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

Dec 2nd 2012, 22:29

Revision as of 20:54, 2 December 2012 (edit) Metaknowledge (Talk \| contribs)		Latest revision as of 22:29, 2 December 2012 (edit) (undo) DCDuring (Talk \| contribs)
Line 2,314:		Line 2,314:
	:You mean at [[[[Mjollnir]]]]? —[[User:Metaknowledge\|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge\|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge\|deeds]]''</sup></small> 20:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)		:You mean at [[[[Mjollnir]]]]? —[[User:Metaknowledge\|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge\|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge\|deeds]]''</sup></small> 20:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
	::Yeah. Crtl+v fail, lol... [[User:-sche\|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche\|(discuss)]] 20:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)		::Yeah. Crtl+v fail, lol... [[User:-sche\|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche\|(discuss)]] 20:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
		+
		+	== [[houseproud]] ==
		+
		+	A coalmine case. Probably citable, but citing it effectively closes the RfD of [[house-proud]]. [[User: DCDuring \|DCDuring]] <small >[[User talk: DCDuring\|TALK]]</small > 22:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:29, 2 December 2012

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for verification

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new \| history \| Archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification add new \| history \| archives \| Index Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion add new \| history \| archives Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/Others add new \| history Requests for deletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.	Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new \| history Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.
{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} - {{context needed}}

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

Scope of this request page:

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

Templates:

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

Shortcut:

[edit] prevarication

rfv-sense: "To behave in an evasive way such as to delay action; to procrastinate."

The use of "prevaricate" to mean "procrastinate" might be widespread but is usually regarded as an error. The citation given for this use does not support it. Tesspub (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The quotation does not support the sense (it actually belongs with the previous sense) and I doubt that this sense is supportable. · (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Given its similarity, I have added sense #3 of prevarication to this rfv: "Evasiveness as a means of playing for time; procrastination, hesitancy." If I did wrong, don't hesitate to revert. — Xavier, 11:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 00:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I cannot easily attest this. This was already in RFV[8], but it is not properly cited. Dictionaries don't have the term; Urban Dictionary has the term[9], but in two wholly different senses. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite a few usenet hits for this, eg, [10][11][12][13]. Spinning Spark 16:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added the citations Spinningspark links to. However, all the valid ones are from 1999 (the one from 2001 has spelling/punctuation errors and other things to discredit it), and two seem to be from the same person. However, more citations seem to be available. I say this meets CFI. - -sche (discuss) 03:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Tagged UK and passed, with another citation from 2000. - -sche (discuss) 16:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "(pejorative, US, slang) A mean or belligerent person." Tagged but not listed. —Ruakh_TALK 16:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? That's its usual meaning surely? Spinning Spark 16:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard it to mean someone who is bad in the sense of malicious, harmful (etc.) Talk:badass#RFV seems to show this was previously listed but speedy deleted, so I think adding the sense back and re-tagging it with RFV is wholly appropriate; let's give it 30 days. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Spinning Spark 17:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

moved from another section:

Re-added by Florian: see Talk:badass. I agree the sense is probably legit, but if it's failed RFV and been restored then it needs to go through the process and get citations. Equinox ◑ 21:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, just noticed apparently the RFV is still open, in which case I don't know why it was moved to the talk page. Who knows what is going on. Someone who does know can delete or merge this with the discussion above. Thanks. Equinox ◑ 21:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

What happened: an RFV was opened; Jtle removed the sense out-of-process; when I noticed the sense had been gone for two months with no objection, I closed the RFV as "resolved". Florian re-added the sense, and we're actually trying to verify it this time. - -sche (discuss) 21:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

I'm not convinced there are two senses here. I think it's just that the kind of people described in sense 1, "badasses", are often admired; sense 1 is currently poorly worded, IMO, but that they are admired (sense 2) doesn't strike me as a separate sense. - -sche (discuss) 02:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I cannot attest this English term. It seems to be sourced from Webster's Third. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Its alternative spelling Abbethdin seems to be attested, so I suggest we merge it with that entry if it is not attested in this spelling, to save the good etymology and pronunciation info Speednat has put in. :) (Even if it is attested in this spelling, Abbethdin is more common, and should be the main entry.)

This spelling, without the h, might just barely meet CFI as a German term. - -sche (discuss) 20:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't find "Abbethdin" obviously attested. Many of the occurrences are in the phrase "In Israel's courts ne'er sat an Abbethdin", so they are not independent. It may be attested, but it is not obvious from google books:"Abbethdin", whose first 20 finds don't look promising.

Of the etymology added by Speednat (talk • contribs), I wonder whether he got it from Webster's Third and whether it is a copyvio. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 17:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The English would-be term: An angular portion of the stomach between the lesser curvature and the pylorus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see [14] for a large number of supporting GB citations. --BB12 (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Dictionary.com has this with a broader definition than we do. Which is right? - -sche (discuss) 19:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Broadened and detagged. - -sche (discuss) 02:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: Given to laughter; inclined to foolish or incessant merriment.

Webster 1913 etymology: [From Abdera, a town in Thrace, of which place Democritus, the Laughing Philosopher, was a native.]

This definition is given in Webster 1913. Some people seem to want it deleted out of process.

Here are what to me look like promising quotations: [15], [16], [17], [18]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Rfv-sense: An item, or, used collectively, items, usually in a room, which enhance the room's characteristics, functionally and/or decoratively.

