed: no quotation provided; the def under the "Noun" heading was adjectival, and redundant to another properly placed adjectival def. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:57, 21 August 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", [34] and [35]. 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)

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)

It's been four and a half months. I'm content to give this another few weeks before deleting it. It can always be restored if someone does come along with citations. - -sche (discuss) 00:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

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

I only don't feel comfortable with the transliteration. Sanskrit, unlike Hindi, Marathi, Nepali, etc. doesn't chop the inherent vowel "a" at the end of syllables or words. I think it should be "udajana", not "udjan". Devanagari was made for Sanskrit, so there is more letter to sound correspondence. Also, we don't have rules here for Sanskrit, so I don't know if the entry should end in a visarga: ः or without it. I found a single occurrence of this spelling: उदजनः (udajanaḥ) (looks like a personal Dutch-Sanskrit glossary). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't have rules, but we have precedents. The great majority of our Sanskrit nouns are listed by root, not by nominative singular, so उदजन (if it exists in Sanskrit at all—and it's not in Monier-Williams, which is the most comprehensive Sanskrit dictionary out there) is the correct lemma, while उदजनः would be {{nominative of|उदजन|lang=sa}}. —An gr 05:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Would it be correct to display head=उदजनः as is often the case in Wikipedia articles or Sanskrit glossaries? For existence I would put Sanskrit into a group of languages with little documentation where CFI rules are relaxed. Modern terminology exists but it's limited to those who still use Sanskrit these days. Anyway, keep as per CodeCat in the section above. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't display head=उदजनः since the visarga isn't just a pedogogical aid like macrons in Latin and Old English are; उदजनः is actually phonemically and graphemically distinct from उदजन. For example, the nominative singular जनः (to switch to a genuinely attested Sanskrit word) does actually show up as जन when the next word starts with a vowel because of external sandhi. —An gr 09:12, 31 May 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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 20:21, 14 June 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)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 20:21, 14 June 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)

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)

And the sense 3 of peddle, which brings the definition pre-e-e-tty close to sense #1. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

But the cites show that literal selling (sense 1 of peddle) is intended. —An gr 10:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. In the first quote the expression "sex-obsessed sleazemonger" gives no hint of the kind of sleaze nor the kind of peddling, if any, involved. In the second and third cites the expressions "sleazemongers at Fox" and "tabloid sleazemonger" would rather seem to be examples of the definition #1: "one who maliciously spreads disgraceful information". --Hekaheka (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Not the kind of sleaze, no, but in at least the first two quotes I think it's clear the person being referred to as a sleazemonger is literally selling something, and it's an easy assumption in the third quote. Honoroff's wife clearly "does pictures" for someone who's selling them; Fox News would be paying big money in order to earn even bigger money by selling sleaze. The third quote doesn't have enough context to be sure, but the modifier "tabloid" rather suggests that making money is the motivation. —An gr 21:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

All right, as you explain it, but don't you agree that the definition could be clearer? A good definition does not raise more questions than it answers. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:57, 6 May 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)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 00:46, 13 June 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)

I'm going to call the attestations that User:EllieMurasaki just added at Talk:agender as meeting CFI, and the internet usenet citations at this point are well enough established. At this point, I think we can close the RFV and say that it's a good term. --Neskaya … gawonisgv? 17:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Also the ones on the citations page are more than adequate, at this point this should have been closed a while ago. --Neskaya … gawonisgv? 17:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree and have detagged the entry. Thank you to everyone who helped cite the word! - -sche (discuss) 00:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much! It was brought to my attention on IRC, very glad that this got dealt with as neatly as it did. --Neskaya … gawonisgv? 00:24, 17 June 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)

This contradiction as perceived is not necessarily so. It could be for example that both Yahweh and Allah exist, as well as Vishnu and Quetzalcoatl and Marduk and all the rest from all the faiths, and yet they are not 'incompatible' because their actual existence falls short of what their scriptures claim about them. Perhaps for example Yahweh is simply a desert-dwelling camel-God who has only managed to convince followers that he is a lone almighty. (note that even in the Biblical account, Yahweh must battle with other gods, who are treated as real (Baal, chiefly), and that Yahweh is never shown taking on, much less being able to defeat, Zeus or Odin or any of the Chinese or Indian or Ican or African or Native American gods. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:59, 2 August 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)

Many so-called "Muslims" in Srebrenica and/or Bosnia and Herzegovina at large, had been agnostic or atheist for generations; that didn't save them. The Nazis didn't separate religious Jews from atheist Jews either. Why should that other Abrahamist sect be treated differently? --80.114.178.7 22:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This is an unsurprising definition. Christians, Muslims, and a few other evangelical faiths are strongly motivated to inflate their numbers for marketing purposes, and so are quick to count among their numbers those who ignore or reject their beliefs but who live in communities dominated by those beliefs. DeistCosmos (talk) 21:04, 2 August 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)

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

I just noticed this. Still no hits in Books or Usenet, more than two months later. It looks to me like a one-off playful splicing of two incompatible idioms that share one similar part Chuck Entz (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

There are a few blog and news site hits. But even if there were some durable cites, I don't think this should be included. It is just a humorous pun. Spinning Spark 06:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

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

It's also used, in a similar context, at the top of this article on the history of banking. Tucoxn (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a reference to the above and to another newspaper (permanently recorded media), where this term appears. Tucoxn (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Blogs aren't durably archived, so it's still short. This has nothing to do with CFI, but it's a pretty lame word, all around: it seems to mean the same thing as oligarch (one of the few who rule), but even if it doesn't, the equivalent with "many" would be polyarch, and there's no such ending as -garch (oligarch is oligo- + -arch). Chuck Entz (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually no, neither of these use the word 'multigarch'. They both use 'multigarchy' which is a separate word. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If Wiktionary is descriptive and not prescriptive (the Oxford English Dictionary is descriptive whereas children's dictionaries are usually prescriptive), then whether a word found in use was formed in accordance with expected etymological practice is irrelevant to the reality of the word and thus what Wiktionary says about the entry's etymons, if wrong, may have to be revised. The entry may fail on another ground, but shouldn't on this unless Wiktionary prescribes etymologically proper English and bars the rest.

I wonder if the entry should be split into two (with and without the -y), but I'm not familiar with Wiktionary's practice in that regard. Print dictionaries differ in practice.

The blog post is not at archive.org as of the last hour or so and I don't have additional references (I had only the one by Meredith and another editor contributed the others).

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

When I said "This has nothing to do with CFI", it was so that the comments that followed would not be interpreted as reasons to not include the term. There are a good number of stupid terms (irregardless is probably the best example) that we include because they're in actual use. The critical question is whether we can verify, using sources that meet WT:CFI, that this is used. So far, we haven't. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:10, 10 May 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)

This is given as an Ancient Greek noun, but isn't mentioned in the Perseus version of Liddell & Scott's Greek Lexicon. It appears, instead, to be a participle of the verb κυκλόω (kukloō). The definition given is "cyclone", but from other sources that term was coined by w:Henry Piddington (probably in 1844), and the concept of a circular storm system seems to precede it by a few decades, at most. The references I can find that refer to the Greek term Piddington got it from tend to just give the definition "coiling of a snake", which Liddell & Scott gives as a definition for κύκλωμα (kuklōma). For the couple of examples that specify an Ancient Greek term, this isn't it.

I would like to see citations for usage in Ancient Greek a) as a noun and b) as a word for cyclone. Lacking that, it should be either deleted, or converted to a participle form-of entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Three citations all from The Register, which is not durably archived and is known for its own quirky slang — does nobody else use the word? Equinox ◑ 10:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The hyphenated form astro-boffin yielded four non-Register cites (two from the Australian paper The Age). The solid form got one hit on Usenet from 1999, under the sense "astrologer/astrology enthusiast." Personally, I don't see a reason to rule out citations from The Register, a prominent online news site that's been around as long as the Usenet archive-hosting Google (maybe even a little longer).[36][37] There's nothing in WT:CFI that explicitly says online media other than Google Groups cannot meet the "durably archived" criterion. I understand that's a common interpretation, but unwritten rules aren't policy. WT:CFI#Independent also says citations only have to be from three different authors. It doesn't specify they must be from three different publishers. Astral (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The theory is that Usenet is not tied to Google, that anyone can archive Usenet. It doesn't matter how long the Register has been around; what matters is if they're durably available, if a link to their website that worked 10 years ago will work 10 years from now, that articles won't just disappear on us. I see no reason to think that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC).

The Register has an archive of content going back nearly fifteen years. Granted, the URLs of specific articles might change over time, but to regard that as a significant obstacle rather than a mild inconvenience is to overlook the fact that Wiktionary is a wiki, and that it is a simple task to Google an article's title and replace an outdated link with a functioning one. And if a replacement link can't be found, well, you cross that bridge when you come to it. Other viable citations will probably have cropped up by then. My point is that it doesn't make sense to me to rule out prominent news and commentary sites with proven longevity like The Register on the off chance they might not be around in ten years. There's a chance (however small) that Google will fold in the next decade and no one will take over the responsibility of maintaining a publicly-accessible Usenet archive. Some outcomes can be predicted with a reasonable degree of certainty (like the ephemeral nature of Tumblr blogs), but we can't foresee everything, and it's counterproductive to try to base policy around such predictions. WT:CRYSTAL? Astral (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I see the lines differently then you do; by citing physical books, we're citing things that have a life expectancy of at least 500 years. Usenet is a handwave towards convenience with a half-assed promise of durability. Saying that we should accept something because we can't prove it's durable is the wrong way around; we should accept things that we know to be durable only.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

How do we no that physical books are durable. In a sense they're definitely not. They won't last literally forever. Yet my kind of talk is not popular here. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Durable doesn't mean lasts forever, it means lasting, for a long time. We know that physical books are durable since we have books from a millennium ago, and in the past century or two, libraries have been pretty solid about collecting and safely storing most every book. We have the printed New York Times going back 150 years, with copies in hundreds of libraries, some with histories of archiving materials for centuries; on the flip side, The Register goes back nearly fifteen years and it's held by one source. They're simply not comparable in durability.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

How many libraries, aside from a few major ones, have both the space to maintain a collection of every issue of a newspaper ever printed and the resources required to preserve it? Plenty have converted their collections to microfiche. So while the original physical paper technically continues to exist in some archives, the version most people are able to reference is a copy, and if it's a digital scan from microfiche as can occasionally be found on Google News Archive, a copy of a copy.

Books go out of print. They get destroyed in fires and floods. They decay if not shown proper care. Eventually, the remaining copies end up in museums, library archives, private collections, etc., and and the average person is left with only reprints and digitizations of the original text to consult.

Just because a page disappears from the web doesn't mean that every copy of the file ceases to exist along with it: it can safely be assumed that many authors and publishers of online content maintain their own back-up copies, some readers print or download copies for private reference, and of course there's the Internet Archive.

I honestly don't understand the general antagonism toward digital media on Wiktionary. Yes, digital media has its drawbacks, but I don't see them as great enough to warrant completely ruling out an entire category of potential citations. Language is an ever-evolving thing, and unless we wish to confine ourselves to covering only archaic and dated terms, we need the ability to rely on the new digital mediums in which things are increasingly being released. Astral (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Who cares about whether it's a reprint or a digitization? The fact is that people still have copies of it and want to look up words from it. I think private collections that might exist are irrelevant, and entirely different from libraries that a large number of people can actually access. If you want the Internet Archive to count, bring it up at the Beer Garden; it's clear the standing consensus is against it, but maybe a new consensus can be established.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

(@Prosfilaes, 03:21, 29 April 2013) That may be the theory, but groups.google.com is just deja.com rebranded, http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=453109123 still redirects to http://groups.google.com/getdoc.xp?AN=451127391 but that gives a 502 error. If google URLs have been durable for your whole live, you're quite young. Google acquired deja.com on February 12, 2001, according to w:List of mergers and acquisitions by Google. --80.114.178.7 19:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I never claimed that Usenet URLs were stable; we have unique identifiers for Usenet unrelated to a URL.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you tell us what those "unique" identifiers might be? <Message-ID>@<domain> might look unique, until one realizes how many <domain>s have bit-rotted in just a decade. --80.114.178.7 04:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Commercial Java product or something... WT:BRAND? Outside our purview IMO. Compare Visual Studio 2012. Equinox ◑ 00:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't satisfy WT:BRAND at all. All created by the same guy. Delete and same goes for the one below. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 21:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Commercial Java product or something... WT:BRAND? Outside our purview IMO. Equinox ◑ 00:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 21:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: nautical: To coil together. Ƿidsiþ 19:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It's from 1913 Websters but I could not find any usage of this sense in Google books. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense for "Name of star Zeta Reticuli" -- the modern written Chinese spelling of that star is 网罟座ζ (traditional: 網罟座ζ). Previously entered as just "Zeta", but no star has that specific name and Zeta Reticuli is by far the most common star name that matches. Bumm13 (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete. 韓 is an ancient name of some bright star, definitely not Zeta Reticuli. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Old French: to do, to make. My three best sources don't have it, the Trésor de Langue Française lists maquier as the etymon of modern French maquiller but without any citations for it. Because it's a verb, it's going to be pretty tough to find, assuming it is out there, because of the variety of conjugated forms. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right, something is off. Some cite Old French mascurer, masqurer ("to darken (the face)") as the actual etymology of maquiller, while others cite it as from Old North French maquier, from Old Dutch *maken. I believe if it came directly from Frankish *makōn ("to make, do"), it would have arrived in Old French as maquer, but I can't find any attestations to this form. --Victar (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Maquier and maquer wouldn't really be distinct, as the -i- disappears in many of the conjugated forms. I wouldn't be surprised if makier, maquier or both were out there somewhere, but we have plenty of time to find them (minimum of 30 days). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

My fourth best source http://gallica.bnf.fr/ only has makier and maquier in etymologies, not in actual running text. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't find any variation of the word in my Anglo-Norman sources. --Victar (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A Google Books search using "makier" and "etymologie" turns up several sources. It appears the word is actually Old Picard (a dialect of Old French?). The scribal use of k being indicative of Old Northern French dialects prior to the wholesale switch to qu? Leasnam (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

From RFD -- Liliana • 22:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Portuguese entry. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

If this fails, will you ask for it to be removed from the Portuguese Wikipedia? SemperBlotto (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

They could move it to lima-espanhola, assuming that's attested. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The correct term in Portuguese would seem to be papamundo. I suspect the Portuguese Wikipedia article was copied from English Wikipedia by someone who didn't know the Portuguese name for the plant. They must have just calqued Spanish lime. I should have known better than to rely solely on a single wiki article for an entry. There's not much of anything in books or groups when filtering for Portuguese, but I don't have time this morning to go through all the unfiltered hits- language designations in Google Books tend to be unreliable. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: Portuguese noun sense.

The noun for 1000 is milhar, mil is the numeral. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

While searching for Kumst, I found words like Russian капуста (kapústa), Latvian kāposti, Georgian კომბოსტო (kombosto), Hungarian káposzta, Tatar кәбестә (käbestä), the etymology at kapusta (from Proto-Slavic *kǫpus(ta)) looks better to me. --80.114.178.7 23:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The change of English/Anglo-Norman /dʒ/ to /ʃtʲ/ in perfectly regular in Irish; there are dozens of words where it happened. And considering the languages Irish has been in contact with, a borrowing from English/Anglo-Norman is way more likely than a borrowing from Slavic. —An gr 23:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not assuming Irish borrowed from Slavic, I'm assuming Irish and English/Anglo-Norman borrowed the same Wanderwort from Latin. --80.114.178.7 23:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Irish borrowings from Latin directly tended to be much earlier: Old and Middle Irish. Cabáiste doesn't seem to show up that early, but instead much later when borrowing from Anglo-Norman or English directly is much more plausible. It also fits phonetically with such an etymology. DIL (Dictionary of the Irish Language, Royal Irish Academy, Dublin [38]) just says "Engl. loanword". --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 07:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget that Proto-Slavic isn't all that ancient. The Proto-Slavic form could be a borrowing from Latin. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Not rfv material as no definition is being called into question. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

What about {{rfv-etymology}} then? —CodeCa t 14:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Spot on. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The descriptions at kupus/купус say that Proto-Slavic *kǫpus(ta) is taken from Latin composita. I should have mentioned those links before, my apologies, I thought all links to it mentioned the Latin source. --80.114.178.7 19:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "A local name for various types of grasses which resemble, but are different from, the predominant species growing in that locality."

There is a species for which this is a vernacular name. Is this some kind of plausible invention or a real term? The Pynchon cite attests to the existence of the term but not any specific definition. DCDuring TALK 13:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

RFV failed: no quotations provided. As an auxi check, online dicts do not have this sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

All four "adjective" senses. They each seem to correspond to one of the noun senses. If the term is not used as a predicate or gradably or comparatively/superlatively, it should not be shown as an adjective. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Spanish: the adjective and noun senses referring to a person who comes from Las Vegas. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

vegano refers to a person who comes from La Vega (Dominican Republic). The word for a person who comes from Las Vegas is veguense. These words are not widely known, and it would be natural for someone to "invent" the term vegano on the fly for someone from Las Vegas. I would consider it incorrect, but I know that some people will say it. —Stephen ^(Talk) 01:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The confusion is wider than that. The entry for English vegan says it means someone from Vega. Sense "someone from Las Vegas" is not mentioned. Thus, the disputed sense might be incorrect on two counts, i.e. in Spanish and in English. BTW, if there's an English noun for "someone from Las Vegas" and an adjective for "of, from or relating to Las Vegas", we should link them to the entry for Las Vegas. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

But there's a mistake there: the entire etymology 2 section of English vegan should be at Vegan with a capital V. —An gr 09:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, on three counts. --Hekaheka (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

We have a GB snippet: "... indiani che proliferano in California, il panorama di Las Vegas, Nevada, si sta ingolfando di ulteriori hotel-colosso. ... l 'Aladdin music project, da altre 1.000 stanze, sarà la volta del grattacielo che lo zar vegano Steve Wynn costruirà al posto ..." from Panorama, Issues 1789-1795, Page 211. google books:"vegano" from las vegas doesn't turn up anything else.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Created Las Vegan and Vegan. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: instrument used to measure the flow of gas. Sounds reasonable, but it's not the word's usual meaning. Ƿidsiþ 10:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

How can a French noun mean "almost seen"? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This seems like bollocks. I would probably have speedied it. Ƿidsiþ 08:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Gone. Is the English citable? Looks a bit protologistic to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Over 7000 b.g.c hits, though a lot of them are rather mentiony, and they don't all seem to mean exactly what our definition says. This says the term was coined in 1928, so certainly not a protologism. —An gr 13:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"(nonstandard, proscribed) Half, used in phrases like twice as less (meaning "half as much")." Firstly, twice as less is not IMO a noteworthily common phrase, though it was the deliberately ungrammatical title of a book about non-standard Black English. Secondly, that phrase, if we take it to mean "twice as much less", is just the normal use of twice: two times. Same goes for "twice as small" (originally included in this new sense, but which I have removed): it means two times as small, not half as small (which would be bigger than the original). Equinox ◑ 14:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Surely in twice as less, it means "two-times as much". Should we really RFV rather than speedy this? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's not waste the effort. Just give it long enough to collect the citations, ie, 30 days or more. There are conceptual as well as factual questions, eg, the question of how one construes and corrects the error in expressions like twice as less. (Why is that an entry anyway? Do we memorialize all cute errors?) DCDuring TALK 15:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The entry was created in part in response to this thread from the Tea Room. —An gr 15:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your "surely", because for me "twice as less" doesn't mean "two-times as much", but rather "half as much". Well, at least, I mostly heard it when "half as much" would be the most likely interpretation. --80.114.178.7 20:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete. (Yes, I know this is WT:RFV, not yet WT:RFD.) - -sche (discuss) 23:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the citations at twice as small and twice as less, I have added three more for twice meaning half: one instance each of "twice as thin", "twice as slow", and "twice as dumb". There were numerous examples to choose from in each case. For example, here's a translation of Johannes Kepler with "twice as weak", used in parallel with "twice as strong".

The objection to "twice as less" is not lack of grammar. It is lack of logic.

We do not memorialize all cute errors. We memorialize all errors that seem to have linguistic permanence. Note in the discussion here, and WT:RFD#twice as small, there are native speakers in disagreement about whether these phrases make literal sense or are an illogical idiom. Choor monster (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"It is lack of logic". I think you totally misunderstand the function of the word 'twice' in these expressions. For some abstract property X, twice as X means double the intensity of property X. So twice as thin means double the intensity of thinness and twice as homogenous means double the intensity of homogeneity. I'm not sure how you don't understand this, but you seem to be thinking entirely in terms of one diametrically opposite term (thick) and not the other (thin). But in fact all combinations of [twice, half] and [thick, thin] are valid. Hyarmendacil (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. you're saying what I wanted to say at 2013-05-16 20:15 much clearer. However, I don't think it's a lack of logic, it's just another lexicon or grammar: words just mean what they mean, including assumed "contradictionary" meanings (cf. polysemy). That is, "twice as negative clause" can take opposite meanings in various lects, depending on how the combination of "twice as" and a negative clause is defined in those lects. --80.114.178.7 03:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, maybe I wasn't clear - I don't think it's illogical at all; I was quoting Choor Monster's statement. Hyarmendacil (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I misread your comment, my apologies. --80.114.178.7 21:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we lacked the most common definition of twice, which all dictionaries I've looked at have: "Doubled in quantity or degree", which we could split into two. "Doubled in quantity" seems to include the "logical" uses, which have an implicit commonly accepted associated ratio scale. "Doubled in degree" includes all other uses 'twice as red', 'twice as small', 'twice as rocky', which do not have such commonly accepted associated scales, though they may be quantifiable and even be quantified in special contexts. DCDuring TALK 11:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The definition "Half" covers a subset of the above "degree" type, namely those "degrees" that have a commonly accepted ratio scale for the antonym of the associated adjective. This is not uncommon in technical contexts, as well as marketing speak.