Is this correct? I have learned that furniture is a collective noun and thus one could not call an individual item of furniture as "a furniture". For instance, the sentence "Table is a furniture" would be wrong. Have I been mislead all my life? --Hekaheka (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Although I agree with you completely, if you look at Google Books, you will see many hits for "the furnitures." --BB12 (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I point out that "furniture" can be "an item" even if *"a furniture" does not exist: "a chair is furniture", that is, "a chair is an item..." (not "a chair is items..."), even when discussing a room which contains nothing besides one chair. To stress that *"a furniture" is not a standard English thing to say, we could add {{uncountable}} (or per BB's Google Books search, perhaps {{usually|uncountable}}) to the definition, but I think the definition itself is correct as it is. - -sche (discuss) 06:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

If something is uncountable, it should be defined with an uncountable for ease of understanding. My mind is drawing a blank right now, but is there a way to rewrite that so the definition is uncountable? I like the idea of adding the "usually uncountable" to the beginning, too! --BB12 (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll try a solution:

(uncountable) Items, usually in a room, which enhance the room's characteristics, functionally and/or decoratively.
(countable, nonstandard) A piece of furniture.

--Hekaheka (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, as long as we're einverstanden that "a chair is furniture" is a usex of the first (not the second) sense. - -sche (discuss) 08:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

@BB: I think that it would be desirable to define each uncountable term with an uncountable term. But often there is not a common one available. That forces us to use a plural. Sometimes the problem is worse. See white trash and associated discussion at WT:RFC#white trash. DCDuring TALK 13:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Should the definition include "Items, often wooden...". The usex given (...stick of furniture...) has an implied assumption that furniture is made of wood. Spinning Spark 09:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think so. Traditionally furniture was usually wooden in countries where wood was in abundant supply, but the chair I'm sitting on at the moment has no wood in it, and I suppose in countries like Iceland where there are no trees, they had to make furniture out of other things. I think that's really encyclopedic information that isn't part of the dictionary definition of furniture. —An gr 09:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe stick of furniture should have an entry then. It's not the encyclopaedic history of furniture that is vexing me here, rather the idiomatic use of stick. Spinning Spark 11:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen definition 7 of [[stick]]? —An gr 12:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have, but I still think that phrase is idiomatic. One cannot say "a stick of wardrobe" for intance. Spinning Spark 12:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I am OK with removing that sense from [[stick]] to its own entry ([[stick of furniture]]). - -sche (discuss) 16:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

One could say a "stick of wood". But this use sense of stick is (almost?) always in the negative: "We didn't have (even) a stick of wood/furniture/firewood/fuel/lumber/timber/spruce/etc". The essence of the matter is not that it is an item. A synonym might be "the smallest bit". Consider, too: "He owned not a stick of his cabin." DCDuring TALK 19:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I think "wardrobe" isn't a good test- you can't say "a piece of wardrobe", either. Furniture is a mass/uncountable noun, which is the only reason you can say "of furniture" at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why one can't say a piece of wardrobe. Well alright, that one returns mostly fashion meaning, but piece of chair returns a lot of hits that really do mean a piece of a chair. Spinning Spark 01:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Struck. Further refinement of the definition would seem to be an RFC / Tea Room matter, not an RFV one. - -sche (discuss) 17:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Protologism? Definition needs severe trimming if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I found only three relevant hits in Google Books: [19], [20], [21]. I'm not sure about the third one, but the first two seem identical to golden handcuffs. Recommend this entry be changed to the plural form. --BB12 (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

golden handcuffs and velvet handcuffs don't seem identical to me. With golden handcuffs the idea is certainly that a large amount of money is the restricting influence. For velvet handcuffs more factors (benefits, possibly work environment, prestige) seem to be involved than money or the money seems much less. DCDuring TALK 12:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Move to velvet handcuffs once cited. DCDuring TALK 12:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added some more cites. This differs from golden handcuffs mostly in degree. The definition could stand some generalization to encompass the full range of non-literal usage. DCDuring TALK 13:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Meh, moved to velvet handcuffs and kept. Modify the definition as needed. - -sche (discuss) 05:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW spine buster is definitely real, and it's a generic term rather than just restricted to one wrestler. So it's plausible, but I don't know if it's real. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Getting quite a few hits with this gbook search string. Spinning Spark 00:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

...but not many uses of the sense given. RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I cannot attest the following verb senses:

To construct using mud blocks or to seal a wall using mud or an artificial equivalent.
It's plausible that such a verb could exist (perhaps derived from the noun cob meaning a building material), but there are no relevant hits for phrases like "cobbed the wall".
To cut, trim or break into blocks of a convenient size.
I'm guessing that the author of this sense had the mining meaning in mind ("To break ore into small pieces, so as to sort out the valuable portion") but wasn't sure of the exact definition. No relevant hits for phrases like "cobbed into blocks".

—Caesura ^(t) 01:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sense 2 appears to be from an old Webster dictionary, which in no way negates the need for citations but does suggest that it is probably real, if only as dated dialect. Equinox ◑ 01:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? Where do you see it? Neither the 1828 edition nor the 1913 edition seems to have it. —Caesura ^(t) 02:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Cancel that. I think one of those spammy dictionary-aggregator pages fooled me. No doubt they copied our entry and mixed it up with Webster. Equinox ◑ 02:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Three cites for the first one [22][23][24]. For the second sense this might be relevant, but it is not unambiguous. Spinning Spark 00:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice job. The first ones look good for that sense. The last one looks like it would fit fine into the mining sense. Maybe that is the only context in which it will be attestable in that meaning. DCDuring TALK 00:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting some hits for break off pieces rather than break into pieces - such as a sculptor would do. This one [25] on making ancient crystal skulls for instance. And this one [26] concerning the production of paving blocks may explain the error of the def - the blocks are shaped by cobbing, but it is still breaking off small pieces. Spinning Spark 01:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

One source discriminated among stages in 'dressing' ore: ragging, spalling, cobbing, and bucking. Only the first was a man's job. 'Cobbing' involved knocking less desirable or waste material off the good material. 'Bucking' meant hammering small pieces into powder for subsequent processing. DCDuring TALK 01:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw several books where cobbing and crushing were mentioned separately (haven't bothered to go back and find the cites). This suggests that the mining sense might have problems as well. Most, if not all, of the mining hits from gbooks could be read as "break off pieces" rather than "break into pieces". I think we have enough now to rewrite this combining both senses. Spinning Spark 07:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that our access to a large number of works using the term may put us in a better position to define the term than those writing definitions contemporary to such uses. DCDuring TALK 12:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This has apparently been resolved; RFV-passed as cited. - -sche (discuss) 05:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: A person having an inflated opinion of himself; a conceited or arrogant person.