Whether this elaboration adds value to normal users I doubt, but it is not obvious that such concerns influence our decisions much. DCDuring TALK 11:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently made up. Nothing on the Web. "The act of using a GPS unit to mark the location of a tombstone or grave site then electronically storing the latitude and longitude of that marked site to the world-wide web on a personal or hosted website. This process is similar to geocaching except no items are transferred. This is simple the documentation of tombstones using modern technological devices." Equinox ◑ 04:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Move to RfD. It's not in or on anything I can find. Hyarmendacil (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Why would that be a reason to move to RFD? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. What I mean is 'delete'. It seems to be a single-contribution editor making up a protologism. Hyarmendacil (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

supposedly a present participle. --On Ka Wo Mu (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It was originally listed as skudding, but only for one edit. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense : {{context|UK|colloquial|lang=und}} {{present participle of|sit}} #:''I'm '''sat''' in the middle of the park.''. Dubious how this is a present participle. As an adjective, sure. --On Ka Wo Mu (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It's the passive voice, it's nonstandard (according to some, anyway) but it's not the present participle of sit, it's the past participle. And to be honest I think it's so widespread as to be called standard, even if a logical analysis might rule it invalid. Compare stood (I'm stood in the middle of the park). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd have called it a (non-standard?) past participle of seat#Verb. DCDuring TALK 14:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a form of sit, not seat. Dutch has an analogous construction: ik ben gezeten. gezeten is the past participle of zitten ("to sit"). —CodeCa t 16:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

At first blush, I share DCDuring's analysis, but the fact that both seat and sit have transitive and intransitive senses does complicate matters. Note that in addition to constructions like "I'm sat in the middle of the park", there are constructions like "they sat their guest in the leftmost chair" and "the room he was sat in was more like a windowless box". I think labelling it "colloquial" (not not "nonstandard") is fine, but I wouldn't put it in the headword line of seat or sit. - -sche (discuss) 17:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

As a British English speaker, it is the past of sit. I specifically remembering being taught not to use this in school (I can even name the teacher, Mrs. Bowen). Mglovesfun (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought sitten was the past participle of sit :p Leasnam (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Failed, by the way, this would be like having situated as the present participle of situate because of "it's situated in the middle of the park". Mglovesfun (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that that's analogous, but whatever. - -sche (discuss) 03:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Also thelion and thelium by the same person. None are in the OED. Nothing obvious on Google book search. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment I am in the process of creating / editing these entries as part of the process of removing thelion from Wikipedia under WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. If you did not see any valid references, it's because I have not completed the entries. As for this term, if you did not find it in the OED, you did not look at the FIRST supplement of 1933.

Djdubay (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't accept words that are found only in dictionaries (see Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. We need cites from the real world. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- I checked thelion when I first saw it. If you use a search that filters out most of the "the lion" scannos, there are enough hits in Google Books (). I haven't checked the others. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  - Again, the purpose of this is to remove thelion from Wikipedia, as it is not a dictionary. So I've gone ahead and created dictionary entries of that word, and a couple related words that were found in the process. Are you really in the habit of challenging words while they are STILL being edited?? I intend to locate / cite additional references, unless you delete the pages before I complete them.

Djdubay (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "Are you really in the habit of challenging words while they are STILL being edited" there's no limit to the amount a page can be edited, so that's irrelevant. Also, if it's not valid, it won't matter how many or how few edits there are. Just because something is not valid on Wikipedia doesn't automatically make it valid here. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

To understand the hypersensitivity here regarding transwiki entries, you have to know something about the long, pathetic history of mutated monstrosities regular foisted upon us in the name of cleaning up Wikipedia, like a chicken with three legs and no head that no one has the decency to put out of its misery...

That said, I would say that thelitis is attestable as well here, here, here, here, and here. I'm not sure about thelium, since the sheer quantity of hyphenation artifacts from epithelium and mesothelium makes it hard to find anything. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Response No problem, but to put everything into context here, I have created my user page, which has a full discussion of who I am and what I'm looking to do, here. I do ask you take my gentle humor in its intended context. :-) I think that "hypersensitivity" is a good word, here. But honestly, my "welcome, glad you joined us" was a curt note that this entry is not in the OED (which it is), and then I'm told that the OED isn't good enough. Oh, really? And I'm pointed to a policy that clearly does accept these entries. Yes, maybe Joe Shmoe's paperback "Cheap wordz" dictionary selling for $1.95 might not be a valid reference, but the OED is distinct that it has citations for each entry. Merriam-Webster maintains an extensive citation file, and other than the infamous "dord", every entry in their unabridged (New International) and Collegiate editions are well attested, though the individual citations, unlike the OED are not published. However, if you write them nicely and explain what you're doing, (which I plan on doing for you) they are more than happy to provide those citations. So worry not, my friends.
- Comment: Actually, there are a small number of words that have zero citations in the OED. The best known is probably abacinate, apparently a back-formation from abacination. Choor monster (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:PLEASEBITE on Wikipedia

Wikipedia

WP:DELICIOUS on Wikipedia

Wikipedia

Yum! :-) As for transwiki, yes, I've seen how some of the garbage I was trying to delete has made its way here, and I'll be correcting that in a moment. Unless someone else beats me first. My talk page should be open if you have further concerns. Thanks!! Djdubay (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Being in the OED doesn't exempt an entry from WT:CFI, no. And I'm pretty sure there are some OED terms in Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. But if you're that sure that all of these are citable, there's no reason to oppose this RFV, is there? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

— Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (informal) having an attractive body obtained through farm work

— Ungoliant ^(Falai) 02:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

RFV failed: no quotations provided. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

RFV-sense "A prostitute who attracts customers by walking the streets." Even if a sense "prostitute" can be attested separately from the sense "slut", I'll be intrigued if it's limited to prostitutes who attract customers by walking the streets. - -sche (discuss) 22:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

RFV failed: no quotations provided. As an auxi check: such a specific sense is absent from most online dicts that I checked. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like tosh to me. Needs proper Latin formatting if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It's Greek, not Latin. See σχίσις. I think this is just the "medical Latin" used in the modern world that is considered Latin because it's based on medieval Latin. But it's definitely real. Do we have a way to tag Latin entries as "modern" as in the type used in zoology and medicine as opposed to the Latin spoken by the Romans 2000 years ago ? Soap (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

{{New Latin}}. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 21:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Clearly this isn't Greek, as Greek doesn't use the Latin script. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I assumed that this would have this declension (perhaps without the *schisim accusative singular):

assumed declension of the unattested Latin *schisis

I couldn't find anything Latin for *schisim, *schisem, *schisium, or *schisibus on Google Books; there was too much noise from other languages to make a thorough search for Latin uses of *schisis (/ *-īs), *schisī, *schise, or *schisēs practical.
I did not find any evidence of this word's use in Latin. However, schisis (and its plural, schises) would easily be attested in English; it may also occur in other languages. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Could it be a variant of scissis, a passive participle of scindo - divided, broken off. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- In the dative/ablative plural? No. It's just a romanization of Greek σχίσις used in modern scientific terminology. —Angr 16:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  - I think the contributor is confused about the difference between scientific terminology and Latin. The tradition in scientific terminology is to convert Greek into Latin first, then transform the Latin into English. Although this term is indeed a borrowing from Greek into English, the spelling is based on the changes typical for Greek loanwords in Classical Latin. In other words, what looks like Latin is just an intermediate step in the conversion from Greek into English. Schisis is quite attestable as English- especially in the field of ophthalmology- and the entry should be switched to English from Latin. After that, it will need a real example sentence using the word itself- not a compound of the word with a prefix. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
    - - Agreed. I've gone ahead with converting the entry to English, and have added a 2011 quote. A b.g.c search suggests that the term is most common in ophthalmology. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
As this is no longer Latin, and the only mention of "Latin" anywhere on the page was itself in the RFV, I took the liberty of removing the RFV notice. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: Alternative spelling of snapper, often used by restauranteurs and fish shop owners. (Reference: Snapper page at sportsfish.com.au [39].)

Other definition is of a fish species native to Australian waters, the w:Australasian snapper. It looks attestable and probably includes the challenged sense. If this is intended to capture the shocking mislabeling of fish by restauranteurs, we would need to add many senses to many high-prestige fish name definitions, but would have a hard time finding any attestation. DCDuring TALK 23:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this attested in English, as opposed to Scots? - -sche (discuss) 03:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Digging through Google Books, the closest I found is this explanation in the Plowman's Creed; pretty much everything else is in dictionaries or explanations of Burns, and usually "dialect" or Scottish dictionaries. (Samuel Johnson's dictionary has it; might be worth a note at dictionary-only words, or a simple acceptance that what we consider Scottish he considered English.) I'd be a little surprised if someone found something else in Google Books, but there was a lot of noise, so it's not impossible. Cites in the New English Dictionary (volume 5, page 474) are from Burns and Thoughts on the seasons, &c. partly in the Scottish dialect, by David Davidson.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

RFV failed: no quotations provided for the English term; Scots not nominated. As an auxi check, absent in almost all online dicts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this attested as a noun, rather than an adjective? Is it attested at all? I couldn't find anything on Books or Groups, but I had to filter out enough noice that it's possible I missed something. - -sche (discuss) 07:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing obvious on Google books. Is it meant to be a placename? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing obvious on Google book search. (We have several reasonable definitions for nog, but not this one.) SemperBlotto (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Any takers? A Google book search suggests that it is actually a sort of metallurgical mill. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the plural of this Latin word attested? See WT:RFD#lactium, where it was pointed out that many of the GBC hits that seem relevant are actually forms of a different word, not of lac. - -sche (discuss) 21:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

As has been mentioned elsewhere, the Oxford Latin Dictionary states that there is no plural, although it does attest the singular in several of its cases. And (to expand on the above), lactibus (which is a theoretical plural form of lac ("milk")) is, in every instance that has been examined, a form of lactēs ("small intestine"), which is plurale tantum. So, we have a purely singular word and a purely plural word, each of which has forms that look like they are forms of the other, so any broad internet searches must be reviewed carefully in translation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Has any progress been made in this area since May? Esszet (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I can only find one use (for this spelling or tritaeus or triteus); can anyone find two more? - -sche (discuss) 22:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd suspect that in the quote you did find, the author was Latino-Anglicizing the Greek. Based on the usual norms, I'd not have expected this spelling, and would guess it's a one-off original transcription by that author. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

After hitting in various absurd misspellings to quench the requirements of Google's scanners (which were all made out of toothpicks and expired bubblegum), I still couldn't find any appropriate citations for this entry. Today, I tend to be more cautious when hitting in obscure terms like this, but I also changed interests (despite my current name). I'm afraid this entry is doomed to the furnace. --Æ&Œ (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Tempted to shoot on sight because Google returns exactly 0 exact matches. --Haplology (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Next time you're so tempted... give in...

Deleted as a lame and obvious protologism. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt to get a second and third opinion, to control for subjective bias, tiredness, unfamiliarity with some corner of the language, etc. DCDuring TALK 11:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No, no harm at all. My response was intended as a very gentle tweak, not a criticism or complaint. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

RFV failed: no quotations provided; Citations:poroutable never created. Deleted on 25 May 2013. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Mutaween is already plural (for mutaw(w)a). There are four hits for google books:"mutaweens", but this one seems irrelevant, this one can't be verified because it doesn't bring up the previewed text ("Besides, if what the Americans were saying was accurate – that they did have authorization to be in Mecca – then harming them would result in the mutaweens' dismissal."), and this one's talking about a band called The Mutaweens (cf. The Fratellis [Italian fratello ("brother") → fratelli ("brothers") → *fratellis] for a band name that uses a double plural); I've added the only solid citation available to Citations:mutaweens. Mutaweens may scrape through, but if it does, I suggest it be marked {{nonstandard}} and {{rare}}. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Mutaween is plural. Pass a Method (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

RFV for the general sense of "(logic) induction (inductive reasoning)". The citation of R.S. Peters I've added suggests that this word has a more restricted sense. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"Relating to fashion." How so? A fashionable dress, man, woman... is one that obeys or follows fashion. It's a "fashion magazine", not a "fashionable magazine". Equinox ◑ 15:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

RFV failed: no quotations provided. As for the auxi check of dicts, MWO and other dicts have a similarly sounding sense but not similar enough to inspire more thorough quotation seeking for this particular wording, IMHO. "Relating to fashion" really sounds like the generic attributive of "fashion". --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Czech. Could be attested, but Google does not help: google books:"dragounovat", google books:"dragounoval", google books:"dragounovali". One citation is already in the entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Synonym = asteroid? Also at seastar. Leasnam (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

No longer also at seastar; since that's labeled nonstandard we should just keep all info together at sea star. —An gr 10:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If the original question is whether asteroid is a legitimate synonym of sea star, then yes it is. The class to which sea stars belong is Asteroidea, which would make a member of that class an asteroid (see definition #3). --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Closed as out of scope: no sense of "sea star" is requested for verification. As to whether "asteroid" has a sense of "sea star", that seems very likely given the number of dicts that have the sense. In case of doubt, put rfv-sense to entry asteroid on the sense of "(zoology) Any member of the taxonomic class Asteroidea; a starfish". --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

French. Are there cites for both wordy definitions? DCDuring TALK 12:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

RFV for the slang sense "Any mechanism that separates one person from another, whether it be distance, time, or apathy", which has the example sentence "She really put me in the cotton gin when she wouldn't call me back." and the editorial comment "the originator of this definition says that the slang term is British - but the cotton gin is unknown in Britain, cotton being cleaned up at source." I am unfamiliar with this sense, and it sounds unidiomatic; I'd imagine that "put me through the cotton gin" would be more natural, and surely the "cotton" element would be dropped, so that people would say "put me through the gin", if they used it at all. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

RFV failed: no citations provided. As an auxiliary check, the sense seems absent from all online dicts; not even Urban Dictionary has this sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This word definitely exists in some form, but the three senses listed — viz. 1) A scientist or engineer who specializes in a particular technology. 2) A person who uses science or technology to solve practical problems. 3) A technician. — seem to overlap a lot. I added a citation to Citations:technologist, but I'm unsure as to which sense I should list it under. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I would say that def#2 is a sort of rewording / expansion of def#1. Def#3 is probably just plain wrong. I would expand def#1 with ", or uses technology in a particular field.", then delete defs#2,3. We might also add some sort of note that it is often preceded by the name of the field e.g. food technologist. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

How's this? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That's fine (apart from the use of templates where simple wikilinking would suffice). SemperBlotto (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the use of templates where simple wikilinking would suffice"? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

RFV resolved. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Added by our obsessive anon. The JA entry was bogus as best I could tell, so I nuked that on sight. I'm not sure about the CMN. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 03:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

In Japanese you write 湾刀. You should have moved it rather than deleting it. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The word exists in Mandarin as well and is used in many dictionaries. Will format later. 弯刀 is also the simplified Chinese form and 彎刀 is the Japanese kyūjitai. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Added JA as 湾刀 and 弯刀 (both forms are demonstrated side by side at JA Wikipedia), checked and fixed CMN (trad./simp.). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

RFV for the sense "alleged, having an intention that is possibly but not obviously true". I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Widespread use, though not worded very well:

Even Webster 1913 has two senses:

Capable of being shown; proper or intended to be shown.
Shown; exhibited; declared; avowed; professed; apparent; -- often used as opposed to real or actual; as, an ostensible reason, motive, or aim.

Move to RfC. DCDuring TALK 00:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those two from Webster both sound fine. The second sense in the entry, as currently written, doesn't express either of those things; indeed, I take it as describing an ulterior motive that one is accused of harbouring. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it has come to mean something closer to the challenged definition over these past 100 years.

Collins online thesaurus has:

ostensible, adjective

apparent, seeming, supposed, alleged, so-called, pretended, exhibited, manifest, outward, superficial, professed, purported, avowed, ~~specious~~

the ostensible reason for his resignation

It definitely can have a negative valence. DCDuring TALK 01:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The synonym pretended follows from an extension of "...often used as opposed to real or actual; as, an ostensible reason, motive, or aim"; however, it is the alleged synonym that I challenge. Certainly, a person can have an ostensible motive in the sense that he pretends to have a (perhaps more moral) motive than the ulterior motive that he actually has; however, to say that a person has an ostensible motive in the sense that he is alleged to have a (perhaps immoral) motive that he has been trying to hide is catachrestic usage which runs contrary to the core "showy" sense (as in ostentatious) of the word ostensible. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, alleged has the following among its three definitions at MWOnline:

questionably true or of a specified kind : supposed, so-called

If we don't have that sense, we should. DCDuring TALK 11:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, we have "supposed but doubtful", which seems to fit. Even if allege(d) can have that sense, I think it best to avoid the word's use in that definition, owing to the confusion it can occasion. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "sex toy". Really? And if so: any sex toy, or a specific type of sex toy? - -sche (discuss) 02:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll bet derived from the chess-piece sense. DCDuring TALK 02:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Widespread abuse. DCDuring TALK 02:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I somehow doubt this is in widespread use in English. The Google link given yields Wiktionary as a second result, and the rest looks like unrelated usage. Keφr 09:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like utter bullshit to me. Paladin's an occidental concept and would've been borrowed into Japanese using katakana. I also removed the Cantonese and Mandarin sections (which had wrong meta-information on top of the phony definition). Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Googling about suggests that this is a manga term. Meanwhile, google books:"仙劍" "は" shows only 16 hits, none of which appear to be this term (cases where the two characters belong to separate words, or are scannos; at least three hits are from back issues of a Taiwanese publication). Shogakukan's listing suggests that the second character 劍 is a variant of 劒, itself the kyūjitai of 剣.

About on par for our anon -- used in popular fiction, but not dictionary material. This seems to be about half of what they add.

Ta, -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. bd2412 T 21:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

RFVs for these general senses:

Someone with great powers.
A superior man or human.

It is very likely that some kind of general sense has developed from the technical philosophical sense I've just added, but probably just one, vague one. A review of usage should help to clarify what that general sense is. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, to start with, there's another dimension to this that hasn't been covered: try searching on Nazi Übermensch, and you'll see what I'm talking about. As for the challenged senses: they look like the kind of thing one would get by extrapolating from the literal meanings of the parts that make up the word. It wouldn't surprise me if we don't find anything. So far, all I'm finding is Nazis and Nietzsche, but there are way too many hits to sort through until I can come up with suitable filters. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Does this cover the Nazi sense? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the Nazi sense and the sense "a superior human" are distinct. (At a minimum, the Nazi sense would seem to be a subsense of the "superior human" sense.) Whether to keep the Nazi sense or keep the "superior human" sense depends on how much non-Nazi usage the latter sees, I suppose. - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That would make synchronic sense; however, the Nazis took their über- and untermensch terminology and concepts — in crude form — from Nietzsche, so the Nazi sense derives from the Nietzschean sense and very likely predates the general "superior human" sense. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

RFV failed: no quotations provided. As an auxi check, the term as a whole seems absent from online dicts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I find it hard to find citations independent of H. P. Lovecraft. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I added three citations, but it's hard to tell which definition they refer to. The second one is clearly wrong, it says "(of people) evil," yet gives the example "cacodaemoniacal ghastliness." — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 19:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Can't attest. google books:"cacodaemonical", google groups:"cacodaemonical". --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Berry Blue[edit]

There are no citations supporting any sense other than the commonsense SOP meaning "the blue of berries." Previous discussion at WT:TR#berry blue. —Michael Z. 2013-06-01 15:28 z

Close: attested in three references spanning 15 years Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Not so fast. These are all brand names, so we need to consider the requirements of WT:BRAND. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  - See below comment. Each citation passes WT:BRAND Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, every citation is for "Berry Blue"; none so far for "berry blue". SemperBlotto (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  - So? Keep it anyway. They aren't all for the same product, though. It's like rocky road in that respect. And Chuck, none of the citations are associated with the products. We've got a cookbook and two magazine articles, therefore all three of the citations pass WT:BRAND Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    - Looks like a pass but moving to Berry Blue seems reasonable. Even if WT:BRAND does apply, these would seem to pass it. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not cited until there are three citations supporting the definition. No citation says or implies that this is the name of an artificial flavouring.