Dictionaries don't have it, so let's see if this can get attested by in-use quotations. I tried google:"he is a bighead", and found some non-durably archived hits.

Even if unattested, it would be nice to have an input from native speakers on whether the term is ever used in that way in the wild. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I think I've used it, maybe a back formation from big-headed. Or maybe the way around. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I added three citations. Equinox ◑ 20:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The citations unequivocally demonstrate use in the genus "person", even though the "conceited" differentia is not so perfectly discernible. Seems good enough to me, anyway, so thanks! What is the synonym of "bighead" in the sense of conceited person that you would most commonly use? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

show-off is common. I'd probably say braggart, with a touch of self-consciousness: it is not quite an everyday word but it feels just right. Equinox ◑ 20:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the common meaning in the UK. But I can't say that I have heard it used in very many years. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's largely playground slang. Children still seem to say it regularly (and Private Eye has its "Mary Ann Bighead" column). Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The one I'm curious about is "The condition of being conceited, arrogant, or having an inflated opinion of oneself." Sounds like an uncountable now. I'm not challenging it per se, but I don't think I can understand it without a citation or a usage example. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

{{look}}

I've passed the "person" sense, and tagged the "condition of being conceited" sense. Perhaps it is used like "he suffered from bighead"? (Compare: "he had a big head".) - -sche (discuss) 08:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed for now. The sense was: "{{colloquial|mainly|_|US}} The condition of being conceited, arrogant, or having an inflated opinion of oneself." - -sche (discuss) 10:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: A proud or ostentatious person.

There are two quotations, but I do not see that they attest this sense. If the Hamlet quotation is accepted for this sense, would the "use in a well-known work, or" item of WT:ATTEST apply? If it does apply, should the sense at least be marked as archaic or even obsolete?

Helpers:

pajock at OneLook Dictionary Search
google books:pajock, google books:"a pajock", google books:"pajocks"

--Dan Polansky (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Shakespeare meets the "well-known work" exemption if anyone does! Why do you object to the given citations? Equinox ◑ 20:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Does the Shakespeare quotation convey the meaning of "a proud or ostentatious person" to you? On another note, if I use "pajock" to mean "conceited person", will I be readily understood? I would still see it tagged "obsolete" unless proven otherwise. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly agree with "obsolete" (and probably "nonce word", because I think only Shakey used it), but the meaning seems accurate, doesn't it? It's the idea of showing off, metaphorically showing one's pretty peacock feathers; cf. peacocking. Equinox ◑ 20:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I admit that it makes metaphorical sense per the other meaning of the word, but not so much by the sentential context. To test for the semantic information provided by the sentential context, I replace the attested word with "X" in the sentence, to lose all morphological and etymological cues. On the metaphorical note, someone should probably add a person sense to peacock, per several online dictionaries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dan that not even one meaning, let alone two can be inferred from one citation, which is I why I object to the inclusion of any term (or sense) used but once, not matter how many commentaries there might be on the possible meaning of the term in that use. Not all the commentators agree, BTW. But as this is Shakepeare perhaps we can find some slavish imitators. DCDuring TALK 20:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The citations make it clear that it is used pejoratively, of a person. The rest seems -- unproven. Century leaves it as "disputed". DCDuring TALK 21:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've passed the term, but with a stripped-down definition. - -sche (discuss) 18:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: A grandee; a self-important or arrogant person.

The word may well be used to mean "grandee" whatever "grandee" is; what I wonder about is whether the word is used to mean "a self-important or arrogant person". If such a use is not attested, then the gloss "a self-important or arrogant person" has to go, IHMO.

Webster 1913 has "bashaw" 2. Fig.: A magnate or grandee. But for "grandee", it has "A man of elevated rank or station; a nobleman." --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Widsith added this in 2006. It does look wrong; grandee confirms what I thought it meant, a title for a nobleman, not a pejorative term. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll just copy-paste some cites from the OED:

a1670 J. Hacket Scrinia Reserata (1693) i. 82 In every Society of Men, there will be some Bashawes, who presume that there are many Rules of Law, from which they should be exempted.

1794 W. Godwin Caleb Williams I. iii. 41 The young men..looked up to this insolent bashaw with timid respect.

1872 'G. Eliot' Middlemarch III. v. liii. 185 You've taken to being a nob, buying land, being a country bashaw. Ƿidsiþ 09:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Tentatively kept with a modified def. Change the def further or reopen the RFV as needed. - -sche (discuss) 05:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

RFV-sense: the Heathen sense. Needs to be cited as distinct from the generic sense, as above (#goblin). - -sche (discuss) 08:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There are dozens of these silly Heathenry senses, none of which seems distinct from existing senses. They were all added by the same user a couple of years ago. I think we should ditch them all personally. Ƿidsiþ 09:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been removing the obviously redundant ones, like the separate "pagan" and "neo-pagan" senses of Thor. Side note: judging by Citations:Ancestor Night, some of the things that look like attestations are actually self-published and possibly not durably archived. - -sche (discuss) 19:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 23:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

[edit] wain

RFV-sense: "A chariot used by the gods and goddesses or a symbolic cart used in rituals and shrines in Heathenry." - -sche (discuss) 19:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 18:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

[edit] boast

RFV-sense: "An oath or toast made during a ritual." Boasting is significant in Heathenry, so a Heathen sense may be attestable, but I think the current definition is wrong (I would say "during a feast"). - -sche (discuss) 20:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I will make an effort soon to see if this is citeable (with the modified definition I propose), as it is both less dubious and less redundant than the others. - -sche (discuss) 20:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 18:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense X 3

A ghost, apparition
The spirit of an individual.
The spirit of a group.