Also, these citations are not independent uses, they are quotations of product packaging copy. Nos. 1 and 3 are referring directly to the same Jell-O product. No. 2 is for a product marketing title Yoplait Berry Blue Blast Gogurt. These are two independent marketing flavour names, using the plain English words berry and blue, strung together to fool shoppers into believing the product has something to do with blueberries. —Michael Z. 2013-06-02 21:07 z

"[N]one of the citations are associated with the products" – huh? How can you possibly miss the Jell-O product name in quotations 1 and 3? —Michael Z. 2013-06-02 21:52 z

Doesn't matter unless it was actually printed by Jell-O or if Jell-O paid to get it printed. Please stop being disruptive and realize that this is going to get kept. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't see anything in WT:BRAND that says that Berry Blue and Jell-O can't appear in the same citation. It says that the citation "any parties with economic interest in the brand, including the manufacturer, distributors, retailers, marketers, and advertisers, their parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates" but Jell-O isn't any of these; it's another product. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Jell-O is a Kraft brand. It is appears prominently on gelatin powder and many other products instead of the company name. Citation no. 3 also mentions "Kraft Foods" and parent "Philip Morris" specifically.

Here: let me read WT:BRAND to you, since everyone seems to have a hard time getting past the first bullet point. An independent citation:

"must not identify" the "manufacturer, distributors, retailers, marketers, and advertisers, their parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates, at time of authorship."
"must not be written [. . .] about any person or group specifically associated with the product or service; or about the type of product or service in general"
"The text preceding and surrounding the citation must not identify the product or service to which the brand name applies"

Independent really means that it stands alone representing its definition.

Which leads me to repeat, broken-record-wise, that none of these citations supports the definition that either Berry Blue or Berry Blue Blast is "an artificial flavouring," as if it was a specific formula. "Jell-O Brand Berry Blue (Artificial Flavor) Gelatin Dessert" and "Yoplait Berry Blue Blast Gogurt" are names of flavours of the products, just like "Jell-O Brand Pistachio (Artificial Flavor) Instant Pudding" and "Yoplait Cherry Eclipse Gogurt." The citations aren't even for nouns, but adjectives.

This is simply berry, attributive noun, + blue, adjective, + (blast, noun). —Michael Z. 2013-06-05 21:53 z

See also Wacky Watermelon. —Michael Z. 2013-06-06 19:06 z

I disagree that these are adjectival citations. I agree that Berry Blue Blast is a separate thing so that citation shouldn't count. But foods are often used attributively as mass nouns, a 'wheat biscuit' doesn't justify an adjective section for wheat just because it's modifying the noun biscuit. If I could be bothered, I'd just delete the content of the entry and replace it with something sensible based on citations, but I can't, it's just too low priority for me. If someone else has the stomach to do it, please do. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right, and I have consolidated the entry under Berry Blue#Noun. What about the citations in l.c. berry blue#Adjective?

Would someone please remove the Berry Blue Blast citation? —Michael Z. 2013-06-26 05:48 z

Citations for an uncapitalized sense of a generic color:

2010, Adriann Bautista, Sanctuary of Snow, page 157:
Or the wonderment in not 1 but 2 rainbows as they cap off a berry blue sky now void of thick heavy rain clouds.
2010, A LaFaye, Nissa's Place, page 132:
The washstand had white linen towels and a berry blue pitcher and basin.
2010, Guillermo Del Toro, Chuck Hogan, The Strain, page 325:
People get nervous about poison, especially parents, but the truth is that rat poison is all over every building and street in Manhattan. Anything you see that resembles berry blue Pop Rocks or green kibble, you know rats have been spotted nearby.
2009, Amanda Little, Power Trip: From Oil Wells to Solar Cells---Our Ride to the Renewable Future, page 350:
Two blocks away from the 5-mile-long Industrial Canal that links Lake Pontchartrain to the Mississippi River, a cluster of new, candy-colored homes—lemon yellow, tangerine, berry blue—on 8-foot stilts rises up from narrow grassy lots, adorning the scarred landscape like jewels in ash.
2007, M. M. Etheridge, Hannah: Woman in Red, page 69:
Hannah, clad in her berry-blue cloak, quietly slipped into the space next to Jess.
2007, Jason Murk, Tokharian Tales, page 248:
"It's good coffee, isn't it?" says Martin, and he's got good taste, he drinks huckleberry coffee from Montana, he drinks bits of morning berry blue in his coffee as if they're flecks from the Big Sky itself.

Cheers! bd2412 T 17:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Any independent attesting quotations? google books:"life's not all skittles and beer", google groups:"life's not all skittles and beer". --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

No, but see beer and skittles. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I see. A more promising search: google books:"life is not all beer and skittles", google groups:"life is not all beer and skittles", with "is" instead of "'s" and beer and skittles swapped. The Google books search finds 73 hits after I press "Next" several times, many of which are mentions rather than uses.
- Other search: google books:"not all beer and skittles", google groups:"not all beer and skittles". --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of hits for the German version, but nothing obvious on Google book search for the English. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This is tricky: there are more than enough cites of the term in English sentences about languages other than German (for instance, here, here, and here), but they're all capitalized- which means they're still connected with the original German, to some extent. I also found a few cites for a different sense (here, here, and here: the repertoire of language available to a given person- their personal language space. Assuming they really are English, that would mean lower-case sprachraum would fail, but we would need two upper-case English senses. Of course, I haven't checked Usenet, and I may have accidentally filtered out some instances along with the German ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Can't find anything on Google. Looks like self promotion: single-purpose author, a la WP deletion (Slightly unrelatedly, someone who knows Spanish should probably AfD the page on es-wiki...). Paper referenced is not visible on Scholar. Hyarmendacil (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The web hits (not durably archived) were mostly word-for-word repeats of the same promotional piece; some were paraphrases. I'm not seeing independent use. DCDuring TALK 02:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Clocked out DCDuring TALK 02:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Brazilian Portuguese sense. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 12:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sense: caress

It refers to a specific type of caress, the one described by definition 2. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 12:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Added by a known-problematic anon. Every once in a while, they get something right. I'm wondering if this entry might be one of those happier occasions. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not in Hanks & Hodges's Dictionary of First Names, which while not exhaustive has a whole lot of names from European traditions. Googling around I can find it (or Mérida) as a surname (e.g. w:Fran Mérida) and as a place name in Spain, Mexico, Venezuela, and the Philippines, but as a first name it seems to belong only to the newest Disney princess, at least so far. Only time will tell whether the film's popularity leads to a rash of baby girls being named Merida. —An gr 18:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I've added a few citations. It's not clear whether they refer to men or to women, but I checked a large collection of digitised census records and found that approx. 75% of the people in the database called "Merida Smith" were female while 15% were male (also, 33% lived in the US, approx. half that many lived in the UK, and 1% lived in Canada). - -sche (discuss) 19:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, -sche. Now what of the etym? While it might be ultimately from Latin, this is clearly not just a straight borrowing from Latin. Presumably from Spanish Mérida? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Etymologies of given names can be very tricky, especially of rare names that have no history of being the names of saints or royalty. It's possible that for some girls named Merida, it comes from Spanish Mérida (from Latin Emerita Augusta), while for some others it's a variant of a name like Meredith. WP doesn't say where the Disney princess gets her name from. —An gr 22:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The original heading: "Deletion appeal :)".

The word Maquilatropolis refers to a specific place: The Maquiladora community in Mexico that borders the US by Tijuana and Tecate. (There are other factories across the world, but this is a specific one and community.) The Maquilatropolis is a collection of industrial factories and corporations, workers, families, homes, organizations, economic transportation, and more. This entry was deleted because it was perceived to be "no more then a website," but there is barely a website, and there is no other name to identify this particular geographic region and what takes place within it. As I have been hearing this more in the industry, seen it in documents, and I would like to add it. I would like to request that you see it from that perspective, and reconsider your perspective of legitimacy, for as new communities and developments form in the world, the words that identify those which were not always there must somehow as well. Thank you! —This unsigned comment was added by Ke13that (talk • contribs).

We require that English words have at least 3 durable citations spanning at least a year. Durable citation means, in a nutshell, published material (books, magazines, even music lyrics) or Usenet posts. The quickest way for us to find them is by searching the word in Google Books and Google Groups; I just did that and there wasn't one book or Usenet posting using this word.

If you want to add maquilatropolis to the Wiktionary, we ask that you find three uses of this word that conform to our criteria for inclusion; I can even undelete the entry if you do that, so you won't need to rewrite it. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your help. I have included three references to verify the term, including a trademark registration, press release reference, and the results of a TESS search for the Maquilatropolis Trade Association. You will also find reference within Wikipedia. Please advise if this is sufficient, and how to proceed with posting Maquilatropolis to Wiktionary. Thank yoU!

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pacific-imperial-railroad-inc-enters-into-services-agreement-with-jl-patterson-associates-inc-2013-06-20

http://trademarks.justia.com/859/44/maquilatropolis-85944777.html

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4808:6y28m5.2.1

RFV failed: no quotations provided. Maquilatropolis and Citations:Maquilatropolis were never created. The nominator seems to have created maquilatropolis with lowercase "m", which was deleted on 5 June 2013; Citations:maquilatropolis is empty. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Any takers? (also, other similar words by a permablocked user) SemperBlotto (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't even find uses rather than mentions for biduous (< biduus), which Century 1913 had.

Clocked out DCDuring TALK 02:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "The pomp or assembly at a coronation". It's also rather circular as it contains the word 'coronation'. I'm struggling to come up with even a hypothetical example where this is even plausible. "I hated all the coronation at the Queen's coronation". Sounds ridiculous yet that's what the entry says. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I did a little checking, this goes back to the first version of the page in 2004, so 9 years. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Clocked out DCDuring TALK 02:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
RFV failed: no quotations provided. As an auxi check, online dicts do not have this sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-senses: Noun: "Parnassian language or poetry within Gerard Manley Hopkins' writings." and a correspondingly worded adjective sense. If it is only used in Hopkins' works and in works about his works, it would not seem to me that the citations can be deemed independent. Also, I don't think his works rise to being "well-known works", as good as they are. DCDuring TALK 22:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've added a bunch of quotes. WilliamKF (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how the quotes support sense 2 rather than sense 1. But, perhaps more importantly, sense 2 doesn't seem likely to be intelligible to, say, me or a new college graduate. DCDuring TALK 02:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

An anonymous user (Special:Contributions/98.204.230.250) deleted a sense with the edit summary: I am disputing the use of "baked potato" to mean "an uncooked potato suitable for baking". --Haplology (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's real. I would expect at most you could turn up search results on grocery websites such that when you search for "baked potatoes" it gives you cooking kits and/or microwaveable potatoes wrapped in plastic. But that doesn't mean that those are "baked potatoes", they're at best "baking potatoes". Soap (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Soap. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree, Tesco has baked potatoes, but they are pre-cooked. Uncooked potatoes for baking are baking potatoes or jacket potatoes. Possibly there is a US/UK difference in usage but Walmart does not verify this either. Spinning Spark 16:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Clocked out DCDuring TALK 01:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
RFV failed: no quotations provided. As an auxi check, the sense "An uncooked potato suitable for baking" is absent from online dicts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. See also WT:Requests for cleanup#cous. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 15:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Cleaned up, not by me. DCDuring TALK 14:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Clocked out DCDuring TALK 01:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
RFV failed on the complete English entry: no quotations provided. An an auxi check, seems absent from most online dictionaries. Present in Urban Dictionary, but not in the senses of cousin and vagina. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

We have two noun senses:

The route one takes to travel to a workplace or back.
The distance of that route.

I seek verification of the second, which I suspect does not exist. (I do see a bunch of sites that are ambiguous (can be for either sense).)—msh210℠ (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Cites, not sites.—msh210℠ (talk) 05:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. You could have a "long commute" to work, but that is still basically just a long version of the first definition.--Dmol (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I have my doubts about both of them. For me, a commute is the trip itself, not the route or the distance of it. One might say "my commute took an extra 45 minutes because of traffic", or "my commute this morning was really pleasant- there wasn't much traffic, and I was listening to some great music the whole way." One would refer to the route normally taken on one's commute, or to its length, but those are attributes of the commute, not the commute itself. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the first sense is not an adequate definition. Other dictionaries have something like "an act or instance of commuting", but this seems likely to be a disservice to some users, requiring them to sort out which sense of the verb might be meant. It also neglects the habitual/repetitive aspect which seems at the core of the word.

Some other 'unabridged' dictionaries do have a "time or distance taken" sense. Why? I think because one can say "His commute was 20 minutes/10 miles." as well as "His commute lasted/took 20 minutes." This contrasts with other time-consuming activities like "task" and "game".

As to attestation, it would seem to be in widespread use. The question to me is whether a proper first definition could be worded so that it was substitutable in all the time/distance uses of the word. DCDuring TALK 11:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree the first definition should be tweaked. And good point re "his commute was 20 minutes/miles" (which, yes, I agree is clearly widespread use). Thanks.—msh210℠ (talk) 05:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that we modify the noun entry to read:

The journey undertaken to travel to or from a workplace.
The route, time or distance of that journey.

Would that resolve the issue? Dbfirs 08:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for persisting. That's about right AFAIAC. The second seems perfect. As to the first I think the journey should be "regular" (ie, repeated on a regular basis) and may involve something other than a workplace, especially a place of learning. It could also involve a journey between regular jobs.

How about "A regular journey to or from a place of employment, such as work or school."?

We should wait a little longer - but not too long - to close this out. DCDuring TALK 13:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this is resolved by the rewording. If not, let's start again and actually put in the cites from the "widespread use". DCDuring TALK 01:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"A hybrid of a pilot episode and a sizzle reel that is used to sell a show idea to a television network." Can't find anything even in Google Web search. Equinox ◑ 10:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds quite bogus. The only pizzle meaning I'm familiar with is that of a penis, particularly an animal's. I suspect this is a neologism or prank involving this meaning. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, the username that added this sense was Levitymedia (talk • contribs), making me think even more that this is some sort of attempt at humor and not a valid term. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Clocked out DCDuring TALK 01:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
RFV failed: no quotations provided. As an auxi check, sense absent from online dicts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-senses #2 through #6. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of duplication in there and it's hard to read; #4 is the same as #1. No idea about the biological definitions though. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Come on, this is pure propaganda. Look at the anti-gay stuff in "definition" 5. Zap it. Equinox ◑ 08:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ya, nothing of value here. The additions are pure rubbish. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
SemperBlotto, since you added sense 1, could you add some cites to verify that one? Just so we know where we stand. And yeah, delete the homophic stuff in senses 2 thru 6. —An gr 17:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed two redundant senses and added the only citations I could find to Citations:orthosexuality. I'm not sure the word has an attested sense. - -sche (discuss) 18:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing senses 2-4 from the entry. I'm all for retaining disputed senses for a time to allow cites to be gathered, but 2-4 are just wordier, polemical reiterations of sense 1. Their presence did a disservice to Wiktionary, and so unlike dubious but inoffensive/neutral definitions, I don't think they warranted being given the benefit of the doubt. If this word has some shade of meaning that's not currently covered by sense 1, then that sense can be reworked, or additional senses can be added to the entry — but I think we should start from scratch, rather than try to salvage (the, IMO, unsalvageable) senses 2-4. -Cloudcuckoolander (formerly Astral) (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- In trying to find cites for this term, one of the first hits I came across on Google was a page on a wiki called Metapedia, which is almost identically worded to the content added to our entry for orthosexuality, and was also created by a user called Orthocommunicator. I had no idea what Metapedia was, so I read the Wikipedia article: "Metapedia is a multilingual white nationalist and white supremacist, far right online encyclopedia."

Upgrade my vote for senses 2-4 from delete to kill with fire. -Cloudcuckoolander (formerly Astral) (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the three citations gathered by Sche are sufficient to support sense 1, if the definition is expanded/tweaked. See Citations:orthosexuality. -Cloudcuckoolander (formerly Astral) (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

RFV failed: no quotations for senses 2-6 provided; senses deleted in June 2013‎. The single remaining sense was not sent to RFV. There are 3 quotations at Citations:orthosexuality for some sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No relevant bgc hits for "dear|my zsazsa".—msh210℠ (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a Hungarian name (= Suzie), pet name for Zsuzsanna (Susan). —Stephen ^(Talk) 22:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Still does not have a verified meaning in English. Spinning Spark 23:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Wallyworld[edit]

"A fictional theme park patterned after Disneyland in the 1983 movie National Lampoon's Vacation." If this only exists in the universe of this particular film, it would fail WT:FICTION. Equinox ◑ 13:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I see a great many references to Walmart, but very few to the usage originating in the movie, and these tend to be along the lines of:

2011, John Sellers, The Old Man and the Swamp, page 59:
I felt like Clark Griswold arriving at Wally World, only to find that it's closed for repairs.
2010, Lee Silber, Time Management for the Creative Person, page 34:
Obviously he [Clark Griswold] is missing the point, but at least he made it to the canyon and, eventually, Wally World.

I would not count this as a usage showing meaning independent of the film. There are a number of indeterminate uses that could just as easily be referring to Walmart or a fictional theme park, but even if a theme park is intended, it is impossible to tell if the fictional theme park in the movie is the one intended. See, e.g.:

2010, J. L. Bourne, Beyond Exile: Day by Day Armageddon, page 193:
Using the same technique I had used months before I should be able to get this old battle horse running all the way to Wally World.
2012, Maureen F. McHugh, "After the Apocalypse", in Gardner Dozois, ed., The Year's Best Science Fiction: Twenty-Ninth Annual Collection, page 227:
"How far to Wallyworld?" Franny giggles.
2004, Debra Kandelaars, Postcards: A Few of Our Favorites, page vii:
South Australia is not for the flashy, wham-bam 'Wallyworld' tourist, rather it's a vast tapestry of many colours and moods.

- bd2412 T 15:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I found two uses, both from 1996, which seem to use the name "Wally World" to refer to a generic theme park:

1996, Field & Stream, Volume 101, Issues 7-12, page 17:
The Tennessee Valley Authority's scheme to turn the Land Between the Lakes into Wally World has been stopped.
1996, Michael Roney, Michael Utvich, The Guerrilla Guide to High-tech Trade Shows, page 203:
Forget Disney, Universal, and Wally World. Vegas was there before them all — the ultimate adult theme park...

I do not believe that these support a definition for the theme park depicted in the movie, but the movie could be considered the etymological basis for a generic sense. bd2412 T 16:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and adjust the definition under review to meet the citations provided, move the movie information to an Etymology section, and close this as resolved. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

A Japanese hand weapon. I can't find three uses of this on Google Books or Groups — whether in Japanese or English text. Equinox ◑ 17:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The source JA term 手甲鉤 I'm not too worried about; I see two citable works right at google books:"手甲鉤" "は", and I'm reasonably certain that a third wouldn't be too hard to dig up if given time.

The EN term was added by our anon. I let it stand in part as I wasn't sure what the practice is for terms about things not usually part of the English-speaking world, such as the specific implements and other accoutrements of another culture. If regular CFI stands and no one can find sufficient cites, then away with the EN entry. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing whatsoever in Google Books or even a Web search. Equinox ◑ 02:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedied, along with alexipathy- also unattested (except for one use with a different definition and etymology). The definitions are rather implausible and clumsily contrived- I suspect they were thought up after the word was coined, in order to have something that fit the etymologies. The clincher, though was the contributor's user page, which consists simply of "Starting up with a new word (alexipathic)." Chuck Entz (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

English noun sense. (French verb exists) SemperBlotto (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Cited. -Cloudcuckoolander (formerly Astral) (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

— Ungoliant ^(Falai) 20:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

One Google Books mention. Many Google Groups uses, none of which is from a Usenet group. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 20:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

One Google Books use; many Google groups uses but only in non-Usenet groups. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 21:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No Google Books hits; only one Google Groups hit from Usenet: [40]. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 21:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

— Ungoliant ^(Falai) 21:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "An act of scatolophilia involving one participant defecating on a transparent coffee table and the other underneath observing the bowel movement." - -sche (discuss) 04:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought the word was scatophilia. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It's used in this sense in Another Gay Movie. I have no desire whatsoever to go looking for cites for this on Google, though. —An gr 14:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, scatophilia would be the entire paraphilia involving excrement, not just one act with a coffee table. I had a search around for this but I can't find it even on Google Groups (though there are a couple of mentions on the Web), so seems unlikely to pass. Equinox ◑ 14:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I was referring in my post to the red link scatolophilia, which looks like an error for scatophilia. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Clocked out DCDuring TALK 01:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Both language sections (note the RFC). The only English sense that I can easily find citations of is "dirty trick" (which our entry either lacks or words unclearly). - -sche (discuss) 04:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Really? Countable? Courage/courage? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It's just big + balls (plural only). DCDuring TALK 16:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it means courage, just it's an allusion to it, or can be. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

balls can be courage but this seems SoP extension of the metaphor, like "you've got to have a lot of balls / plenty of balls to do that"; or like the idea of having a "big" or "small" ego. Equinox ◑ 17:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. SOP to sense 3 of ball. Send to RfD (although I wouldn't object to deletion on sight). bd2412 T 21:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If this is SOP then balls ("courage") needs a usage note indicating common collocations: big can't modify courage, so this is unintuitive.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

If that is true then we also need notes at brain ("a big brain" means intelligence, but "big" can't modify "intelligence"), heart ("a big heart" but no "big love"), and all kinds of others. Equinox ◑ 16:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I agree with Msh210 on this. I think we already are accustomed to handling this properly where the countable and uncountable usage occurs with the singular form. As in those cases we should be able to address this with countable/uncountable labes and usage examples at the appropriate sense of balls.

There are probably only a small number of plural-only definitions that behave this way, ie, have the same meaning in both countable and uncountable usage. I can't think of another of the dual/pair plurals that works this way and my imagination and persistence are not up to the task of locating examples among the plurals of normal English common nouns. Maybe a review of plural-only senses of nouns that also have a related definition at the singular form would find more examples. DCDuring TALK 16:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

My comment above was unclear and even slightly off the mark. Thanks for clarifying.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: mighty

— Ungoliant ^(Falai) 00:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

RFV failed: no quotations provided for Portuguese adjective sense "mighty". Nominated by a native Portuguese speaker. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

from Talk:niggard

Rfv-sense "false bottom in a grate, used for saving fuel".

I never saw meaning #2 (false bottom to save fuel in fireplace) before, and I don't see that meaning in [41], [42], [43], [44], or [45]. A web search turned out http://www01.us.archive.org/stream/cu31924026538813/cu31924026538813_djvu.txt, but that seems to be Scots or Lallands rather than English. Anyone has sources or quotes for that acception? PauAmma (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Added a cite, but I now realise it might not be the right sense: "niggard" could be the adjective (meaning the grate is stingily small). Equinox ◑ 17:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Century has exactly the challenged sense, with nigger as an alternate spelling. The give Henry Mayhew London Labour and the London Poor as a source for a cite. DCDuring TALK 00:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sadly only the first volume has been scanned by Google. DCDuring TALK 00:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Tufts Digital library has it: "niggards, generally called niggers (false bottoms for grates)" DCDuring TALK 00:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

1979, Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, volume 109, Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, page 15:
A niggard was a movable side to the kitchen grate which could be wound up with a handle so as to make the fire […]
From a catalog of the Great Exhibition of 1851:
Cooking apparatus, adapted for an opening eight feet wide, by five feet high, and containing an open-fire roasting range, with sliding spit-racks and winding cheek or niggard;
(Can we date this quote?) Thomas Carlyle, Jane Welsh Carlyle, Lady Gertrude Hoffmann Bliss, Thomas Carlyle: Letters to His Wife, published 1953, page 100:
Neither this nor the Brompton house have a kitchen-range (that is, Grate like the Miles's), but only a grate with moveable niggards etc.

There is also dictionary coverage, (including the OED, but I couldn't read the online scan to get the citations). I think this all makes it a UK term, not particularly Scottish.

It is not necessarily a false bottom, if it can also be a "movable side" or a "cheek". Presumably it is intended to restrict airflow, to slow down the consumption of the fuel or regulate the fire. DCDuring TALK 01:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

A scent library or archive. Appears to be the (capitalised) name of a specific museum in Versailles, France, and not a generic lower-case term. Equinox ◑ 22:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Definition copied off Wikipedia. There seems to be only one such place in the world as per Equinox. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

French term. L'Osmothèque is a unique French institution, but I don't think that the uncapitalised word exists. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: A placeholder name for a company, used in textbooks.

The single citation would be consistent with the first definition - and is not from a textbook. DCDuring TALK 15:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The definition in Wikipedia is perfect. Let's use it. The rfv'd def is humbug. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

As I recall from my law school courses, the rfv'd sense is also accurate:

1982, Arthur M. Borden, Going Private, page 3-4:
A merger can be implemented between the issuer ("Oldco") and a new corporation ("Newco") owned by the proponents, as a result of which Oldco shares not owned by the proponents are converted to cash and Newco shares remain outstanding.
2003, William T. Allen, Reinier H. Kraakman, Commentaries and Cases on the Law of Business Organization, page 439:
In this structure, the acquirer (A) forms a wholly owned subsidiary (call it NewCo). A will transfer the merger consideration to NewCo in exchange for all of NewCo's stock. Then Target will merge into NewCo (or NewCo will merge into Target).
2008, Edward D. Hess, Charles D. Goetz, So, You Want to Start a Business?: 8 Steps to Take Before Making the Leap, page 62:
For this example, we're going to assume that a new company (we will call it NewCo) is going to build brick homes in the $250,000 price range.

Cheers! bd2412 T 21:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

@BD2412, I see little real difference between the RFVed sense and the first sense. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The citations show not that the term is used for any corporation, but for a newly created one, which brings it very close indeed to sense 1. DCDuring TALK 23:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. Fido is a common name for a dog, but it is not the common name for "a dog"; i.e., if you were walking down the street and you saw a dog, you wouldn't say, "look, there's a Fido". Newco may well be relatively common as a name given to a newly formed company created to acquire the assets of another company as part of a merger, or for similar business purposes. However, there is no law, nor really even much of a custom, for the naming of companies formed for such purposes. The creators of a company can call it whatever they please. Newco is merely the common placeholder name for such companies, sometimes in real life, sometimes in hypotheticals, just as Fido is a common placeholder name for a hypothetical dog, and Blackacre is the standard law school placeholder name for a landed estate. bd2412 T 23:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the two senses are distinct enough to merit keeping separate. Thanks for citing the second sense, btw. - -sche (discuss) 23:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The cites look to be for a distinguishable sense. I don't see why would limit it to "textbooks" as it is used in the "real" world of M&A (and news coverage thereof) to refer to a corporate entity that has not been created yet, or does not yet have its final name, or the name of which is immaterial. It needs the labels finance and law. DCDuring TALK 00:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I grant that "textbooks" is too specific, but clearly the term is generally used as a placeholder name in hypotheticals discussing a newly formed company. bd2412 T 01:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It is by no means assured that a Newco is always literally a newly formed entity, as opposed to, say, a clean shell. That is a matter of implementation in many cases. In any event, we are rapidly closing in on good cited definitions, better than those few now at newco at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 03:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I certainly agree that our definitions are outstripping our competitors. As for this word, I agree that it does not necessarily reference a newly formed entity, but there are many hits like those above where the term is explicitly used to describe a newly formed company. bd2412 T 21:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Bin man? In Old French? Did they have bin men in the middle ages? —CodeCa t 16:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Complicated isn't it. http://micmap.org/dicfro/search/dictionnaire-godefroy/escopateur lists it but the Godefroy dictionary allows for mention-only cites in Old French and Middle French, as despite the full title of the book 'Dictionnaire de l'ancienne langue française et de tous ses dialectes du IXe au XVe siècle', it contains citations way beyond the 15th Century, going at least up to the 18th Century (and it was published in the 19th Century). So it passes either as a mention-only word in Old French or Middle French or both, but not neither, but I can't think of a way to decide which one. CodeCat, if you live by the sword you die by the sword too; if you allow mention-only cites you've gotta allow all the errors along with all the correct forms. This term failed RFV and got restored when the rules changed. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not the word itself I am disputing, it's the meaning. —CodeCa t 20:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

So it's a question of the accuracy of the translation, is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

My French is not that good, but I would gather a meaning more like "street cleaner" or "street sweeper". —CodeCa t 20:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The definition at the link above is "homme chargé à Rennes de la repurgation des immondices déposées dans les rues et places publiques : en 1477, ses gages étaient de 3 livres par an", which definitely sounds like some sort of sanitation engineer, although "bin man" may be anachronistic since trash was just lying around in the street, not collected into bins in an orderly fashion. The date 1477 suggests that we should probably change the heading to ==Middle French==. —An gr 20:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Good call, on all of that. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I found a second citation, but I don't see a third anywhere (and the first citation that was already in the entry italicises the term like it's Latin, not English). - -sche (discuss) 13:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm seeking verification not of the lemma but of the comparative and superlative, which are vanishingly rare (I can find exactly two hits of the comparative, from 1828 and 1981, and one hit of the superlative, from 1918). - -sche (discuss) 13:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I found this, which I find amusing, but it's not durably archived. Sort of surprising that it's so rare; I'd have thought people would frequently say things like "Dein Termin ist aufschiebbarer als meiner, und Peters Termin ist am aufschiebbarsten von uns allen". But apparently not. —An gr 14:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be attested, which makes sense. - -sche (discuss) 13:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 01:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "A service allowing credit cardholders to withdraw cash, either through an ATM or over the counter at a bank or other financial agency, up to a certain limit" (as opposed to the cash so obtained, a separate sense). Googling cursorily doesn't find me this.—msh210℠ (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Clocked out DCDuring TALK 00:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
RFV failed: no quotations provided. As an auxi check, sense absent from online dicts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "(idiomatic, vulgar, slang) You turn me on." removed by an anon as nonexistent.—msh210℠ (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the IP is spot on here; not idiomatic, vulgar or slang, just use of the first sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

And the first sense is SOP, and would be even with the more idiomatic English translation "I like you". I know this isn't RFD, but delete anyway. —An gr 10:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This should be at rfd, because it's simply the second person singular of the verb gustar, with a first person singular object. Granted, the verb works differently than English speakers would expect, but we would need to have a similar entry for every single combination of person and number for the subject and object, to be consistent. It seems easier to me just to convert it to an "inflection of" entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Not even. Gustas should be (and presumably already is) an "inflection of" entry; this is just two words whose meaning is a sum of their parts. —An gr 13:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of "referencable" being an alternative spelling of "referenceable" rather than a plain misspelling? See also: Talk:referencable --PanchoS (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Cited. It seems relatively rare. Equinox ◑ 17:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

We really need the letter ç in English: referençable would make perfect sense. —An gr 17:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

We do have it in façade, but *referençable wouldn't make sense in the lender language either. —Michael Z. 2013-06-25 21:58 z

Thanks! However, the citations might just prove that it's a somewhat common misspelling, finally two of the three citations are related to IT, and programmers are not exactly famous for being spelling experts, see referer... :)

I added some more grammar references on Talk:referencable and an explanation why this clarification is quite urgent for us (on Wiktionary:Tea_room#referencable).

I've been looking around quite much on Wiktionary pages, but couldn't find any policies regarding authoritative answers on whether some spelling is considered "alternative" and when it is considered a "misspelling". But in this case I'd clearly say "misspelling" that shouldn't be further proliferated.

--PanchoS (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Not cited – source no. 3 only mistyped it in one out of at least three occurrences. Try harder, oh noble reformers of English. —Michael Z. 2013-06-25 21:58 z

Source no. 2 also uses spellings de-referenceable (p 881), dereferenceable (p 145), and dereferencable (three occurrences). The guy couldn't spell and lacked thorough proofreading. If you can only cite a spelling to the letter of the guideline and not well enough to convince anybody, then I would move this to a vote in the Tea Room or Beer Parlour. —Michael Z. 2013-06-25 22:09 z

If a work alternates between using a standard spelling and a nonstandard one, the occurrences of the nonstandard spelling are typically seen as misspellings/typos, not as intentional spellings. If Michael is correct that two of the sources alternate between the e-spelling and the e-less one, those two citations aren't usable. - -sche (discuss) 22:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The mis-spelling seems to occur often in technical books, but that makes it a common mis-spelling, not an alternative one. Do we take inclusionism too far? Dbfirs 06:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Often I find that there is evidence (name, institutional affiliation, biographical information) that the authors of technical works that contain this kind of spelling are not native speakers. I would be willing to place an even-money bet on the instances without such supporting evidence, too. In this case, is there enough usage to make it a "common misspelling", but not so much to make it an alternative spelling? We've never agreed on quantitative criteria, but shouldn't the proportion of contemporary usage should be more than 5% to be "common", certainly with more than three contemporary instances. I do think we need to focus on contemporary usage to make a prescriptive-type claim about the word. DCDuring TALK 09:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but being a native speaker doesn't mean being spelling proficient, especially regarding English spelling. Just like the Anglosaxon law system, English spelling and pronunciation are largely irregular rather than rule-based. Still there is something like correct vs. incorrect, but quite many English native speakers tend not to care too much.
So while overall being much less proficient in English, non-native speakers often care more about the few spelling rules there are, just the way they are used to it from their own native language. This holds even more for loan words such as this one. In Romanic languages, subtleties like a 'softening e' coercively determine pronunciation, so native speakers of Romanic languages tend to be accurate about them.
And finally, my native language is German, and I'm definitely less proficient in English than a native speaker, but this didn't prevent me from having a strong feeling that this spelling was wrong, doing a bit of research and filing this Rfv... :) --PanchoS (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I intentionally limited my statement to what seems to be true in my experience: technical articles, conference proceedings etc, authored by non-native speakers seem to contain spelling mistakes in greater abundance than one might expect. It's just a hard-to-support hypothesis that might help in marshaling real evidence. DCDuring TALK 20:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Cited or not, I've changed it to {{misspelling of}} because it is one. —An gr 13:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

How do you know that it is a misspelling? The available evidence does not suggest it is a misspelling: Google Ngram Viewer: color,colour; Google Ngram Viewer: referencable,referenceable; Google Ngram Viewer: abatage,abattage; Google Ngram Viewer: conceive,concieve. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

All that shows is that it's a common misspelling, which is what the template says. You know it's a misspelling because it's not sanctioned by authoritative dictionaries. Spelling is artificial and is imposed by external authorities (unlike language, which is native to all human beings and whose nonstandard forms cannot meaningfully be said to be "wrong"). I'm all in favor of descriptivism rather than prescriptivism when it comes to linguistic matters, but orthography (spelling and punctuation) is nonlinguistic and can fairly be called "right" or "wrong". —An gr 20:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagre that "You know it's a misspelling because it's not sanctioned by authoritative dictionaries". Mispeling is a real think present in writen language even in the absence of autoritative dictioanries. It can be detceted based on frequency. Mispelings, even comon ones, have very high frequnecy ratio to their mainstream alterntives; Google Ngram Viewer: conceive,concieve has frequency ratio of 1000 aka 1:1000. I disagree with deciding what is and what is not a misspelling using dictionaries. Many mispelings can be easly identfied without any dctionary and even witout looking at corpus frequency. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

For better idea, here follows a table with some frequency ratios:

Short Term	Long Term	Ngram	Frequency Ratio in Year 2000
referencable	referenceable	Ngram	8
experiencable	experienceable	Ngram	10
influencable	influenceable	Ngram	16,5
sequencable	sequenceable	Ngram	6
servicable	serviceable	Ngram	156
enforcable	enforceable	Ngram	860
replacable	replaceable	Ngram	190
colour	color	Ngram	3,4
behaviour	behavior	Ngram	2,8
rigour	rigor	Ngram	2

There are three groups in the table. The 1st one is referenceable, experiencable, influencable, and sequencable. The 2nd one is serviceable, etc. The third one is color, etc. They show distinct frequency ratios. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Dictionaries: at OneLook Dictionary Search finds nothing, so what are the dictionaries that have the allegedly correct spelling but not the other one? I have also explicitly checked merriam-webster.com: referenceable . --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the first group is that the words are so rare that they do not appear in many dictionaries (yet). Of the four, the OED has only experienceable (but not experiencable of course). For such words, I think it's safest to assume that they follow the normal rules of English spelling until we have definite evidence to the contrary. A small number of instances from writers or typesetters who make other errors in spelling would not provide convincing evidence of an alternative spelling. Usage by three writers who are normally careful about spelling would convince me. I don't agree with your edits to influencable and sequencable because I don't accept that ratios alone provide sufficient evidence for such rare words. Try looking at the ngrams for influencability and sequencability. Dbfirs 11:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the words not appearing in dictionaries should be a problem for anything. I don't accept the view that correctness of spelling is decided by dictionaries. You have said that ratios alone do not provide sufficient evidence, without indicating what other evidence (evidence, not authority) could be used to find out whether a spelling is correct. I don't see anything interesting in the Ngrams that you have linked to; the second one finds nothing at all. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! If sequencable were a word, then sequencability should be also. (.. or am I expecting too much logic in spelling?) I stated above the evidence I would expect: "Usage by three writers who are normally careful about spelling would convince me." Statistical significance of ratios is suspect because of rarity of usage. (See wikipedia:Statistical significance#Signal–noise ratio conceptualisation of significance) Dbfirs 21:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: "If sequencable were a word, then sequencability should be also.": Not at all. There is no linguistic law saying that each adjective has to have a corresponding -ness or -ity noun. Indeed, the empirical evidence refutes the would-be law in countless instances. I don't see what makes you think that logic dictates that language obeys that law; if this were a law, it would be an empirical law of linguistics rather than logic. In any case, nothing I have learned in logic courses AKA courses of correct inference points to there being such a law of logic. As for statistical significance, that argument might have some merit, but I don't see you determining any numerical index of statistical significance of the data. As for the writers normally careful about their spelling, I suppose that is an answer to my complaint about other evidence. Can you show that the writers whose quotations are now placed into referencable are not careful about their spelling? Put differently, can you find other word forms that look like misspellings in the works of these authors? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be a very irregular word that obeyed the normal rule of spelling in the "--ability" form but disobeyed it in the "--able" form. I know that English spelling is sometimes irregular, but surely not this irregular! If I had access to the works of the authors, or even to the work cited, then I'd be able to check. Dbfirs 17:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

...later... To be fair, I am able to see the text of Mark Ambrose's book (a well-written reply to Nietzsche's Will to Power) and he seems to use standard American spelling throughout (except when quoting John Donne, of course). He uses the spelling "referencable" just once. Dbfirs 17:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

A Swiss person, the equivalent of John Bull. Or just a character from one work? - -sche (discuss) 07:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

There are these mentions: [46], [47], [48], [49], but I did not encounter any actual usage. It seems that Colin-Tampon has been used as a nickname in French for Swiss soldiers serving in French military, but there's also the sense "obese, dull". This usage antedates the book. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this attested in English? Are aerumna and erumna attested, and if so, are they more common? - -sche (discuss) 23:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Just delete it. More careless completion. --Æ&Œ (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"Without consideration of prestige, title, rank or background"; synonym "on the merits". This doesn't seem distinct from the usual sense (nameless), i.e. IF you consider something without a name, you MUST consider it on its merits. But that's not a sense of the word itself. Equinox ◑ 03:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

See Citations:anonymous for a citation (which just happens to be the only citation there is for the word "anonymous"). "On the merits" is a much more precise definition of "anonymous" than the vaster definitions already in the entry. I apologize but something about Wiktionary's templates is making it very slow for me. Kraŭs (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The citation just uses Anonymous in Alcoholics Anonymous and then uses the word anonymity. It is somewhat useful for the concept, but not the word. DCDuring TALK 09:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Unstriking. We should get three citations. DCDuring TALK 09:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that isn't a citation of anonymous at all, Alcoholic Anonymous is the name of an organization, in the same way that a citation for the drinks brand Red Bull wouldn't be a suitable citation for either Red or Bull. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "To lay off (from employment) in response to funding cuts made by the Budget Control Act of 2011." Very specific and only two years old. Is it attested? - -sche (discuss) 18:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Did that sense develop as early as two years ago? The basic sense may have developed a sense somehow specific to the recent budgetary unpleasantness, metonymically shifting its object from funds, to departments, to employees. But use with this last object may not have emerged until sequester became a likelihood and its consequences obvious. I suppose the search for early use should be for "he|she|they|we|employees|workers" "going to|will" "be sequestered". Also, for most federal employees, sequester means a reduction of days worked, not layoffs. It might be contractor employees who would get laid off. DCDuring TALK 19:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I could barely find use with a department as the object at the Google News archives. The use of sequester for jurors is more abundant, even in the last two years. DCDuring TALK 19:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

RFV failed: no quotations provided; an oddly specific sense. As an auxi check, absent from online dicts. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? -- Liliana • 16:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently this will be difficult to attest. This is about everything I could find [50]. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I find it curious and ironic that a term, ostensibly so intimately related with the online world, would be effectively impossible to find in use in the wild. After excluding various Wiktionary and Wikipedia echo chambers, I am left with seven hits (google:"Houm Päĳtsh" -wikt -wiki -dictionary -glosbe), of which Hekaheka's above is one. Notably, that's just an entry in a terminology database, not even an example of use. Of the remaining six Google hits, one is now a 404, one is an automated translation entry, one is an interactive terminology database that doesn't even have an entry for this term, and the last three are Wikipedia or Wiktionary echoes that squeaked through my search exclusion terms.

I'm under the impression that Kölsch isn't a very widely used language, but even so, I'd expect to find more than this if it were really in use to mean home page.