These were entered as if they were a single sense. They seem quite distinct to me, but perhaps two of them can be combined, possibly after rewording in light of the availability of supporting citations. I got even more confused because geist at OneLook Dictionary Search has various definitions with only some overlap with ours and questionable citations, some of which looked a lot like mentions to me. I wonder if all German senses are applied to this in English by someone or other, but with very low frequency. You would think that a dictionary like ours would need to make a hard-and-fast determination about the Englishness of a word like this. DCDuring TALK 02:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm more baffled by the history tab starting with the rfv ... What happen'd to everything before? I seem to recall putting a quote or two. Anyway, it looks like it has been flesh'd out more by Leasnam. The word is also noted in other ways ... There's a whole chapter in a book devoted to "thing that holds the spirits of the dead.

Don't get me on the soapbox about the "Englishness" of a word ... I put forth a way to do that in another rfv. If we're going to determine the Englishness of words, then I hav a long list of French and Latin loanwords need only be put under French or Latin, as befitting, that are now under English as well. Truth is that I don't think that is what we're doing tho. We're logging the words as they are noted in English ... not the Englishness of them.

Are you still baffled or can the rfv tags be taken off? --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Did someone forget to sign their contribution to this discussion?

Sense 1 appears cited. Senses 2 and 3 are do not have the required 3 cites. The capitalized Geist is suggestive that it is a use of the German word or possibly a proper noun. Can we get a less ambiguous citation? DCDuring TALK 13:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nitpicky point, but the there is no required three cites for each meaning given. The wording for three cites is for the "term" meaning word or phrases, not each individual meaning. See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion. Many believe or assume that it does apply to each meaning, but the truth is that is not indicated by the wording.

Anent the capitalization, that's a poor indicator for the simple reason that so many folks needlessly capitalize a German loanword ... or worse ... capitalize a word like zeitgeisty which is an English adjectiv. (And adjectivs aren't capitalized in German either.) --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

My ramblings about Englishness were simply about the question of whether it is worth having an English entry rather than letting readers use the German entry to select an context-appropriate meaning. DCDuring TALK 14:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

While I understand your concern, bureaucratie seems like a waste of space, but there is no requirement that a word be English nor a criteria for determining the Englishness of a word. There are likely at least three cites in English of bureaucratie from the early days of it being borrow'd so that means that it fits the criteria for inclusion. Truth is, it's about 900 years too late to start worrying about it but I hav before put forth a list of criteria that would take a lot of the subjectivity out of it (and would cut a wide swath). I may go to the beer parlor and put it out there but I don't expect folks to want a true criteria. They kind of like the fuzzy-wuzzy way the go about it now which doesn't follow the written rules. --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, though I wish that there were a third example of sense 2 without capitalization. DCDuring TALK 15:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I share DCDuring's feeling that the second sense is not yet sufficiently cited. One citation puts the term in italics and is of unclear sense anyway, another is of "Geist", another puts the term in quotation marks... - -sche (discuss) 06:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Two senses RFV-passed, middle sense RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 05:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense - a notebook. Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

[27][28][29] Spinning Spark 23:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That's the concept but the cites don't show that agenda means "notebook". In each case agenda is used in combination with another term (agenda book, agenda planner, homework agenda) before it is used alone. It is a good bet that students, teachers, and parents use the word agenda in referring to the notebook and/or its contents. For us to show that it means the "notebook" rather than the contents of the notebook, I would think we would need something like agenda being used with verbs that clearly indicate the notebook's physicality rather than its information content. ("throw", "carry", "drop", "bring", "take", "lose"/"find", "burn", "tear up", "page/leaf through", "write/draw/doodle in") DCDuring TALK 00:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why that's a problem. Even if one first says "agenda book", going on to say "the children will neatly write [...] in their agendas" is clear enough, as is "A homework agenda, sometimes called a student planner, is a notebook" or "It may be better to simply buy an agenda at the drug store for five dollars".--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

google books:"wrote in his agenda" gets four hits. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

In two of the four Agenda is part of a title. In another it is used attributively in another sense as part of agenda memo. In the remaining one, a translation, it appears in italics.

I can't imagine that a user would suffer from us not having this as a sense. The sense of "things to be acted on" is metonymously transferred to various embodiments: a mental list, a list written down on sheet of paper, a whiteboard, a computer system, or a notebook. If vendors sell notebooks with "agenda" on the cover or self-help authors recommend having a notebook with such a title for their systems, I suppose we should seen some evidence of a sense. —This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs).

I stand by the cites I added.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

My review of the citations:

I don't the Ruph one conveys the sense "notebook" rather than "list", "plan".
The Aronfeld citation is great.
The Brue citation is of "homework agenda", which could be an idiomatic term for "notebook in which to record assigned homework": I would prefer it if one could show that "agenda" means "notebook" in isolation before breaking down phrases containing it. (Because a phrase might be idiomatic, if its parts aren't used in a particular way outside of it. Somewhat comparable: don't break down brown dwarf and add "about the volume of the planet Jupiter: having mass approaching that of a star, but insufficient to ignite its elements and cause it to burn" to [[brown]] until it is demonstrated that "brown" is used that way outside of the phrase "brown dwarf" or reflexes of it.)
The Huerta citation uses "agenda book" earlier in the same sentence, but the subsequent use of "agendas" most likely means "notebook".

I think the sense is real, and favour keeping it. I may look for more citations myself. - -sche (discuss) 23:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Kept. - -sche (discuss) 18:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: ramp. As far as I know, farthinder is the normal word for a speed ramp, so I'm not sure how this would be shortened to just "fart". Unless someone thought that the fart- part of the word meant "ramp"?? —CodeCa t 13:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It means something like the place where you can or should drive/navigate (cf. färd), like for example infart, påfart (which is probably why someone added the definition "ramp"). The word is nowadays only found in compounds. See SAOB "fart" #4. Diupwijk (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the sense. If you think it is attested but obsolete outside of compounds, reopen the RFV. - -sche (discuss) 18:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Avfart/påfart, infart/utfart, överfart/underfart, tillfart are Swedish words where the -fart suffix has the meaning of a road, ramp or journey, but as far as I can tell this only happens in compounds, and these are probably loan words from German compounds with -Fahrt (Überfahrt, etc.). The stand-alone fart means speed (farthinder = speed bump). The stand-alone word for journey (German Fahrt) is färd, and there are also similar compounds using this word (avfärd, hemfärd, utfärd) with slightly different meanings. While avfärd = German Abfahrt = departure = away-journey; avfart = off-ramp (a road that provides a departure from a motorway). --LA2 (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have now added this under Usage notes, rather than a sense. --LA2 (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Any takers? The Wikipedia article linked to does not exist. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I had mistakenly forgot the Wikipedia box when I pasted a template in the edit box. It has since been removed by Chuck Entz. Axelode (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"A player of on-line video games" why would it mean that? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be, more specifically, a gamer who connected through a freely available wi-fi network. Just guessing: never heard it. Equinox ◑ 23:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

In the Nintendo video game world, the term more specifically designates an entry level player. Numerous examples have been published in discussion threads dating back to 2007. I will re-phrase this meaning accordingly. I will also re-arrange the order to reflect the more common application of the term to freeloaders (no offense meant) using freely available wi-fi networks in public places. Axelode (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This was attestable in lowercase as an adjective (a comparative form of wifey). As a noun, the sense "a user of a Wi-Fi network" was attestable in the form WiFier, but not in lowercase. Astral (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the matter is settled as Astral created and attested the upper case form WiFier and moved the "user of a Wi-Fi network" definition to a second etymology level in the derivative lowercase form wifier. As I created this article, someone else should remove the rfv. Axelode (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

WiFier RFV-passed, wifier RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I was about to move this to aedoeology, which is a more common spelling, when I noticed that most instances of both spellings were in book titles or were mentions. (Note the one citation in the entry and the second citation on the citations page.) - -sche (discuss) 00:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I added one more citation. Here is another one, but I don't feel like including it. --Æ&Œ (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Doremitzwr certainly did a good job, but of all the cites given, only two are actually uses. Can we find a third, so we can keep this entry? -- Liliana • 09:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 18:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Completely unknown to me. -- Liliana • 11:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Also never heard of this, and the structure is dubious. There is not typically a dot between the 'v' for version and the number (though there might be within the version, e.g. "v2.0"). Equinox ◑ 23:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Difficult to find cites for this, I can't find a search string that filters out most of the false positives. There seems to be some evidence for usage on the internet, but is v.Next being used by Microsoft as a product name? This seem to imply that it is, and possibly also [30] and [31]. On the other hand they may be genuine usages, as might [32]. I only got one durably archived hit [33] but I didn't go through all the results - too difficult, too many false positives from variable names etc. Spinning Spark 14:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization seems to be all over the place, by the way, in typical internet style v.next, v.Next, V.next Spinning Spark 14:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 01:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Re-added after previously failing RFV (see Talk:QQ). Needs to pass WT:BRAND. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Tooironic compared it to Skype (which we actually don't have any more because it failed RFV!) and to MSN (which isn't the brand name: it was MSN Messenger and then Live Messenger; but is more of a nickname for it). Is QQ the brand, or is it "Tencent QQ", or something else? Usenet might have citations. Equinox ◑ 23:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

But Skype is a verb, even! DAVilla 00:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

We have the verb at skype, and Skype could be added as an alternate verb form if attested. QQ is not a verb as far as I know. Equinox ◑ 00:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

QQ is used as a verb as well. There is evidence of its usage as a verb on Google search. QQ also appears on Google book searches, seems to be matching WT:BRAND requirements. As an initialism (converted to initialism by Equinox), I don't see why we should be verifying. The abbreviation definitely exists and is attestable. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I gathered a big pile of verb cites at Citations:QQ and Citations:qq. Now we need somebody to sort them by sense so I can figure out what we need to still get. Looking at QQ, the senses seem to be (intransitive) To use Tencent QQ video chat, (transitive) To chat with someone by means of Tencent QQ video chat, (gaming) To quit a multiplayer game, and (gaming, internet, intransitive) To cry, to be sad about something but I don't think any of those senses are fully cited and I'd like them to be confirmed, as well. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for providing citations. I've gone through and indicated which sense I think each citation supports. The instant messaging program is still completely unattested. - -sche (discuss) 06:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed (again). - -sche (discuss) 02:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Moved from RFD. DAVilla 00:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Word doesn't exist in Dutch. anabolisme is uncountable. --DrJos (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