Delete as a protologism or otherwise fatuous entry. If and when someone can find sufficient citations of actual use, we can re-create the entry then. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, Kölsch is a very widely spoken language, but it's almost never written except by Wikimedia fans and in Asterix translations. Speakers may very well say something that sounds like Houm Päijtsh when speaking of a homepage, but I bet the spelling that goes through most of their heads when they do is Homepage. —An gr 18:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Probably, and the Finns say "houm peits", but that's not entry-worthy either. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

This looks like somebody's attempt at spelling out a term they heard used in speech. I find it significant that it uses a different orthography than all of our other Kölsch entries. I'm really surprised at the "sh", since Kölsch speakers are pretty much all also speakers of Standard German, which always uses "sch". Of course, I couldn't find any uses of "Houm Päĳtsch", either. The "ĳ" looks fishy, too- but I don't know enough about the orthography to be sure. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- For what it's worth (which isn't much), the Kölsch Wikipedia main page is called Houpsigk, and on that page I found the trigraph ⟨eij⟩ in two words where standard German has ⟨ei⟩: bevölkerungsreijch for standard bevölkerungsreich and jeijstisch for standard geistig. I also found ⟨sh⟩ in Shtadt for standard Stadt and Jelsenkirshen for Gelsenkirchen and Duisbursh for Duisburg. I can't discern any rhyme or reason for when ⟨sh⟩ is used and when ⟨sch⟩ is used; both occur for standard German /ʃ/ as well as standard German /ç/ (which are usually merged into a single phoneme by people who speak Kölsch-influenced standard German and therefore I assume are merged in Kölsch itself). —Angr 16:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  - I should have been more clear: the main problem I have with "ĳ" is that it's a single-character ligature, not "i"+"j". This could potentially cause problems with searches, if it's normally spelled as two letters. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: To evade, hide from.

The captain absconded his responsibility.

+ one contemporary citation along the same lines.

This feels obsolete or otherwise a mistake, but usage could prove me wrong. DCDuring TALK 17:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that the two non-literal senses should be combined the way I combined the two non-literal senses of made in China. Or are they distinct? - -sche (discuss) 21:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Tagged, but not listed, by Ruakh, at the same time as he created the etry with no definition. Er... - -sche (discuss) 21:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Cited and added a definition. Cloudcuckoolander (formerly Astral) (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks good; thanks! - -sche (discuss) 22:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

"Not peevish; impassive." Cannot find in Google Books; also, how is "impassive" an antonym for "peevish"?! Equinox ◑ 05:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Tosh. I would have just deleted it. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking especially for independent cases of use that are not proper names; I find recurring quotes of James Fenimore Cooper. google books:"admiraless", google groups:"admiraless". --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Found some cites, but pretty much all of them capitalize it. -Cloudcuckoolander (formerly Astral) (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense An unfair advantage obtained by manipulating rules or insider influence.

See also cited figurative (or metaphorical) usages for the adjective loaded ("weighted asymmetrically and so biased"), and the archived rfd for loaded dice on the talk page (not strictly applicable to this sense). — Pingku^dimmi 14:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not difficult to cite,

It may be necessary to strike the word "unfair" to make some of these cites fit, but they are still a separate metaphorical meaning. While I am here, I don't see the point of making the reader look up "loaded" and "dice" separately to try and divine the normal meaning from the multiple senses at both entries. If this is kept, I think that the in-entry definition should be restored. Spinning Spark 17:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's a fairly straightforward cite:

1972, Melville Jean Herskovits, Cultural Relativism: Perspectives in Cultural Pluralism, page 56:
In fact, the need for a cultural-relativistic point of view has become apparent because of the realization that there is no way to play this game of making judgments across cultures except with loaded dice.

Cheers! bd2412 T 03:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense : (obsolete) Template:third-person singular of. Claims of Chaucer. --Semper amore (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The Yeoman's Tale, l.1175

He is so variaunt, he abit nowhere.

Other hits in Chaucer seem to be = "habit", as in clerical garb. But this does seem to be an attestation of the 3rd sing present of abide

— Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 21:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Since we consider everything before about 1500 (I don't remember the exact cutoff) to be Middle English, we need to either find something later, or convert it to Middle English. That's assuming we can find the one cite needed for Middle English, of course. Given that the Yeoman's tale passage would work just as well with the French verb habiter, what do we know about whether the Old French equivalent made it into Middle English, and whether it ever lost its h? Chuck Entz (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A quick check at the Middle English Dictionary at the University of Michigan shows more than enough cites for a Middle English entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like tosh to me. Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a software sense, but nothing for this definition on Google Books or Usenet. Best to wrap this word up and toss it in the trash... Chuck Entz (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The etymology makes it seem like the contributor is simply trying to present a superficial imitation of a real entry. I could find usage on Usenet for a definition relating to the "wordwrap" function in text-presentation software. DCDuring TALK 16:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Spanish: ugly woman. Unable to find a single cite. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Ergo, delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This was the only edit of an IP which geolocates to England. The etymology says it comes from the movie, which doesn't explain the spelling (unless it came from closed captioning or subtitles). Also, you'd think they'd use something more like "uruc jai", but maybe spelling of non-English words is left alone in translations of Tolkien. All extremely fishy, and lame enough to suggest adolescent or pre-adolescent vandalism. Not quite enough to justify speedying it, though I would delete such an entry if I were to run into it while patrolling (after checking quickly for usage, of course). Chuck Entz (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 01:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

RFV failed: apparently no quotations provided, as the entry was deleted by an admin. No quotations at Citations:uruk-hai anyway. Striking the heading. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Spanish. Not in RAE and all bgc hits are for transliterations of Ancient Greek. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Move the content to "autarquía, which is easily attestable, and delete this one. --Hekaheka (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"Coal which has been cleaned up to make it environmentally acceptable".
This is a very vague and dubious definition. Is it coal that has been washed etc, and by what standard is it environmentally acceptable. The Wikipedia article give a lot more meaning, and seems to cover the entire industry and not just a specific supply of the stuff. Is the term US specific. Is there more than one definition needed. --Dmol (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe it to be more of a process than a tangible thing. It's not that someone sits down with coal and a scrubbing brush, more that the coal is prepared before being burned in specially designed furnaces with fume extractors to recover soot and pollutant gasses from the exhaust, &c &c. It's a noun in the same mould as "Democracy". ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology.

A cousin of mine who works in the field of environmental engineering has remarked to me that "clean coal" is, charitably, only relative to the normal process, and uncharitably, a contradiction in terms. But that's opinion, not etymology or definition.

– Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 01:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Translingual, roman numeral. Doesn't follow standard rules for Roman numerals and seems highly unlikely. May be difficult to attest. -- Liliana • 15:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Any takers? Caps looks wrong. Why would it be uncountable. Grammar needs tweaking. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a trademark, so must meet WT:BRAND, which is highly doubtful. Found on the Web: "BagUps(tm), a trash bag system that dispenses a constant flow of bio-degradable trash liners while automatically re-lining the trash receptacle with a new bag after the old bag is removed." Equinox ◑ 15:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The only hit on Google Books is a mention. This might pass as a Manx noun, though, if we allow mentions from that book... - -sche (discuss) 08:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

From the same book as the preceding. All hits for "feel|feels|feeling|felt graney" use the personal name Graney, not this adjective; ditto for the hits of "is graney" I looked through. - -sche (discuss) 08:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

low hundreds, high hundreds[edit]

A number between 134 and 166? Who determines this? Equinox ◑ 15:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

While we're at it, I added RFVs to the two in the subheader. The specificity is silly, but if they weren't specific, we'd have to RFD them. They'll go to the gibbet either way. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The terms inherently imply an unspecified number, and the current definition builds on the rationale that there are three terms, and the scale between 100 and 200 can be split in three parts with the limits being 133.333... and 166.666..., and the given definitions are rounded up or down from that. If it seems to be more appropriate to have a less specific definition, another alternative for low hundreds may be "an unspecified number between 100 and 199 that is rather close to 100 than 200". Or, as with dozens, "a large number".

I also noted an issue of "criteria for inclusion" on my talk page, whereof I think this has "clearly widespread use", which can be seen on googling low hundreds and high hundreds. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The terms are in clearly widespread use. Whether specific boundaries can be stated in the definitions is unclear, but those stated make sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

These terms are the sum of their parts, anyway; one can also say "temperatures will be in the mid seventies (Fahrenheit)" or "his approval rating was in the low thirties", etc. New York Magazine has "A counter at the exhibit, set to zero on March 8, is now in the low three thousands." I agree with Metaknowledge that this should be listed on RFD if it passes RFV. - -sche (discuss) 17:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought mid hundreds meant an interval hundreds wide, centered on 500. I guess it would depend on context, eh? DCDuring TALK 17:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Or in degrees Fahrenheit 105 degrees ± 2, other interpretations being fatal, either quickly or slowly. DCDuring TALK 17:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the string of words is in widespread use- but using what definition? The problem is that low, mid, and high are relative terms, with their exact meaning depending on context, and on the conventional expectations of scale for the type of thing being measured. The current "definition" is a rule of thumb, not a definition. It may work for many cases, but it's not inherent in the meaning of the term.

It's already got two choices in the definition, but it would need more to be comprehensive: for instance, it's entirely possible that "hundreds" might be in opposition to "hundred-ten's", instead of "two-hundreds", so that low hundreds might mean 100-103 (or thereabouts). Also, if you split the categories, low mid and high mid might reduce the range of low, mid and high.

I think all one can say for sure is that low is lower than mid and high, mid is lower than high and higher than low, and high is higher than mid and low (try saying that ten times fast!). Attaching numbers to these is making them seem more precise than they probably are in most people's usage. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the given numbers in the "definition" makes seem appear inappropriately precise, so I think it's a good idea to change the phrases into something that emphasizes the relative differences from the other entries. For low hundreds, perhaps it could be something like this: "an unspecified number between 100 and 199 that is rather close to 100 than 200, as opposed to mid hundreds and high hundreds", but perhaps there are other suggestions? "Hundreds" in this sense may theoretically refer to 100-109 or 100-900, which may deserve mentioning, but I haven't seen any such usage. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I've used this latter suggestion in those pages now, but further comments are still welcome. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense bubble wrap. Seems ridiculous, but not quite a shoot-on-sight. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to filter it from all the uses of foxtrot, so I looked for "Foxtrot216", which this is supposed to be shortened from: not in Usenet or Google Books with anything like the definition given (hardly at all with any), and apparently only exists on the web as part of the definition- one would think something in use enough to be recognizable as an abbreviation would show up somewhere. Add to that the use of the military alphabet and random numbers in film industry slang, and the attribution of the term to an "Avant-garde documentary filmmaker" who's not notable enough to be even mentioned in Wikipedia, and it's hard to discuss with a straight face. I think this is just a lame attempt to get a certain name mentioned, and should be dispatched to oblivion forthwith. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

And it's been there for more than four years, inserted by an anon. DCDuring TALK 20:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "bond issued by a US government-backed entity, such as Fannie Mae"

I know that Fannie Mae is an agency, but could not find evidence of it issuing agencies. Or is this financial slang? --Hekaheka (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It might be short for "agency bond", I suppose. I haven't found anything for it yet, but it's hard to filter out the other senses. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: pod

— Ungoliant ^(Falai) 03:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Unclear which sense of pod, but maybe pod as in a small watercraft? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Unsure how this should be treated. Most uses are mentions ("Dodd-Frank is known as Obama's Law in the Congo") and not first-hand uses - but given the current state of the Congo I don't think we can expect any first-hand uses in published texts. Also, does it pass SoP? I mean, we don't include Obama's Healthcare Law; is this much different? Hyarmendacil (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense:

A musical texture in which two or more parts fuse into a single entity, as the synthesis of simultaneous sound streams into a coherent whole.

Actually, this is just what's left after I trimmed off a good bit of encyclopedic content- including a link to the coiner's home page (I don't think the IP who added this is same person, so I'm assuming it wasn't for promotional reasons). I couldn't find anything for this in Google Books or Usenet, but it seems to have been contributed in good faith, so I'm bringing it here. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspect this may be real, but 1) I've only found one Google Books hit (dated 2013, so it may just be too recent), and 2) the definition needs to be cleaned up, which would need more information about usage to be done correctly. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have radically trimmed the definition because it was noodling waffle. I don't think this term meets our requirements at all. Equinox ◑ 01:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you amputated a bit too much (it's hard to resist, I know, when you've got such a bloated mass of verbiage to start with). The term is an outgrowth of crowdsourcing, so it probably needs to include the idea of soliciting something of value from the participants. My version doesn't quite hit the nail on the head, either, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Nicely formatted entry and all, but the word seems to be a clear neologism. Nothing meeting WT:CFI that I can see. Equinox ◑ 01:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Neologism? Perhaps. Nothing meeting WT:CFI? Not quite so; nothing is a strong word! Thanks for the formatting comment! :) I've intuitively used it in 3 or so peer-reviewed publications since 2008 where nobody complained of its non-existence. Google shows that there is another independent use. I hadn't known until last week of the word's status as I naturally assumed it exists; and was told I was understood what I meant. I've then done a search... Wiktionary's WT:CFI general rule "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means." motivated my inclusion of it here given that the publications exist using this word. I've also submitted an entry to m-w.com. Granted, it fails some of the attestation criteria; and also perhaps is a COI on my part; sorry about that. But I've explained my motivation to boldly put it in. If it's put down as a neologism at an RfD, let it be; I won't fight for it. I'll wait until it catches on (if ever)---I am a very patient man. :) Let the community consensus here decide. Peace.--Mokhov (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

By your own admission, the word is still a neologism, but let us know when you find other people using it. It's not really an antonym of predecessor; that would be the non-existent word "postdecessor". Dbfirs 23:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I will surely let you know if more usage comes to be... :) However, I think "predecessor" is a correct ("near-"?)antonym since it is an antonym of "successor", which, in turn, is a synonym of "codecessor" as a "co-successor" :) I am not sure what "postdecessor" would be though unless it's a successor of a successor (or of a codecessor), which is redundant. I, however, digress... so I will leave the neo-semantic discussions at that. --Mokhov (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

If your neologism has an exact synonym in standard English, why not use the normal English word? Dbfirs 06:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

If it were really exact, I would have just used it as I am quite familiar with it. That's why I provided the definition of the intended meaning as: "A (technically) co-descendant notion or concept, but not necessarily a close sibling to concepts alike emerged around the same timeframe from the same or similar predecessor concept(s)." This is not an exact synonym of "successor". --Mokhov (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Protologism. No usage found independent of Mokhov. Spinning Spark 09:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems the RfV has transformed into the deletion debate, so perhaps it should be moved to the RfD section. Speaking of which, does Wiktionary have a practice to userfy entries like Wikipedia does? (BTW, there seems to exist one independent usage of me I could find at www.bsd.org.cn, but not widespread for sure). --Mokhov (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This should remain in RFV; the vote "delete" above can be ignored. The question of whether this is attested is decided by our WT:ATTEST policy in conjunction with evidence. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no evidence that this exists as a taxonomic term, nor that it exists with this capitalization in any language, thought viroidales seems to be an Italian inflected form. DCDuring TALK 15:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Freedom from guilt. Note this is not the similar word unguiltiness. Equinox ◑ 18:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Curiously, there is an entry for unguilt#Adjective, but not with the sense 'unguilty'. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

(Portuguese) correct spelling is acrobata. This is an internet spelling at best, but I can't find anything. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

— Ungoliant ^(Falai) 03:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I request attestation showing that "female penis" means "clitoris". This will be a bit tricky. A sentence saying "clitoris is a female penis" does not do for attestation, IMHO, as it is really just saying that "clitoris is a female analogue of penis", for some analogy. Furthermore, even if someone refers to clitoris as "female penis" without mentioning the word "clitoris" in the same sentence, this could be quite readily seen as sum of parts, but again, not as a penis that is female but as a female analogue of penis. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the current citation is definitely no good, it just says that guy thought he'd found a female penis (but was wrong). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it's rubbish. The clitoris has very little in common with the penis anatomically or functionally. There are some hits on a Google book search, but they seem to be either mentions or sum of parts. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

As for relationship between penis and clitoris, there is W:Clitoris#Clitoral and penile similarities and differences. Some sources seem to claim homology between penis and clitoris, including http://facstaff.unca.edu/cnicolay/BIO108/108-11-sex-evol.pdf. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The penis (or at least the glans) and the clitoris develop from the same embryonic structures, and so they are essentially different versions of the same thing. So, yes, the clitoris can technically be thought of as a "female penis" to some degree. Actually, it'd be more accurate to describe the penis as a "male clitoris," since the embryonic starting point for both sexes is femalelike (chromosomal males congenitally insensitive to the male hormones that cause the differentiation of sex organs will end up with partially or fully feminized genitalia).

Whether people actually use the phrase "female penis" to refer clitorises is another matter. -Cloudcuckoolander (formerly Astral) (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder whether the pseudopenis of the female Spotted Hyena counts. —Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 07:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing obvious on a Google book search. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Groups has this, this, and this. Here is a whole discussion. It's also spelled cactused, which may be the correct spelling (in Groups here, here, and here). "Cactused" shows up in Books here and here as a verb. The last seems to be a pretty good explanation of the origin of the term. In Groups, there's also this unambiguous use of the verb. We already have an adjective sense of cactus that goes with these. The main questions remaining are whether cactussed and cactused are adjectives in their own right vs. participles of the verb, and how we treat them as far as lemma, alt spellings, misspellings, etc. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Cited and moved entry to cactused, since that spelling gets more hits on Google Books. Cloudcuckoolander (formerly Astral) (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

There are some citations at Citations:laptop hobo, but I do not think they are from durably archived sources. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Cited. -Cloudcuckoolander (formerly Astral) (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Really? Maybe it is a US thing? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a US (politically liberal) thing, but the usage here bears little resemblance to the nominated definitions. It has much more dramatic, heroic (detractors would say histrionic and melodramatic) overtones: speaking out about injustices and other wrongs in the face of powerful interests that want to protect them, regardless of consequences. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The phrase originated as the title of a pamphlet made by the Quakers (Society of Friends) in 1955, concerning a Christian view of the Cold War. Since then it has become a vague cliche used by people of many different persuasions--left and right, political and religious, corporate and academic. It needs a solid definition or group of definitions in order to mean something. Rick Riffel (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Wiki has definitions for so many phrases, idioms and proverbs, and the definitions are usually objective. Some kind of definition is necessary for "speak truth to power", and "truth to power". I assume the latter can be spoken, heard, conveyed or done with in other ways. I also assume one can hear or see a truth to power where none is intended. Rick Riffel (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I put some citations from this millennium on Citations:speak truth to power.

Of the two definitions we have, the second ("To reveal facts about an authority or a superior.") is not one I am familiar with and does not fit the citations I've found so far very well.

The early rhetorical use of this to dramatize the role of dissident seems to be losing its force as the term is now used to encourage corporate cultures of candor. DCDuring TALK 23:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This search for "whistleblower" with the term probably would provide some support for the second sense. DCDuring TALK 23:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

German entry: I do not believe this is a German noun. Never heard of anything like that. I think it's just the adjective gebunden, as I have explained on the discussion page for Gebunden. —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right. Looking through the history, I see it started out as a Wikipedia article saying "Gebunden is a German term and can either refer to an instrument with frets, or legato articulation", which doesn't actually say whether it's a noun or an adjective. It got transwikied here, and Goldenrowley formatted it as a noun, but he isn't around anymore and his user page does not indicate any knowledge of German. I'll add the musical meanings to gebunden, and then as far as I'm concerned we can skip the bureaucracy and just delete this. —An gr 18:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This should've died a painful death back in 2008. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I made it die. -- Liliana • 18:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the term itself but its spelling. The double и looks like it might be a mistake, especially as the head= parameter lacks it. Is anyone able to verify the correct spelling? —CodeCa t 17:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a reference in that entry for a reason [51]. The lemma form is a normalized spelling ignoring the typographical distinctions among the different symbols for /i/. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Since I can't read the reference, what does it say? Why did you initially create this with the head parameter not the same as the page name. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a dictionary of OCS in Russian (also translations to Czech and Greek are given in the headwords). On the page 741, right column, the third headword from the top is the lemma as above. The number in the parentheses (1) indicates how much attestations does this word have - only one. Its entry also contains an excerpt from Codex Suprasliensis (abbreviated as Supr, in Cyrillic that would be Супр) where this word is used. In the quotation the second /i/ is written with a diaeresis, and the normalized lemma entry contains simply two ии letters. The headword was different because I accidentally a letter, due to the haste in which these entries were made. Anyway, the entry should be moved to оуньшиина (unĭšiina) per Unicode 5.1 (which was released after this entry was created..). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you happen to know anything about the etymology of the word? —CodeCa t 23:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It's from ѹнии (unii) which is listed on the previous page of the one linked above, with an attestation of ѹньшє (unĭše) in Supr, which would presumably be a genitive form, onto whose stem -ina suffix was added. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I've moved it to the form with оу instead of ѹ. —An gr 19:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sense 2: "The government; society; earthly powers". I've never seen the word used in this sense, and I don't believe the biblical quote is supporting it; to me it just means "give to the Roman Emperor that which is the Roman Emperor's". Are there any other supporting quotes? Hyarmendacil (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd just speedy delete it. It's quite a well known citation (I'm not even a Christian) where Caesar refers to the Roman Emperor. I can find the whole citation if anyone feels it's really necessary. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It definitely refers explicitly to the Roman emperor (at one point Jesus asks, "whose picture is on the coin"). Theologically, that can be extrapolated into a statement on the relationship of Christians to any earthly authority, but that's on the level of ideas, not words. Using symbolism has no effect on lexicography- otherwise we'd have to add a definition to cover every well-known literary work that uses a metaphor:

Noun

happiness

A warm puppy.