A procedural note: This would have been better tagged with {{rfv}} and the request posted in WT:RFV. Wiktionary isn't a proscriptive dictionary, so we include incorrect forms if they're actually used- adding context tags like "non-standard" or "proscribed". A quick check of durably-archived sources shows nothing in Google Books or Usenet except in some Scandinavian language(s), so it may be unnecessary to go through that extra step in this case. We only use {{delete}} for cases where it's so obviously wrong or non-controversial that it doesn't need to be discussed. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The English noun is labelled 'usually uncountable'. There is no reason to consider the Dutch noun uncountable except that people just haven't had many opportunities to use the plural yet. But here is a perfectly valid sentence using the plural: De anabolismen van verschillende buitenaardse levensvormen kunnen wezenlijk anders zijn dan dat van het leven op Aarde. ("The anabolisms of different extraterrestrial life forms can be radically different from that of life on Earth.") —CodeCa t 22:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It is also the definite singular form of Swedish anabolism. Added. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. That there are no citations of the plural suggests that DrJos' theory that this is uncountable is descriptively true. - -sche (discuss) 16:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Created by a native Danish speaker; tagged with {{delete}} by another native Danish speaker. I leave it to RFV to decide whether it's real. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to be in doubt about. First: "kræft" means "cancer" and "kraft" may be translated to "power". Second the word does not exist in plural. Please look in this dictionary and this dictionary (you need to write the word). As you can see I have deleted it in dawiktionary.
- Sarrus (c • t) 07:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes there is, as we just don't work like that. You may not be in any doubt, but you are not Wiktionary. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, "kræfter" is plural of "kraft", but it does not make a difference in this case. The above dictionaries still don't know a plural of "a-kraft".
- Sarrus (c • t) 17:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That's irrelevant; the English Wiktionary looks at actual usage, not dictionaries.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

In that case this entry should definitely be deleted. It only exists in Wiktionary and in some databases which derive their content from Wiktionary. Speedy, before the disease spreads further! --Hekaheka (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Precisely! The protests of "but we are descriptivist!" seem to overlook the fact that the word descriptively isn't attested, and could be deleted for that reason without biting our colleague the Danish-speaking da.Wikt admin. - -sche (discuss) 10:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see informing him of what we're looking for at RFV is biting him. Prior to Hekaheka, nobody made the claim that it wasn't attested. In any case, I see no reason we should speedy it instead of giving it the standard n weeks, in case the creator wants to come up with paper sources or something.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoever deletes this should remember to fix [[a-kraft]]. - -sche (discuss) 08:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Danish inflection template {{da-noun-infl}} doesn't seem to have a way to express uncountable nouns. In fact, most entries in Category:Danish uncountable nouns don't use any inflection template at all. I have now indicated that a-kraft is uncountable and set the plural = singular, to avoid having links to the incorrect plural. But someone should help the Danes to improve the template. --LA2 (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've created {{da-noun-infl-unc}}. - -sche (discuss) 16:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Noun: sole sense: One who indulges in idle, foolish, and irreverent fancies or speculations; one who tries to be cleverly amusing but falls short.

Def is from Century, but Collins has a different definition. Are either attestable? DCDuring TALK 12:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The cite there appears to be adjectival use; but I have found these solid noun uses:

- ?, Cody Melcher - Résumé | Facebook, www.facebook.com/EccentricGent/info - Cached:
  Cody Melcher is not only a lexicographic snake oil salesman, but a witwanton and literary homosexual who is not afraid to talk about the important issues of today, such as politics, the English language, and World War I.
- 1986, David Grambs, Dimboxes, epopts, and other quidams:
  The witwanton is always a little off in trying to be always GETTING MENTAL.
- 1613, Josuah Sylvester, Lachrymae Lachrymarum:
  All epicures, witwantons, atheists. Leasnam (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

1855, Thomas Carlyle, Fraser's magazine, Volume 52^[34], edition Digitized, published 2005, page 345:
Word-warriors and wit-wantons would waste their breath upon one whose book-hunger has won him so rich a meed,

--AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

How is the first one solid, not being durably archived? Frankly, it looks like spam in the context of Wiktionary.

Why not just cite witwanton as an adjective if that is unquestionable? Wanton is older and more abundant as an adjective than as a noun.

It would also be nice if the cites illustrated the meaning rather than merely the existence of the word, though we can tease out the meaning from the components, though with risk of error. More surrounding text rather than the bare snippet from Century would help. DCDuring TALK 17:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This word seems in all the bgc hits to be presented as a transliteration of a Greek term, not as an English word. It does not appear in any OneLook reference. Perhaps there are other cites. I would think that having the transliteration present in a Classical Greek should yield this entry in a search. Possibly a redirect, though the precedent of redirecting for transliterations would be no small matter. DCDuring TALK 19:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. For posterity, the term supposedly meant "Lacking the tendency to express love and affection for one's own family or kin; lacking natural affection for close relatives; heartless." - -sche (discuss) 06:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be just a transcription of Selena and not an actual Yiddish name. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

[edit] פּאָלעט

Same as above. Seems to be nothing more than a transcription of Paulette. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 09:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that it's not attestable? CFI requires one use in Yiddish. Whether it comes from a transcription or not is irrelevant. --Yair rand (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Even if it is referring to an American Celebrity? I'm pretty sure transcriptions from other languages don't count as being part of a language. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If it refers exclusively to a specific individual, it might fall under the "Names of specific entities" policy of "many should be excluded while some should be included, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which". It doesn't make any difference what the origin is. If it's used in a language and it's attested, it's part of the language. --Yair rand (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

IMO, a citation is a citation. Even a transcription. That said, I doubt I could find one. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

We've discussed whether to include transcriptions of given names and surnames as words in the transcribed-into languages. I don't recall that we had any resolution.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

A number of Japanese and Chinese one-off transcriptions of foreign personal and place names (like one of Selena/Serena) were, IIRC, deleted... I haven't had any luck finding the discussions; Eirikr and/or Haplology might recall them. - -sche (discuss) 22:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Transliterations of given names used in normal text count as words, in my opinion - while phonetic transcriptions used in dictionaries don't count - but I think the citations should be about three different persons. User Diego Grez admitted copying the translations of Selena from the links of the Wikipedia article about Selena Quintanilla-Pérez, without knowing the languages in question... I wish people would never do that. --Makaokalani (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"A perfectly executed plan" and (oddly listed as adjective) "food fried to a golden colour". Appears to be from one or two specific film scripts. Equinox ◑ 15:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, "food fried to a golden colour" should be at RFD, since it's just fried + gold. I've mostly heard the other sense as "a slice of fried gold" (from the film Shaun of the Dead), and it doesn't really seem to mean "A perfectly executed plan", just anything good. Here are the Google groups results for "fried gold". Make of them what you will. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Food sense RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (countable) An act of altruism or beneficence.

Other sense is quality of being charitable. This could use citations, at the very least to help determine whether use in this sense could be limited by date or register. DCDuring TALK 15:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added three citations of "charitablenesses". Most of the hits of "a charitableness" seem to be using the supposedly uncountable sense, merely preceded by "a" to indicate "a particular kind of". Perhaps the {{uncountable}} tag should be re-examined. - -sche (discuss) 07:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved. - -sche (discuss) 01:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Astringent taste of some red wines. I can't find any evidence. Equinox ◑ 00:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing comes up in gbooks, but a few undurable cites from the blogosphere [35][36][37][38] (none of them wine related). Could the etymology be from the ulcerous taste of chapped lips? Spinning Spark 14:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it comes from the idea that too much astringency might chap one's lips. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 04:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this one of those fun words found only in dictionaries? It isn't in the Compact OED, nor can I find any use citations online, although I find the word listed in many dictionaries and mentioned in lots of books about obscure words. Can we cite either sense, or must this be marked as "dictionary-only"? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Move to Appendix:Words found only in dictionaries. -- Liliana • 04:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

One hit for gambrinously: "They would stagger gambrinously home at midnight, the sound of the winning side's song ringing in their ears..." Not sure if this is a use or a mention - could well be both. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

-- Liliana • 04:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 21:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

When the plant was first described, it was given the scientific name Fatsia, after the alleged Japanese name, "fatsi" (apparently an archaic reading of 八, which is now read as hachi). The real name is 八つ手 (yatsude), which means something like "8 fingers". The only place fatsi seems to appear in English is in parentheses after the scientific name, identified as the Japanese name for the plant. Is this a dictionary-only term? (the common names I'm familiar with are "Fatsia", and "Japanese Aralia"). Does anyone actually actually use it in running English text? Chuck Entz (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 15:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

English noun meaning "conquest"? —Ruakh_TALK 02:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Fatah is the name for some sort of Arabic descendant rebel group, and the quote doesn't make good sense as that, "...decimated in the fatah." It's a Lybian ethnicity or other sort of grouping, and also a given name [39]. RTG (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

All the hits in your Google-search seem to be referring to Fatah, a Palestinian political party (or military-political party). This RFV is about lowercase fatah. —Ruakh_TALK 12:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologise, I overlooked the etymology there. I'd probably only echo your own thoughts if I said given the Arabic context, there is nothing to suggest it wasn't used as intended (by Obama) but as an Arabic word purposely in an English language sentence. Sorry about that. RTG (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 16:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out on the talk page (of this page), this is tagged but not listed. It already has a few citations at this point, but they italicise the term as a borrowing... - -sche (discuss) 23:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"(slang|British Prisons/happyslapping); The practice of Seagulling is to ejaculate into ones hand and proceed to slap a stranger round the face, with said salty hand." Equinox ◑ 20:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Found 1 cite that aligns with this sense. Russell Brand also seems to have mentioned "seagulling" in a stand-up routine. There's a poor-quality audience video on YouTube, but perhaps the joke has made it onto an official DVD or broadcast? Might be a place to start for someone more familiar with Brand's work.

The walking-across-a-beam and scavenging senses also need verification, I think. Astral (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

English sense. If it's real, is it dialectal or something? Because to me, it doesn't even look English-like. :-P —Ruakh_TALK 02:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It has a cite, but aapa is italicised in that cite. Recent loanwords are often italicised, but in the same sentence the word bhai isn't. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 03:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks a lot like Hindi आप, but I don't know the language, so I can't explain the difference in the ending. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the OED includes these two citations: WilliamKF (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

1998 Independent 19 Aug. 7/8 To think that all these years I have had an aapa without realising it.
2008 F. Zama Marriage Bureau for Rich People (2009) xi. 141 Don't tell aapa, but my friend says that the police in Royyapalem have been asked to find some evidence..so they can be charged with something more serious.

It also gives the etymology as being: WilliamKF (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Etymology: < Urdu āpa older sister < āp, used respectfully as a 2nd or 3rd person pronoun, lit. 'self, oneself', ultimately < Sanskrit ātman self (see atman n.). Compare Hindi āp, āpā oneself. S. Asian.

Here is another citation: WilliamKF (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"Please, Kapugen, my aapa." Julie ran beside him in her bare feet. "I will keep the wolves away from the oxen. Please do not shoot them. They saved my life." She stopped and reached out her arms to him. "It cannot be helped," he repeated, ... [40]

Looks like this passes RFV to me, any objections? WilliamKF (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Passed as {{rare}}. - -sche (discuss) 05:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

This is all + comers. It the hyphenated form is used it is when in modifying a noun. DCDuring TALK 03:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There might be some fused-head use, eg, "We went to the all-comers (match)", which I don't think warrants an entry either. DCDuring TALK 03:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there is idiomatic usage here. "He fought all-commers" does not mean that he fought everyone who came to the boxing match, but rather he fought everyone who challenged him. "They employed all-comers" does not mean that everyone who visited the factory was employed, but rather that everyone who applied for a job was employed. Spinning Spark 10:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

In some contexts all comers might refer to "all guests", "all participants", "all would-be renters", "all who accept a challenge", "all who challenge", "all pilgrims", "all petitioners", "all supplicants", etc. I each case the meaning would seem to be "all who come (as X)", where (as X) depends on context.