Chuck Entz (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable RfV. There might be some context in which the NT reference is used this way, as Judas/judas is in fairly broad contexts and Quisling/quisling was. DCDuring TALK 22:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Possibly: "Christs come and Christs go, but Caesar is forever," from a song I don't remember. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added cites that support the sense. It seems difficult to characterize the appropriate usage context. It is probably more common in religious contexts, but it is used outside of strictly religious contexts. DCDuring TALK 23:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think "Caesar's laws" would support the sense 'the laws of the state' and not 'the laws of Caesar'? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There is also Caesar non supra grammaticos. Spinning Spark 00:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

@MG: Because I took the trouble to exclude citations from translations of Latin works, from works about Roman history and law, from works about the New Testament and the history of the Christian church during the time of the Roman empire and to read the remaining citations to find those that did not in fact refer to the laws of Julius Caesar. DCDuring TALK 11:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: "to find those that did not in fact refer to the laws of Julius Caesar" it looks like they refer to the laws of Julius Caesar to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

If it really meant "the government" you should be able to use it in a modern context: Caesar capped benefits to £500 per household per week in 2013. Now I think about it, I don't even know what "The government; society; earthly powers" means. Sounds like three different senses on one line, and also I don't know what "earthly powers" means. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of words that are only used in limited ways. A low-frequency word is intrinsically not part of most people's idiolect and therefore doesn't seem natural. An expression that is derived from a metaphor/metonym seems to inherit restrictions from its origin so that not all use seems apt. DCDuring TALK 22:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Consider a closely analogous case: sense 5 of crown:

"Imperial or regal power, or those who wield it."

Treasure trove automatically becomes property of the Crown

One can hardly say: "The King sought to increase the Crown" though one could say "The King sought to increase imperial power." That might be a criticism of the definition, but I doubt that any definition that captures most of the usage is going to also capture the restrictions on apt usage without losing legibility and intelligibility. DCDuring TALK 22:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You've prompted me to expand our entry. - -sche (discuss) 02:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking at a random selection of entries, it's hard to find a definition that, on close inspection, doesn't need improvement. I wish improving English entries based on lexicographic standards coincided with more people's interests here. It only sometimes corresponds to mine. DCDuring TALK 02:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sating such a thing is impossible, just this, Caesar, seems not to be used this way. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I have four citations in which it is used that way. Would you like to discuss them? DCDuring TALK 21:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The 1957 one is especially good, IMO. I think this sense is plausible. I don't think Chuck's "warm puppy" is analogous, because I don't see citations like "I hired someone to feed my happiness while I was on holiday" or "I petted my happiness". - -sche (discuss) 03:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I tried some misscan spellings, but no luck so far. 'Præ‐' spellings, in early modern French's case, tend to be excluded to the 17th century. Also, many of the spellings that use é's today lacked é's back then. --Æ&Œ (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This was entered by a user with no knowledge of Swahili and seems spurious. A mistake for kiwanja cha ndege, most likely (that would literally mean "the airplanes' plot of ground"). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Protologism at use in sw.wikipedia, but not in durable media AFAICT. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Same as above. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

As above. If it exists, I assume it means "elk", not "moose". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

In European usage, elk is the moose. The wapiti (the US elk) is sometimes considered conspecific with the red deer, which is the main species referred to as deer in Europe without a qualifier (the other species are the roe deer and the fallow deer. This apparently is the result of the most common US deer (the white-tailed deer) having no counterpart in Europe, so it took over the word deer, displacing the wapiti, which took over the word elk. This left the original elk as the loser in this game of musical chairs: it ended up with a borrowed American Indian name. This is sort of like the phonological concept of a w:chain shift, but applied to the lexicon. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

As above. I hope there aren't too many more of these... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It's valid! Sw-wiki has a page, and there's a cite here. It appears to be an alternate or dialectal name (?) If no-one here knows Swahili, I can do a more-or-less decent cite using Google translate. Hyarmendacil (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to crush your hopes, but that's not how RFV works. See WT:ATTEST. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I thought Swahili was an LDL. Hyarmendacil (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

No, Swahili doesn't need that. Real words (actually used, unlike this) aren't too hard to cite, IME. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

As above. This is just ridiculous. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not a Latin adjective. I am unwilling to accept this. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The specific epithet in taxonomic names is, by definition, either an adjective in the nominative case, a noun in the genitive, or a noun in the nominative, in apposition. This would seem to be the last of the three, so even if you accept the assumption that taxonomic names are Latin, this would still be a noun in the nominative case, not an adjective. I'm not so sure it's a case for rfv, though. It's probably best to just convert it to a translingual proper noun, and forget about Latin. Another problem is that apricot is a mistranslation. The species in question (w:Prunus mume) is sometimes referred to as "Japanese apricot" (when it's not called a "flowering plum"), but it's not the same as the true apricot (w:Prunus armeniaca). Chuck Entz (talk) 05:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

"zoutches" and "zoutching" get no hits. The hits of "zoutch" that aren't gibberish seem to be mentions. The first few hits for "zoutched" are actually hits of "water-zoutched". - -sche (discuss) 05:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Most of what I found were about people named Zouch, and the place called w:Ashby de la Zouch. There was this, but it refers "water zouch", in what seems to be a noun sense. It's a bit more than a mention, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense for "cia'2" (Teochew) POJ reading. This doesn't look like a Pe̍h-ōe-jī reading to me and it isn't cited. Bumm13 (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "socially conservative and economically liberal person". - -sche (discuss) 22:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I share your skepticism. I never heard it. I don't know how to try to cite it. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

US Political term: ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_dog_Democrat –Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 23:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that isn't the definition which is subject to RFV. - -sche (discuss) 00:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, of course. Yes, I see the problem. From looking around, I see that Yellow Dog has split into two meanings, politically. One is generalised from "would vote for a yellow dog if it was on the Democrat ticket", and means anyone who would rather vote for the worst possible option in party X than anything in party Y. Attestations include this on FreeRepublic for "Yellow Dog Republican", although this is immediately challenged on the ground that "Broken Glass Republican" is correct. (Can't use any term which is tainted by association with them... whoever "they" happen to be.)

On the other hand is the idea that the Yellow Dog Democrats are an ideological subset of Democrats with a definable set of attitudes beyond being "rusted on". eg. this from 2003, especially in contrast to the "Blue Dog Democrats", who started out with a particular ideology. But even then, it appears to be used as meaning socially and economically liberal, as opposed to the (relatively) socially and economically conservative Blue Dogs. I suspect this use comes from not long after 1995, in reaction to the Blue Dogs who were founded to espouse more conservative ideologies and attempt some sort of rapprochement with the Republicans.

I wonder if there is some sort of "... Dog" bloc, united generally by social conservatism but divided by economics, per [52]. That would explain the extant wording of that sense in the entry. Pure speculation, however.

All use of "liberal" and "conservative" are, of course, in the US political senses, which may or may not have anything to do with liberalism and conservatism as defines ideologies (as opposed to tribal markers).

But you're also right that this looks to be non-trivial to disentangle. Does anyone know a scholar of US Political Science to ask? –Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 01:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

gain- words[edit]

gainbuy[edit]

The metadata attached to the two quotations which are currently in this entry is wrong: they're both from the same work (google books:"gainbuy man" demonstrates this) and that work is centuries old. It seems, in fact, to be the same work by Richard Rolle, translated by Misyn, that was the only one to use the RFV-failed spelling gainbuy, as pointed out by Visviva on Talk:gain-buy). - -sche (discuss) 21:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Who says we don't have PoV-pushing at Wiktionary? DCDuring TALK 23:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

againbuy[edit]

All Google Books hits seem to be, upon inspection, instances of "again buy", instances of "again" in one column of a page and "buy" in an adjacent column, or typos or scannos of "again by". The entry previously contained one citation, but it was spurious: the metadata was wrong (the work was from ante 1910, not from 2008) and the quotation itself used the two words "again buy", not a single word meaning "redeem". - -sche (discuss) 21:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

gainset[edit]

RFV-sense of the current definition, "to set against, to oppose". "Gainset", "gainsets" and "gainsetting" appear to mean something in the context of audio engineering / sound technology, but I can find no support for the current def. The only citation in the entry is from the Middle English period. - -sche (discuss) 01:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added an EME citation (1594) in form of gainsetteth. Leasnam (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

gainyield[edit]

AFAICT, this term has only been used once: in the 1300s by Richard Rolle. - -sche (discuss) 01:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Per NED, the noun is attested thrice in EME (and Scots); the verb, however, may be as above. Leasnam (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

gaingive[edit]

Mentioned by one or two dictionaries but never used, AFAICS. - -sche (discuss) 01:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

gaincover[edit]

It's mentioned in the Handbuch der englischen Wortbildungslehre, and it's present as a rare scanno of "gain cover", but is it ever used? - -sche (discuss) 01:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

gaincall[edit]

This word is quite rare; I've put a couple of citations on the citations page, and a few more are available via google books:"gaincalling"... but many are Middle English or Scots. I'd be surprised if six modern English citations exist, let alone if enough citations exist to support all six of the definitions the entry currently has. - -sche (discuss) 01:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The second cite is definitely Scots IMO, but the first cite isn't genuine Middle English. Don't let the date fool you; it's grammatically modern, must be a translation or scribe's copy from post-1500ish. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A word translated from earlier English (i.e. Middle or Old English) into Modern English and kept (--not swapped out for a different word) is the same as a use, correct? The transcriber could have easily used recall, but chose use of gaincall instead... Leasnam (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

gaincope[edit]

The only citation I can find is the one in the entry. That means we're 1/3 of the way towards attesting 1/3 of the senses... - -sche (discuss) 02:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

gaincome[edit]

The citation which was in the entry was actually Middle Scots. There's a lot of noise/chaff on Google Books. This term might be just barely attested, though. - -sche (discuss) 03:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

This is probably attested as a variation of the phrase "with child"... not as a verb! - -sche (discuss) 02:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

it is a verb derived from the phrase "with child" Leasnam (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

with- words[edit]

withdrive[edit]

RFV of the "repel" sense. Of the six citations currently in the entry, the first doesn't make sense to me, the second (minus a stray comma) actually does seem to use the current definition, and all the rest are errors for "withdraw" — in one case, the speaker immediately corrects themselves and says "withdraw". On which note, should we add a sense like "{{context|nonstandard|rare in the present tense}} to [[[withdraw]]]]"? - -sche (discuss) 03:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

withturn[edit]

This has only one modern English citation, and I can't find any more. (Following the ISO, we define anything from before 1500 as Middle English; see Wiktionary:About English#Etymology.) I suggest it be moved to withturnen as Middle English; the MED has several citations of both senses of that word from the 1400s. - -sche (discuss) 05:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

withgang[edit]

None of the inflected forms get any hits, and most hits of "withgang" are Middle English, Scots, mentions, or scannos of "with gang". - -sche (discuss) 06:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

withjoin[edit]

Has one Middle English(?) citation of the split spelling with Ioyne, and one old but modern English citation of withjoyne. I can't find any other citations, though I may have missed something in the sea of scannos of "with join(s|ed|ing)". - -sche (discuss) 07:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

withnay[edit]

AFAICT, it's mentioned in a few dictionaries, used in a couple of Middle English works ("withnay her fruyt" in ?Palladius?, "withnay thou never my rueful boon" in Pearl), found (spuriously) as a scanno of "with, nay" and "with - nay", and...that's it. Must we withnay it entry into our dictionary? - -sche (discuss) 07:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

withsafe[edit]

I can't find nay use of this at all, even as a Middle English word. I didn't try that many variant spellings, though. - -sche (discuss) 07:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

withseek[edit]

- -sche (discuss) 07:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: The building in Washington, D.C., where the Congress of the United States meets.

What are some of the lowercase uses of this sense? How many are they in comparison to those of Capitol? --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Is the temple of Jupiter in Rome really a common noun? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added that sense to this RFV. I think both the "template" and the "Congressional building" senses belong in the majuscule entry. - -sche (discuss) 23:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (countable) A comic originating in Japan, regardless of the artistic style.

I seek attestation of English sense referring to any comic originating in Japan. Other online dictionaries do not seem to have this sense; see also manga at OneLook Dictionary Search. The questioned sense was introduced in diff on 7 April 2011. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Swahili Tbot entry; doesn't actually seem to be used. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sense 2 of plough: "(US) A horse-drawn plow (as opposed to plow, used for the mechanical variety)". I have never heard or seen that American English distinguishes two senses of /plaʊ/, spelling it plow to refer to a mechanical one and spelling it plough to refer to a horse-drawn one. I'm pretty sure it's always spelled plow in en-US for all meanings. —An gr 16:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I've seen plough used in Am En, but only as a semi-archaic-looking variant of plow, and never with any distinction in meaning. Sense 2 sounds fishy to me. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

At COCA plough is still used in contemporary English, but, after excluding use in proper nouns (The Plough and the Stars, w:Schering-Plough, the constellation, etc, totalling 1/3 - 1/2 of uses), it seems more often used in historical contexts and fiction, where indeed it often refers to horse- or ox-drawn ones. In any event, COHA shows that plow has progressed from 5% of total usage (plow + plough) to majority by 1900 to 80-90% of usage over the last fifty years.

I would characterize current US use of plough as literary and historical. DCDuring TALK 20:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sense 1 of kuketo

Out of all the sources that I've found for this entry, 99% of them say this word means cupcake. I can find virtually no sources that say that this means HTTP cookie or anything of the sort. Maybe someone else will have better luck than me? Otherwise, I'd say to delete the first sense and keep the cupcake translation as that is the valid translation according to more than 10 sources. Razor flame 22:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

RFV-sense "Rogues who carried snuff or dust in their pockets, which they threw into the eyes of any person they intended to rob; and running away, their accomplices (pretending to assist and pity the half-blinded person) took that opportunity of plundering him." - -sche (discuss) 07:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

This sense seems to be directly taken from Barrère and Leland's Dictionary of Slang, Jargon and Cant (1889, p.37 s.v. Amusers):

Amusers (English and American), thieves, who formerly used to throw snuff or pepper in a victim's eyes, while an accomplice robbed him, under pretext of rendering assistance.

Farmer & Henley's Dictionary of Slang and Colloquial English (1927, p.10 s.v. Amuse) has:

... Whence amuser, a cheat a snuff-throwing thief; one that decieves. (Ash and Grose)

And Eric Partridge's Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (2013, ed Beale) has:

amuse, in late C.17–18 c, is to throw dust, pepper, snuff, etc., in the eyes of the person to be robbed; an amuser is one who does this. B.E.

–Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 08:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a special usage of a general older sense. We've had this discussion before at amuse (see here). I've taken the liberty of replacing a specific usage in one work with the more general older sense of which that was a special case. Technically, this is almost covered by sense 1 since the most of the meaning is given at the amuse entry. I suppose we could add dozens of particular slang senses, but I think they are all covered by the older meaning. Dbfirs 11:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

...later ... Sorry, in my rush, I'd removed the template before allowing further discussion here. I've restored it as sense 3, but I suggest that this sense be deleted, or used as an example of sense 2. Francis Grose was a satirist, and seems to have introduced this specific meaning partly as a joke, though there's no doubt that the word was used to describe such thieves, and others who used similar techniques. Dbfirs 12:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should stay, even if marked as obsolete or archaic. While the derivation from the primary sense of amuse to the specific one of someone who uses distraction as a cover for theft is obvious enough when shown, it's not necessarily clear without specific mention. It's clearly derived, but it's just as clearly specific and distinct. I would like this sense back in the entry for amuse as well, for the same reason. Even if as a subsense of one of the existing senses. —Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 12:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

We could certainly extend the sense, or add the Francis Grose as a citation to illustrate usage. As I mentioned, I don't think Grose intended it as a serious definition, but others might have taken it to be so after 1785. Dbfirs 12:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up the definition, Dbfirs. As for the "sandy" sense: as per usual RFV practice, it can stay iff there are words that use "amuser" with that sense, distinct from the general sense that's just been added. - -sche (discuss) 19:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

1993, Stella Cameron; [Only by Your Touch] p.88
"He should have knowed better than to tangle with you, Miss Lindsay. Where did you learn to be an amuser, then?"
2013, Michelle Lovric; [The Remedy]
"Valentine watches the bunch of amusers close around the politician, the leader already dipping into his pocket for the snuff to fling into the eyes of their victim."

I did a search for anything likely in Google Books between 1750 and 1900, and found not a damn thing... as I suspect Dbfirs predicted. But the previous two cites show that even if no-one at the time used the term in anger (or at least, not in print), it is now used retroactively for period flavour. I even tripped over a mention of the term being used in the movie Gangs of New York. —Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 10:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Francis Grose seems to have had more influence than I had expected. In view of your excellent research, I reverse my opinion and agree that we could have a third archaic slang sense. Dbfirs 13:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems we allow cites from durably archived non-written material, a Gangs of New York citation would be fully acceptable. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Quotes for Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting (Character) from Gangs of New York (2002)

Boss Tweed: I don't know. I think maybe we should hang someone.
Bill: Who?
Boss Tweed: No one important, necessarily. Average men will do. Back alley amusers with no affiliations.

Will that do? —Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 08:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It fits the general sense 2, and might, or might not, be intended in the Francis Grose sense. Dbfirs 09:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to verify the supposed second sense: "rule by God". What does this mean, and is this a real sense? ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It sounds very plausible. Rule by God would mean the same Rule by government but instead of a government, God. Whether such a thing exists is irrelevant, because we can have words expressing concepts whether the concept is real or not. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Is Josephus not a sufficient verification? If not, then the OED has "A form of government in which God (or a deity) is recognized as the king or immediate ruler, and his laws are taken as the statute-book of the kingdom, these laws being usually administered by a priestly order as his ministers and agents" as its primary meaning. Should we modify our second sense to clarify? Dbfirs 11:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting that the two different-sounding definitions could easily have the same referent. Some of our definitions of democracy, communism, and socialism require some of the same kind of w:Suspension of disbelief as this one. DCDuring TALK 20:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Certain societies (e.g. Rome, Egypt) have believed that their rulers were gods, so I tried searching for "theocracy" + Rome and "theocracy" + Egypt. Results at Citations:theocracy. - -sche (discuss) 23:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I would call this cited if we modify the definition to "rule by a god", since the examples are of a society which displayed belief in multiple gods. bd2412 T 12:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've modified the def accordingly and detagged the entry. - -sche (discuss) 19:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Striking as verified as amended. bd2412 T 18:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

1811 dictionary words[edit]

sell a bargain[edit]

Cant sense. - -sche (discuss) 19:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

arch duke[edit]

Rfv-sense "comical person". - -sche (discuss) 19:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

ard[edit]

RFV-sense "hot". The only uses of "he was ard", "it was ard" I can find use it as an aitch-dropping form of "hard": "he was 'ard of hearin'", "it was ard, real tough", etc. - -sche (discuss) 19:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

autem[edit]

I don't see anything on the first several pages of Google Books searches for "an autem", "autems", "to autem", "at autem", "in autem" that seems to support this sense. - -sche (discuss) 19:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

alderman[edit]

RFV-senses "a turkey" and "a potbelly". - -sche (discuss) 04:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

ale post[edit]

A maypole? - -sche (discuss) 04:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Apparently it is an error, but quite an ancient one. In the [prologue to Chaucer's Cantebury Tales Skeat writes "Speght wrongly explained ale-stake as 'a Maypole,' and has misled many others, including Chatterton, who thus was led to write the absurd line—' Around the ale-stake minstrels sing the song'; Ælla, st. 30. ' At the ale-stake' is correct". The definition of maypole is given in numerous 18th and 19th century dictionaries, but no actual usages besides the luckless poet mentioned by Skeat. The correct meaning is "a post outside an ale-house on which a garland is hung". Spinning Spark 16:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

And knew hir conseil, and was al hir reed.

A gerland hadde he set upon his heed

As greet as it were for an ale-stake;

A bokeleer hadde he maad him of a cake. - Chaucer

Cites added. Spinning Spark 20:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The "maypole" sense has been deleted as uncited (RFV-failed); the "alestake" sense has been kept. - -sche (discuss) 19:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

RFV-sense "To crossdress convincingly as a female." I'm not sure how to search for examples of this. See also the old RFV of the noun, above. - -sche (discuss) 21:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Googling for "crossdress trap" gives many results. More if you turn off SafeSearch. (Many more, and very NSFW.) Is the request specifically for the verb sense? I would note that the noun definition is kind of messed up right now: Sense 12 gives a sporting definition, but an example for the otherwise missing crossdressing sense. Which sense is still listed amongst the translations. —Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 21:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. - -sche (discuss) 22:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that it's not that no-one could find attestations, but that no-one looked. (It does basically come down to googling transvestitism and recording that you did so.) From what I can see, "trap" as a noun meaning specifically "a crossdresser or pre-operative transexual who passes as female" is widespread and common (in the appropriate circles).

Here: have some links from the first page of the google results (SafeSearch on):

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121010183054AAFRQ3V
"16 Year Old Becoming a Trap/Crossdresser?"
http://forum.gamerage.com/grandchase/forums/p/144905/2070106.aspx (playing on the "trap=crossdresser"/"Its a trap!" pun)
http://reignofanarchy.blogspot.com.au/2010/09/difference-between-traps-crossdressers.html
"The Difference between Traps, Crossdressers, and Transvestites"
http://trap-cafe.com/index.php?topic=681.0 (the website is even named "trap-cafe")
"...and having a girlfriend who likes traps and help me in make up, borrow her clothes..."

More examples are available for the searching. —Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 22:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

None of those citations are durably-archived, though. I did try searching for examples in Google Books, but found nothing. There might be citations on Usenet, though. - -sche (discuss) 22:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Also those aren't for the verb trap, these are clearly for the noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

If this passes, how are we going to explain the lack of a noun sense? That'd be a rather glaring omission. —CodeCa t 22:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Too hypothetical for me to answer. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspect this usage is new (within the last couple of years), and hasn't had time to get into enough printed works for it to show up on Google Books. And that Usenet is of diminishing use for this sort of thing these days. (The cool kids are all on web fora now.)

Yes, the examples are all for the noun sense: I submit that the noun sense is, despite no-one proving so here, well understood and widely used. As a verb, I suspect only as a back formation from the noun. —Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 22:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I checked Usenet for "trap" and all its inflected forms + crossdresser and crossdress and all their inflected forms. All the uses I found were of other senses of "trap". I have previously checked books. Neither the noun nor the verb seems to be used outside of a few web fora. It seems to be simply too rare to be includable. - -sche (discuss) 23:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. It appears to be widely used and understood in the LGBTQ scene. It is not showing up in books because it is too new. It is not showing up in Usenet because Usenet is simply not useful any more for newer words -- it has over the last few years become largely moribund. When you say "a few" fora, they are fora for crossdressers, transvestites and transexuals. I submit that this term is a known term of art in these communities, and is known outside of it. And no, I'm not going to do more searching on this topic while I'm at work. I'll have another look this evening, and try and get a better handle on what the concept "permanently recorded media" means when the definition excludes precisely those locations where this term is found. I presume you're not claiming that the term is not widely used in the relevant communities, much less that it is not used at all, just that it's not in the predefined allowed references? –Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 00:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I am indeed stating that the term is apparently not used in the sorts of durably-archived media that are allowed by Wiktionary rules (books, magazines, journals, Usenet, songs, films)... and efforts to revisit our rules to allow web fora have been opposed by people who note that it would open the floodgates to all kinds of spelling and other errors. - -sche (discuss) 00:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

... in a way which allowing Usenet does not. (My irony meter just exploded.) I'll have another look when doing so won't get me fired or arrested. –Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 01:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

2008 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/transgender-news/WOPR0F3ZomE/discussion

"The disturbance started over the word trap. Until recently, I was completely unfamiliar with any use of this word to mean transgender or transsexual people." ... "A couple of younger people in my twitterverse have used the word trap in this way. One trans woman self-identifies as a trap."

That's all I could find in Google Groups, which I must say is a pale shadow of what it was. And I'm surprised to have found so much, because, like I said, this term gained currency since greater Usenet became moribund.

I dunno if this is any common. Usually one would say pass, the respective sense of which I added a while ago. -- Liliana • 21:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

From what I've seen, it does not appear as a verb. trap appears as a noun, with a number of qualities, one of which is the ability to pass. So all the above is less a defence of the verb sense (which I think does not apply and can safely be deleted), and more of a "hey, I didn't even realise this sense was going to be deleted from the noun until it had been!" –Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 05:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

RFV-sense "A controversial style of modern opera focusing on sexuality and the sociopolitical." The linked-to WP article has been deleted/redirected, and google books:Eurotrash opera turns up hits for the other two senses, but not AFAICT this. - -sche (discuss) 23:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The search string eurotrash regietheater seems to get what you need. w:Regietheater is where the Wikipedia link redirects to. But note that the contributers to this forum thread argue that Eurotrash and Regietheater are not synonyms and Eurotrash cannot even be defined simply as bad Regietheater. Spinning Spark 00:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I had tried google books:Regietheater Eurotrash, actually. IMO all the hits there use sense 1 of Eurotrash (that is, they're dismissing Regietheater as low-quality or low-brow entertainment), not a separate operatic sense. - -sche (discuss) 00:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Portuguese. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 04:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Portuguese Wiktionary does have it... as Galician! Wonderfool entry, probably entered without due care and attention, just delete it? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate meaning for one thing, but this word doesn't exist at all AFAICT. It seems to be a confusion with a tense marked by the infix -ngeli-. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems to only be used when referring to actual apothecaries' bills, or when saying something is "as long as an apothecary's bill", which doesn't show "apothecary's bill" to be idiomatic. - -sche (discuss) 19:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

RFV-sense "penis". google books:"his arbor vitae" turns up exactly one hit. - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Translingual -- Liliana • 22:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

RFV-sense "man milk" (supposedly literal milk from a male's nipples, as opposed to man milk ("semen")). - -sche (discuss) 05:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll note that it links to the deleted page w:Baby Mank, which isn't exactly a vote of confidence for the reliability of the word.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

That used to be a redirect to the list of characters on Wonder Showzen, which suggests mank may have been used only on that show, in which case it would need to meet WT:FICTION. —An gr 15:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Having done a pretty extensive Google Books search, I find nothing at all. There is clearly a surname, Mank, although even that is probably not particularly widespread. bd2412 T 00:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

dℓ[edit]

ℓ in the sense of "symbol for the liter" failed RfV, so these should go as well. -- Liliana • 09:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

ℓ as liter shouldn't have been deleted. It is used at least in Japan. See the entry of U+3397 (㎗) in the Unicode document CJK Compatibility (3300–33FF), and you'll find that it is equal to U+0064 U+2113 (dℓ). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "A person who lives outside the parental home." That may be part of the connotation of being an adult, but it's not a separate meaning. If a 35-year-old still lives with his parents, you can't say he's not an adult, except under the No true Scotsman fallacy. —An gr 15:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this definition fits. Certainly an 8 year old at boarding school is not under any definition an adult, any more than a 37 year old who lives with his parents is not.

There is, however, probably room for a legal sense or two; as someone declared an adult for legal purposes. (ie, tried as an adult, or of someone legally emancipated from their parents before legal majority.) Probably should include the normal legal definition as well: someone over the age of majority (18 or 21, usually). This legal sense is not exactly congruent with the biological one: biological adulthood is a gradual onset, whereas legal adulthood is something you do not have at 23:59 on the day before your birthday, and do have a minute later. –Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 00:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's total nonsense: added in this edit along with "A person whose parents are deceased." which has already failed this process. What next, "a person who is five foot or taller?" Mglovesfun (talk) 10:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd just have deleted it, but I suppose we have to wait to see if anyone finds some obscure usage that suggest this meaning. Dbfirs 08:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Needs three independent uses spanning more than a year. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Humm..I could only find one source for this word. When I added it, I thought there where a lot more. I'll go ahead and ask for this page to be deleted. Razor flame 21:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, I didn't realise that there was an English L2 on this page as well. See #ngeli above. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Well the pdf on the page does use it. Is that really a published work? I can't vouch for it. Also if it's just an error surely a published error isn't protected by "all words in all languages" because it is nevertheless not a word in any language. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: a special motorcycle with three wheels. To me this just seems like a brand name of a motorcycle, like e. g. Vespa. No proof of generic use is given. -- Liliana • 21:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It's just because of the funny name for a motor scooter people use it in the lower case all the time and often as an animate noun, jokingly calling it an "ant", rather than Muravey. "Я купил себе муравья" rather than "Я купил себе Муравей". - (I've bought myself an ant). There are heaps of Google hints in this usage. I haven't checked Google books. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It's good. You can see one at ru:w:Муравей (мотороллер). —Stephen ^(Talk) 09:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Liliana is questioning lower case usage for the brand name, if I understand correctly.

Insects are animate nouns in Russian, motor scooters and their names are usually inanimate, "муравей" is a notable exception (inanimate lower case is also OK). Besides, this type of scooters were called "муравей" even when the actual model names were different. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article above capitalizes it as Муравей (Muravej) throughout. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, three cites were added, but it seems they're all in quotation marks? So it seems people don't really consider it part of the lexicon. -- Liliana • 12:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

They do, very much so. In books they put quotation marks to mark another meaning of "ant". Similarly, to how the oldest w:Zaporozhets car is called "горбатый" ("hunched", "hunchback", see the top picture to understand why), a type of bus "гармошка" (a small Russian button accordion, see entry), "бобик" (name of a dog) - a type of jeep. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it has now been cited, but the encyclopedic information ("some models were called differently...") can be removed. --Vahag (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps worth noting that models officially called differently, colloquially are still called "муравей"? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, that may qualify as a dictionary information. --Vahag (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This brings to mind the w:Volkswagen Beetle, which is often referred to as simply a "beetle" or a "bug". I wonder if we should have entries for those. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a good analogy. The best I could come up with is hoover/Hoover. Yours is better. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Passed. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Per #alotropa above. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Cannot find any sources to verify this term. Will mark it for deletion. Razor flame 03:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I had deleted the entry as a protologism, but the creator sent me an e-mail saying it has been used since the "70th" (70ies I assume) and provided this link, which has a few PDFs of articles from periodicals. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 00:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

All those links seem to be by, or about Goodfield so don't seem to meet CFI as they are not independent, even assuming they meet the durability criterion. If the term is used only by one person it is still a protologism even if he has been using it since the 70s. Spinning Spark 10:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think if we can three different cites from three different authors, that's enough. Even if the cites refer to one of the other authors. But they have to be non-mentions too. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Cited. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 18:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

-- Liliana • 18:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I just failed *fish as uncited since January 2013. There are other suspect ones in Special:Contributions/194.83.24.240, *t for example, it might be real but searching for it would be almost impossible. Anyone care to vouch for it? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm?? This seems like a random abbreviation to me. Sure people use it, but only when theyre trying to write quickly. I mean sometimes I write "Switz" or even "Sw" for Switzerland and everyone knows what it means but no one would expect to find them in a dictionary as variant forms of Switzerland. Soap (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this really German? I would assume that in Germany the character "ü" is always readily available, and the spelling "ueber" would be used by speakers of other languages whenever they have the need to write "über". If this is indeed considered German, then we would potentially need an entry for every word with "ü" in it: gruen, fuer, Muehle, Fuehrer. ... --Hekaheka (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I think they should be turned into redirects or leave as "alternative spellings". In any environment where Umlaut is not available (it's rare now), letters "ä", "ö", "ü" and "ß" are spelled "ae", "oe", "ue" and "ss". The German Wikipedia mentions this possibility but says that it's not possible to do it with Finnish or Estonian, that's possibly why the confusion. "ae", "oe", "ue" and "ss" are also sometimes used for transcribing German words/names into other Roman based languages, especially "ß" (when "ß" is written in all caps, it's always written as "SS", e.g. spaß -> SPASS). That's the official rule, although in English letters "ä", "ö" and "ü" are often replaced with "a", "o", "u", so "uber" is not German, but "ueber" is still German.

Re: we would potentially need an entry for every word. No need to create them on purpose, IMO. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a little mention here (in German): Darstellung von Umlauten (representation of umlauts) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It's worth noting that some old words may have "oe" and others as the correct and the only spelling, like Goethe (pronounced as "Göte"). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

See WT:T:ADE#dafuer. The spellings with "ss" instead of "ß" must be allowed as soft redirects, because they're standard in Switzerland. The spellings with "ae" instead of "ä" are more debatable... I would be inclined to make a special alt-form-of template that either includes or links to a note about the circumstances under which they are used, and use it on entries like this. But I wouldn't go out of my way to create them... - -sche (discuss) 03:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I reformulated the entry according to the lines discussed in connection with "dafür". Please have a look and comment. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think a separate usage note is too wordy; I've compacted the information into a simple template and exhibited it in [[dafuer]]. - -sche (discuss) 05:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I like the template. Can it also add to some umlautless category? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning in the template that the use of ue etc. instead of ü is also found in archaic spelling, e.g. [53] and s:de:Lutherbibel/Lukasevangelium (1546)#XI. (verses 11 and 12). (While searching for examples, I came across this book which always uses ae, oe, ue instead of umlauts but nevertheless uses ß correctly, resulting in such perverse spellings as vergroeßern.) —An gr 15:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

@Angr: I've worked a mention of archaic use into the template as best I could; feel free to improve the wording.

@Anatoli: what would the use of a category of umlautless terms be? - -sche (discuss) 01:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

@-sche. On a second thought, I don't think it would be too important. "German alternative forms" would do just fine. There are too many reasons for misspellings or alternative forms. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Italian: (US, slang) Alternative spelling of scolapasta. (a colander)

-- DCDuring TALK 16:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are exactly 3 Usenet cites that use the form, all as a singular [54], though it'd hard to be certain from the quotes what the definition is, or whether it fits the geographical context given. Two of them seem to be based on the idea that a crazy person would wear it on his/her head. Given the context, it could be a deliberately wrong form used for humorous effect. I think someone who speaks the language well enough to catch the nuances would need to look at these. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops! I missed the obvious reference to Pastafarianism. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be attested. "Kotata" by itself gets one good hit and a couple of possibly passable hits. - -sche (discuss) 00:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The etymology is bizarre (Latin + Middle English for a designation of Native Americans?) and nothing on Google Books suggests that the word even exists. - -sche (discuss) 02:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

ameriginal[edit]

Amerigines[edit]

As above. - -sche (discuss) 02:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Note Talk:Amerigine and Talk:amerigine#RFV_.E2.80.94_failed. These protologisms were added by one user in 2008. - -sche (discuss) 02:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the etymology to make sense, but if "Amerigine" has failed RFV I fully expect "Ameriginal" to do so as well. —An gr 09:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion moved to WT:RFD#ask for it.

Noun. Looks very unlikely to me, but I don't know any Spanish. Hyarmendacil (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know any Spanish either, but a priori what's so unlikely about a noun meaning bower or arbor? —An gr 09:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Not in Spanish Wiktionary. Google translate doesn't know it. No obvious hits (in Spanish or Portuguese) for the noun sense in Google book search (though an adjective exists). SemperBlotto (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Moved to emparrado, the correct spelling. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 18:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: Shopping by means of a computer network.

I don't think this is how the term is used, based on my review of usage. The main meaning seems to be something like "home shopping in response to television, especially infomercials and home shopping channels." Sometimes this is extended to include internet shopping, but not very often. But I may have missed the right additional search terms to get the challenged meaning, which is in any event not something I've heard in the US. DCDuring TALK 11:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

See also WT:TR#teleshopping. DCDuring TALK 11:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
At present, sales revenues of offline teleshopping still greatly outnumber those of online teleshopping. Based on the most recent available statistics, the sales revenue for offline teleshopping, including telephone marketing, TV, and radio, totaled an estimated $529.1 billion [55]

There are those who believe that it is teleshopping via the Internet which represents the channel of the future as opposed to PC-based Internet usage. [56]

In particular, shopping refers to a set of activities in which consumers seek and obtain information about products and/or services, conduct a transaction transferring ownership or right to use, and spatially relocate the product or service to the new owner. Teleshopping, in turn, refers to a case in which one or more of those activities is conducted through the use of telecommunication technologies. Today, much attention is focused on the Internet as the technology of interest [[57]

Teleshopping includes searching for vendors, comparing prices, browsing vendor Web sites or electronic shopping malls with multimedia displays of products, and selecting and ordering products [[58]

Teleshopping requires a telephone connection, either to call in an order orally or by fax, or to place an order while surfing the Web. [[59]

Tele-shopping allows users ot shop from the comfort of their homes. For example, a user with a computer and Internet access can connect to a database server to browse a multimedia catalog and order products. [[60]

Spinning Spark 14:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I would regard this sense as dated in current usage, having been superseded by "internet shopping". Dbfirs 16:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It feels dated to me, reminding me of videotext/viewdata/teletext, but some of the business/sociology/regulation usage seems relatively current DCDuring TALK 17:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

These excellent citations argue for a sense that includes both internet and television broadcast, not for one that excludes television, as the challenged sense does. The usage that excludes internet shopping, including only television-based home shopping also seems to exist, though possibly limited to business people, as perhaps all the senses are. DCDuring TALK 17:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Does not seem to exist in either English or Japanese. There's a presumably unrelated word Shambari which seems to be a mythical Indian person, and an Indian surname. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely a word, it's out there on the net. Whether it can be cited or not is another question altogether. By the way, the ety is not "Japanese", it is sham+shibari. Spinning Spark 18:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I would challenge the second sense though. It is covered by the first sense and the cite has no quote. I cannot find the publication from the info given either. Spinning Spark 18:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense for first Vietnamese reading, as it's not from Nôm Foundation like most of these readings are that aren't from the Unihan Database. The second reading is from the Nôm Foundation site. Bumm13 (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

An old Hawaiian Pidgin entry, converted to English. I don't know, it's just that phrases in Hawaiian get lifted now and then but I'm not clear that this works as a word on its own with that meaning. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Quite doubtful. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is it doubtful? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 20:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternative spelling of yiffiest. How is that even possible? The final -y of yiffy can't just disappear, or can it? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that the creator of this entry also made this edit: [61]. Looks like dodgy guesswork. Equinox ◑ 15:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of "yiff" being used as an adjective. It's either a noun or an interjection in my experience. —CodeCa t 18:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Or a verb in the Furry scene, I understand. —Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 20:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It's almost certainly an error resulting from confusion between yiff as an attributive noun ("yiff drawings") and yiffy as an adjective. The two words are both distinct, but they certainly shouldn't merge with each other just by adding a suffix. I'd say that "yiffest" seems wrong to me but could have some use as a nonce word the same way you'd say "I got an orange smoothie" ----> "yeah, well I got an oranger one" (where orange is a noun but is reinterpreted as an adjective in the second sentence). Soap (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

{{wrongscript}} was reverted for reasons I don't understand. As such, an RfV will have to do. -- Liliana • 22:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The Latin alphabet was used to write Tatar at two different points in history, and the letters h, a and r made it into the alphabet both times, so har's script seems OK. It may, however, not be citeable, so RFV does seem like the appropriate forum. - -sche (discuss) 19:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I've set all the other Tatar terms tagged with {{wrongscript}} to point here; all must be citable per WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

They should be linked to from here or else people won't find them. -- Liliana • 11:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, looks like I gotta come to rescue again:

But you're gonna have to put in the links yourself. I certainly won't do that. -- Liliana • 21:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I used |fragment=har, so na. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I've formatted the <pre>-coded section above, which is I think what Liliana meant by "put in the links". - -sche (discuss) 01:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't confirm the existence of "хар" (Cyrillic) or "har" (Roman). Both references are invalid, they are not not about Tatar. Snow in Tatar is кар (qar). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

süküt, töpe (and deriviatives), tiş and some others are not (Volga) Tatar but Crimean Tatar. Delete [[a voce‎]], curd - bad entry and invalid references. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Moved some of the listed entries, which I was able to confirm to Crimean Tatar, reformatted. If happy with the move, please remove rfv/rfd tags. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Ety#2 sense#2 (chess) one of the eight horizontal lines of squares on a chessboard [the corresponding term for a vertical line is "file"].

In what way is this distinct from ety#2 sense#1? I would be surprised if there are any quotes out there which can make a distinction between senses #1 and #2. Spinning Spark 11:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a subsense of sense 1. rank at OneLook Dictionary Search shows that the fuller dictionaries have either a sense or a subsense for the chess (and checkers) sense. DCDuring TALK 15:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

So do we have a formatting style for sub-senses? Spinning Spark 18:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we can use indentation to make it sense 1.1 rather than sense 2. I've done so. Equinox ◑ 18:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Striking request. Spinning Spark 19:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Subsense is probably underused. It can make our longer PoS sections a little more comprehensible. DCDuring TALK 21:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Having recently encountered one of the shorter Oxford dictionaries (I don't know the official name but it's bundled with the Amazon Kindle e-book reader), I agree: they manage to combine tiny snippets of useful encyclopaedic information with a very terse and hierarchical format for definitions. Equinox ◑ 21:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The question Spinningspark raised about what citations would support the existence of a subsense is interesting. I find it difficult to address. Presumably one would need to find attributes or combinations of attributes unique to the subsense supported by the citations. I'd be inclined to follow the lemmings if the word is used in the context claimed, because the difficulty in finding citations unambiguously supporting distinct attributes is quite high. If no other dictionary has the subsense, then we need to face the problem creatively. DCDuring TALK 22:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It is very easy to find chess related cites and such a subsense undoubtedly exists. I have chess books on my own bookshelf which use the term repeatedly. No, my original request was not for cites to support a subsense, but cites that support a separate sense altogether. I suppose it is still an open question what counts as a sub-sense. Should we have sub-senses for a body of soldiers?, police on parade?, ships in a convoy? All easily citable. Maybe the chess sense is different because it refers to the squares of the board rather than the pieces arranged on it. Spinning Spark 08:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to say. For "existence", read "distinct, separate existence". Your conjecture might be right. Sometimes I don't even notice such common metonyms. DCDuring TALK 12:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

RFV of the verb, which was RFved previously and failed, but was re-added recently. It's been a while since the last RFV, so more citations may have become available. Some are in Citations:cupcake, but: the Big Bang and Information Week citations support an intransitive sense meaning "fail", while the Network citation seems more like a transitive verb meaning "crash". All three are from the same year. - -sche (discuss) 00:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed but this edit removed a 2012 citation that is not on the citations page. This (just barely) gets a span of a year. Spinning Spark 09:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC) to 10:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed that citation because I can find no evidence that it is real rather than made-up, and it seems like it was faked (or perhaps genuinely written or transcribed) by someone who didn't speak English: "a obsolete", "can lengthy"... - -sche (discuss) 23:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The publication CFO Weekly Briefing does seem to exist but is not published online. I would be inclined to assume good faith and that the quote is poorly transcribed. However, there could be some question of whether these newsletters are durably archived (they are sent out by e-mail), or even archived at all. Spinning Spark 09:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

This cite [62] does not exactly support the given definition but would seem to be related

His aides—if they're any good, and I'm sure they are—have acquired my identity hours ago and cupcaked me through half a dozen mil/pol databases in the time he and I have been away on the moors.

Not sure what it does mean though. Spinning Spark 09:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Since "mil/pol databases" can't be found anywhere in a Google search, I suppose it's made-up "hacker" jargon. He must have got "cupcake" from somewhere though. Equinox ◑ 12:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

mil/pol is obviously shorthand for military/police- not a standard abbreviation, but the kind of thing one might do to save typing. Cupcake does seem out of place, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on mil/pol. The quote is from a work of fiction so one would not necessarily expect real databases to correspond to those in the plot. The characters are not expected to be real people after all. Spinning Spark 18:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Sense: to think. The normal word for "think" is dink and there is no cognate of this verb in Dutch either. —CodeCa t 18:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It's perfectly real, and there is a cognate in Dutch, namely dacht. Not surprisingly, this verb was originally an imperfect, and still sees its principal use thus. But now I have to go and rustle up citations for you... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Cited. It looks like it's a bit archaic, but I don't know enough Afrikaans to be sure. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

What you cited is the past participle, which isn't what I'm disputing; the archaic preterite seems ok too. But is "dag" ever used as a present tense or as an infinitive? In other words, does it deserve a lemma with its own set of inflections? —CodeCa t 19:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It isn't. (Well, maybe colloquially, but it's hard to weed those uses out.) But as you may not have noticed, I put a context label on it to indicate that. So the sense itself is fine, because the past participle can't be a past participle of anything other than dag. It's like finding three citations of "he metaknowledged" — that could only be the past tense of an English verb "to metaknowledge", so it's sufficient for attestation. A preterite can't have a past participle, so there needs to be another sense. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

One of the books you cited in fact says that gedag (as well as gedog) is an alternative form of gedink and therefore the past participle of dink. There is no such infinitive as dag, this is just an irregular past participle. —CodeCa t 22:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a weird way to think of it, because of course it's not a "real" alternative form, but I guess I don't care enough to argue it, and admittedly I can't find present tense uses. We should have a usage note at dink to explain all this and you can move the citations somewhere, not sure where. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The verb. As far as I can tell, the normal form of this verb is leef and that's the form that would be etymologically expected as well; I don't think any Afrikaans verbs end in unstressed -e. If this exists, is it a full lemma, or just a single form? —CodeCa t 19:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop tagging these. I would call this cited on the basis of common use - just look at google books:"om te lewe". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ido. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That isn't a valid request for verification if you don't provide a reason for wanting verification. Razor flame 22:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, one doesn't need to specify a reason for wanting verification; the implicit/default reason is that the RFVed word seems unlikely to be attested in the language in question. (If a user posts a lot of RFVs in a short time, especially for terms that can clearly be demonstrated to be in use, some or all of the RFVs may be speedily closed, but that isn't what's happened here.)

I assume MK checked and found the same thing I've found: that this term is listed in a couple of dictionaries, but doesn't seem to have been used anywhere durable. - -sche (discuss) 23:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Implicitly any request refers to what is laid out in Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Header. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Both this section and the below section have been deleted. Razor flame 03:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

As above. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That isn't a valid request for verification if you don't provide a reason for wanting verification. Razor flame 22:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Afrikaans technical protologism. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how kiloöhm is any more of protologism in Afrikaans than kiloohm is in English. —An gr 10:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about Afrikaans, but this is far more dubious as an English spelling. Although one cite is given, it could easily be a typo/scanno. Neither de:Georg Ohm nor the unit de:ohm take an umlaut, even in German. I would like to extend the RFV to the whole entry. Spinning Spark 11:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the trema is indicating diaeresis, not umlaut. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 11:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Well it could only be diaeresis. You can RFV the whole entry if you like, but then you should best create a new section.

@Angr: It's more of a protologism because English kiloohm is actually used, and Afrikaans kiloöhm hardly at all. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Really? What do Afrikaans speakers call the kiloohm then? Just kilohm with one O, as SpinningSpark says English-speaking electrical engineers do? —An gr 14:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

A quick search of Afrikaans Wikipedia shows only "kilo-ohm" (probably not much help, as it is a pretty minimal -pedia). SemperBlotto (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

That would seem more likely in terms of Afrikaans orthography, although I don't know if that's citable (I'll try). Unfortunately, Afrikaans is not a language used much for science and scientific terms may be rarely used for the sam reason that normal day-to-day conversation rarely uses them. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I checked, and I came up with two cites at Citations:kilo-ohm, one of which is durable and the other seems to be a non-durable copy of a durable work, but I'm not quite sure. I also found a couple cites here, but I don't know if they're durable. So somebody ought to look these over and if they find three of these cites that meet CFI, we can move the entry to kilo-ohm. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Is Afrikaans an LDL? If so, it would be sufficient to find it in a dictionary, which is quite plausible. Considering it's a language of instruction at several universities and doubtless numerous technical universities/technikons, it ought to be findable in electrical engineering textbooks (though I suspect that, as in English, the abbreviation kΩ will be orders of magnitude more common). —An gr 16:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not, I'm afraid this will need three uses. I'll try to find some, Afrikaans is pretty cool. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No luck. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of the kilo-ohm cites? (See my last comment in this thread.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

kiloöhm[edit]

Opening separate thread for English as suggested above. Unlikely spelling in English. The diaeresis makes sense, but I have been an electrical engineer for more than forty years and have never seen it used. EEs never pronounce it this way in any case, they always say kilohm. At the very least it should be marked archaic. Spinning Spark 18:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Google Books, Groups and Scholar all get nothing. I can't even think where else to look. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh it's a Doremítzwr entry; he's become famous since he stopped editing for making stuff up, especially archaisms that look right but aren't actually used. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I could see the New Yorker using this spelling (do they have searchable text archives?) That wouldn't make it standard though. DTLHS (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Are there any non-protologistic entries in Category:nv:Antelopes? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you missed the fact that this appears in the Navajo Wikipedia. I can see sources for this, those few. I don't think that this needs verification. Razor flame 22:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The Navajo WP doesn't cite any sources, though, does it? Articles on other Wikimedia sites do not in and of themselves verify terms. The Navajo editors over on nv.WP may have made the term up—and the Navajo may be fine with that, but we don't accept terms in any language until they've entered some kind of use, or at least been mentioned somewhere durable. After all, if this term is only used in the nv.WP article on the animal, it's not the case that "someone would run across it and want to know what it means". - -sche (discuss) 23:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedias make up all sorts of terms. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, Metaknowledge hasn't 'missed' it's appearance in Wikipedia, just its not relevant. Other Wikipedias use protologisms. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Moved from RFM. Original posting:

Fictional-universe only term, should be Appendix:Moby-Dick/warwood. See also Talk:cryptex. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

—Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Moby Dick is a well-known work. Are we sure this is a nonce word? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Melville may have had a specific species in mind: there's a pair of Proto-Polynesian roots that happen to be homophones in many of the Polynesian languages: one for brave/warrior and the other for a tree with dark-colored, very hard wood (originally w:Casuarina equisetifolia, but transferred to w:Acacia koa in Hawaii). He's known to have spent time in w:Nuku Hiva, w:Tahiti and w:Hawaii, all three of which have the pair of homophones in question.

Even so, it looks like the term itself is his own coinage: perhaps for the exotic, "primitive"/"tribal" imagery, and perhaps to avoid using foreign names like koa or toa. There's a Warwood place name/surname that muddies things up a bit, so I can't be completely sure- but I haven't been able to find anything outside of Melville. There's a reference in a description of scrimshaw repeated verbatim in several books, (only available as snippets), but it could easily be borrowed from Melville. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added two citations. Presumably this just means something like "wood that is used for war". DTLHS (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The Moby Dick citation is independent of the other citations that DTLHS and I have found. It apparently refers to a specific, but unknown, type of wood, whereas war-wood is a kenning meaning "spear" or "shield,"[63] used in translations of heroic poems like Beowulf. I've moved the citations for the latter sense to Citations:war-wood, since it only occurs in that form. -Cloudcuckoolander (formerly Astral) (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

This [64] quotes Melville with the unhyphenated spelling; "...little canoes of dark wood, like the rich warwood of his native isle."
From [65]

By and by, nor spare a sigh

Though worlds of warwood leafmeal lie.

I have also found "sweet warwood" in a patent [66] but I guess this is an error for "sweet wormwood".
Spinning Spark 22:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's an error for sweet wormwood. That, along with sweet annie and annual wormwood are by far the most common common names for the species. It looks like a spellchecker error, except I can't imagine it's common enough to show up in spellchecker dictionary files. Very odd.Chuck Entz (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

More likely a simple error from a non-English speaker. Spinning Spark 12:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This discovery was just revealed today, 15 August 2013. I have a feeling it will be extremely difficult to find any mention of it before today, although the scientists had apparently coined the term upon discovering them a few years ago, so it's certainly possible. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

In cases like this I'd like to wave CFI altogether. While it's a protologism, it's so widely known now that there is little doubt that it will be citable a year from now. So I think we should just admit it and review it again in late 2014. —CodeCa t 21:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This is all over the news, and beyond that it is the name of an existing animal species. Even if the species goes extinct, it will always have existed, and this, now established, will always be the name for it. bd2412 T 13:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Consider also that we've had livermorium since the announcement of its name was made, and before a year had passed. —CodeCa t 13:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think that the one-year-span provision of CFI should apply in such cases. The scientific community has established formal systems for naming things like taxons. To insist on consigning the names of newly-described taxons to the "word cellar" to mature for a year would essentially be to negate the authority scientists have in naming taxons and discount the system they use to do so. -Cloudcuckoolander (formerly Astral) (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

@CCL: Sorry, but that made no sense to me. There are no "formal systems" for these names; you seem to have it confused with a taxonomic name. They have no "authority" and there is nothing to "discount". This is just another English word that somebody coined, and there's nothing special and scientific about it.

@everybody: I mean, I don't mind keeping this word around that much, but if you all feel that way, I guess we should codify that. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a good idea to have a rule for such circumstances. I also agree that this is not a taxonomic name, but merely a cute and fuzzy "common name" that has been coined for this animal. I think it should be easy enough to delineate the circumstances under which a newly coined and widely reported common name can be considered to pass muster under the CFI. bd2412 T 17:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. This might also be useful to cover new taxa, new elements (as suggested above) and also official Chinese character coinages, which the government endorses for scientific terminology (like 钌). I think that perhaps this should be a !vote. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the best way to do it would be to exempt from the 1-year restriction coinages by an authoritative source that are unlikely to disappear within a year. It might be widened further to cover things like official spelling reforms where specific new spellings aren't specifically mentioned, but whose existence could be inferred by applying the new rules to existing forms. I'm not sure about the durably-archived part: most authoritative sources tend to have something durably-archived associated with announcements and press releases, but there might be exceptions. As far as the use-mention distinction goes, we might want to leave that in force, to protect against obscure official doublespeak. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It's kind of unfair to waive the anti-protologism requirement when we delete protologisms created by newbies and block them if they try to readd them. On the other hand, it's perfectly reasonable that we do so in this case. We should have a vote to explicitly add this exception to the CFI; something like " […] , except for scientific, widely published terms relating to newly discovered things." — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 21:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I do edits on Wikipedia, not generally here, so what do I know, right. However the attestation criteria here state,

"Attested" means verified through:

clearly widespread use,

use in a well-known work, or

use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year (different requirements apply for certain languages).

These read to me as 3 separate safe harbors. That's what us non-expert guys and dolls who do whole sentence and paragraph things would normatively get from the little "or" at the end of the second item, which usually means "any of the list", but I ain't a word-by-wordsmith. "Protologisms created by newbies" do not meet any of these criteria, while this word meets the first and second. As such, this outside thinker would not have thought a change would be required to the CFI. In summary, it is NOT "kind of unfair to waive any ...requirement": the requirement as written is met, based on the verifiable citations available in the sister Wikipedia article. Maybe that helps. Best wishes.FeatherPluma (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Read more. In addition to either clear widespread use, usage in well-known work, or usage in permanently recorded media, the citations need to be using the term (as opposed to just mentioning it,) have to be independent from each other, and have to span at least a year. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps you will discern more on your rereading my note "for the first time". What I set out to do was politely tell you what the "attested" criteria here on this side of the big friendly galaxy say to a "normal educated person". Not only did I read them, I cited them, and I analyzed them. And as a non-expert I light-heartedly and deferentially acknowledged potential technocratic issues in a domain that's not my home. Your instruction for me to "read' strikes me as peremptorily rude, but do have a nice day and thanks for the shave on my first visit to this beer house. We all need to be sternly told to read more! (Don't we?) But "we" do recognize the meaning of "or" in a list of safe harbor elements, whether "we" are long-bearded or not.FeatherPluma (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't my intention. I'm not good at telling whether what I say or write in English is rude. You still aren't understanding it though, it's ((clearly widespread use) or (use in well-known work) or ((three uses in permanently recorded media) and (independent) and (spanning at least a year))). The word olinguito returns false. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

è lì il bello, grazie; I understand your parentheses, and that may be the working understanding of how things are done here. A close look at my original posting will see that I am sensitive to that possibility. If you are right, your side of the galaxy parses things in it's own special way, and "you all" might want to clean up the CFI, after all. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The CFI does not apply the "spanning at least a year" condition to every precedent criteria, since a single "well-known work" will do. However, by "well-known work" we do not mean, for example, CNN. CNN is well known, but it is a collection of lesser known works (individual articles). A "well-known work" would be a Shakespeare play, a Mark Twain novel, a John Locke treatise, a T.S. Eliot poem, and so on. In this case, however, I think we have clearly widespread use. There is no minimum amount of time for which use must persist before it can be deemed clearly widespread, and in addition to the initial publication in Smithsonian Magazine, I don't think there is a major news outlet, print or otherwise, that has not reported on this discovery. Before you know it, Disney will have a movie out starring a feisty but warm-hearted olinguito. bd2412 T 23:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear miglior fabbro, well I've learned a thing or two, and I defer to "you all," lest "mere anarchy is loosed upon the world," as to whether the 365-day time span does or doesn't apply to all the preceding criteria on the list. As a possibly interesting matter of perspective, I guess that in my galaxy we just fundamentally and reflexively think of well-respected, peer-reviewed articles which have been published in scientific journals as automatically being "use in a well-known work", (that is unless we come up with some major reason to question the overall credibility of the article/editor etc., and I'd also rush on to say we wouldn't rely on the spelling per se etc.) see:[67] Conversely, we over here might have issues knowing what to make of this T.S. Eliot shanti(h) dude. Best wishes, I'm off for my home Wiki, be fruitful, and "thanks for all the figs"... or was it "thanks for all the fish"?! Figs, fish, figs... FeatherPluma (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC) P.S. I was about to go back up into my tree, and then I started to read some of the other entries here. Let me tell you, I AM AN INSTANT FAN. Some of the things here are truly FUNNY, and some are kind of interesting. And I started to get a hang of you all's citation stylistics and framework thinking and stuff. I'll come back! FeatherPluma (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC) P.P.S. Yes, it gets worse. I tried out some baby edits / adding citations. Hmmm, I'll need to work a bit more on this. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Returning to the fundamental point, the guideline in this Wiki clearly specifies that in "Answering a request by providing an attestation: To attest a disputed term, meaning to prove that the term is actually used and satisfies the requirement of attestation as specified in inclusion criteria, do one of the following..." (emphasis added). This is concordant with the help page, which I quoted previously. From these 2 locations, as written, I am confident that the 365 day requirement does not apply under the first 2 of the 3 independent pathways. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I spotted this and hoped nobody would rfv it. Clear widespread use? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I think so, but it couldn't hurt to add a few citations. Plenty of printed newspapers carried coverage. bd2412 T 15:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I have now added three citations to well-known publications which I believe are exemplary of widespread use. Would anyone object to calling this verified and closing this discussion? bd2412 T 19:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I read somewhere that the editors at Merriam-Webster, like most dictionaries, normally wait to see if a new word has legs, but they have adopted some terms instantly, the example cited being "designated hitter". Choor monster (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I, too, favor seeing whether terms have legs, but this one seems virtually certain to last. I finally stumbled across an article about it today and naturally wondered whether we had it, this RfV not having penetrated my in-brain FL filter. The result should clearly be that we have it. I don't see the formal justification under the present rules, but certainly won't object to its inclusion. I suspect that this kind of consensus-reaching discussion is better than either new explicit criteria or procedural rules for granting exceptions to our explicit criteria, especially for relatively rare events. (Was tebowing the last previous case?) DCDuring TALK 22:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

-- Liliana • 19:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The entire English entry with the following def:

{{context|New York City|historical}} The main water supply pipe to a building or apartment

I suspect this is a response to usage that mentions a "Croton" supply to buildings, which I would argue is merely an attributive reference to the Croton aqueduct, and to the water, not the pipe. In the same way, I might refer to the DWP supply to the apartment building where I live, without needing to define the pipe as a "DWP". I don't really want to spend the time at the moment to sift through the evidence to be sure, so I'm bringing it here.

I should also mention that this was originally given a proper-noun POS, which is inherently incompatible with the definition, and that it also contained a separate etymology with a noun that was an exact copy of the translingual section. I came very close to just reverting the whole edit. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

There might be room for an English L2 section for Croton as a toponym, for the river, watershed, etc. I don't think that we would do dams, aqueducts etc. I can't imagine that someone is willing to do all the work that is probably required to engage in a probably futile search for attestation of the challenged sense.

BTW, Dewap would be attestable as "A bond issued by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power". DCDuring TALK 12:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: To make a regular circuit.

What day does the garbage man come round?

I don't think this is distinguishable in real usage from another sense "To visit one's home or other regular place". DCDuring TALK 14:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

To me there are some connotations of stopping at a place as part of a regular run or circuit, for example, the bus coming round to pick people up, or the postman coming round, or the district nurse coming round to check on grandma. But maybe you're right: maybe it is the same sense as "Want to see my new driveway? - Yeah, I'll come round for a look." If so, the "other regular place" part of the definition needs to be clarified. This, that and the other (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I didn't state my objection clearly. My problem is that the usage example could easily fit the sense "to visit someone's home or other regular place".

In "regular place" I would include place of work, study, or regular attendance, a neighborhood, a club, etc. I don't know what other words would help, but would be happy to hear suggestions. DCDuring TALK 11:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that this in practically nonexistent: not in my dictionary, not even in any wordlists, no hits on bgc or ggc. Whoever closes this, don't forget to delete the plural too. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

RFV on the single sense of "A lesbian who engages in mirror polishing"; the generic sense of one who polishes mirrors is a sum of parts. If this fails RFV, please remove it from WS:female homosexual. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense - bisexual. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Rfv-sense - bisexual (noun). SemperBlotto (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Request attestation per WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Everything in Google Books seems to be shake hands with the wife's best friend (humorous slang for going to urinate, possibly Australian). Equinox ◑ 01:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I request attestation per WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I forgot why I included the Occitan form; I can't find a mention of this in other Wiktionaries. I guess that I miraculously found it in Google books, but which exact book, I do not know. --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

sole sense: "in a crystal clear manner".

Is this used by native speakers as an adverb? Is it recent, dated, nonstandard? DCDuring TALK 03:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I have never heard or read this version, and it sounds wrong. I've only ever seen "crystal clear" or "clear as crystal". --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 03:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly much, much less common than crystal clear. Google Books is unreliable in providing counts but shows crystal clear to be more than ten thousands time more common than crystally clear and crystal clearly more than four times as common. COCA has 481 instances of crystal clear, 1 of crystal clearly, 0 of crystally clear. I would expect it to be attestable as an adjective though I view it as an attestable error used as an adjective in contemporary English, possibly attributable to bad translations or non-native speakers. As an adverb it appears both less common and more clearly an error. DCDuring TALK 04:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, if anything, we should just have crystally adv.: you can also find "crystally perfect", "crystally transparent", etc. Equinox ◑ 05:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, Whether crystally clear would meet CFI is another question. DCDuring TALK 11:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Cited. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 19:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

RfV passed DCDuring TALK 20:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

RFV of the Korean section. I doubt this is actually used in Latin script; the correct entry would be at ㅋㅋㅋ. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I've notified the user in question. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Verb sense: (Wiktionary and WMF jargon) to semi-protect. Spinning Spark 22:00, 24 August 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

Sunday, August 25, 2013

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