In any event, I am asking for citations, with any meaning, of this spelling not used attributively. At best this is an alternative spelling. DCDuring TALK 12:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The hyphen still seems inappropriate in your examples, SpinningSpark. Equinox ◑ 13:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I am a bit blind to the correct use of hyphens and would be just as happy with all comers, for which we don't currently have an entry. However, the hyphenated, non-attributive form does seem to be citable [41][42][43][44], although certainly in the minority. Spinning Spark 18:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

They are citations of the term. I think the wording must be SoP wording to include all the cites. "Event" certainly doesn't fit three of the four examples. This seems like an error to me, but there are terms that are hyphenated by convention, not by rule. Macmillan and Cambridge Advnced Learners have this spelling. DCDuring TALK 20:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Erm, why is this here? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Needs to meet WT:FICTION. Compare Talk:Dothraki. - -sche (discuss) 02:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a professional computer gaming team, probably quite notable, calling themselves Na'vi if that is any good. Probably not. RTG (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 00:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The language sense has been readded, but all of the citations specifically refer to it as the language of Cameron's film Avatar. WT:FICTION requires that terms "have three citations that are independent of reference to that universe", so this still seems to fail RFV. - -sche (discuss) 00:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Here, however, Na'vi refers to something that actually exists outside that fictional universe: an artificial language named "Na'vi" which, like Klingon, people examine in college linguistics courses, learn to speak, and write books about. To clarify, Ferengi and Klingon are languages in Star Trek; however, the Ferengi language is imaginary, existing only in a handful of isolated words, but there exists a non-fictional artificial language named "Klingon" with a lexicon and developed grammar. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It's true that the alien spoken in Cameron's film has been fairly well-developed, and also apparently not copyrighted because we have an appendix full of it(?), but the term "Na'vi" is still a "term[] originating in [a] fictional universe[]". Likewise, sonic screwdrivers exist (there's the prop Matt Smith uses, and the many mock-ups and knock-offs of it that fans buy or make), but the term "sonic screwdriver" is still excluded by WT:FICTION until/unless DW-free uses of it exist. OTOH, if people mention the language without referring to the film, the way Larry the Cable Guy apparently didn't explain that [[nanu-nanu]] was from Morky & Mindy, then WT:FICTION allows it, like [[lightsaber]]. - -sche (discuss) 05:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Replica sonic screwdrivers exist, but they aren't actually screwdrivers. A better example for your point might be frindle: though frindles indubitably exist in the real world, we do not use the term outside of references to that book. So, my rationale for reopening this page fails. Shazbot. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Re-closed. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-sense: does this Dutch word mean "to change shape"? The sense was tagged RFV but never listed. - -sche (discuss) 06:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't think of any sentence where it could mean that. Maybe the idea is 'a gradual change from one thing to another' in the sense that as you move from, say, the bottom of a cone to the point, it 'changes' from a circle gradually into a smaller circle and then a point. But that really just seems like another missing sense, that of "gradually progressing". —CodeCa t 11:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "a lout". Tagged but never listed. - -sche (discuss) 06:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added one two cites, and found a second third one in gbooks, but I am not very inclined to add it to the article myself. Spinning Spark 18:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe that one is the "tree" sense. Never mind, I've added lots of other cites now. Spinning Spark 01:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-passed, thank you! - -sche (discuss) 22:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Tagged by the late (hopefully not deceased, but merely absent) Logomaniac but never listed. - -sche (discuss) 06:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about the adjective sense, right? Because the noun sense gets over ten thousands hits for the plural alone, and although the vast majority have lower-case for aboriginal, there are more than enough for CFI.

The adjective sense, though, looks pretty shaky. There are plenty of hits, but I have yet to find any that couldn't be interpreted as attributive use of the noun- and that's without taking away any with the wrong capitalization. I checked for comparative and superlative forms, but found none in either Google Books or Usenet.

The version with lower-case "aboriginal" is obviously SOP, But I guess the upper-case one is about as valid as "Native American". I'm not sure our definition for "aboriginal" adequately handles the lower-case examples- it's vague to the point of near-invisibility. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It's possibly Logomaniac didn't doubt the term at all but merely though it was SOP (I've noticed a few other places she used RFV with a RFD rationale).

Yes, [[Aboriginal]] is badly defined... the noun is defined by referring to the adjective, which is defined by reference to the noun, all without leaving the page. - -sche (discuss) 07:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agree, Aborigine and Aboriginal are so poorly defined I'm gonna have to look them up in another dictionary to find out what they mean. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As for SOP, I didn't deduce the meaning correctly from the meanings of the individual words. Until I looked it up, I assumed this meant "a United States citizen of Australian Aboriginal ancestry". —An gr 15:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The adjectival sense seems to be citable with l/c "a",[45][46][47][48][49][50] but not in the capitalization of this entry. Spinning Spark 16:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Three of those cites, however, say "aboriginal American Indian", which is much more clearly [[aboriginal]] + [[American Indian]]. —An gr 17:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Which still leaves a usable three, yes? Spinning Spark 18:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I take the lower-case for "aboriginal" as an indication that the term is acting as an ordinary adjective modifying "American" rather than as the first part of an idiomatic compound term. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Meh, kept. Re-RFV if you actually doubt the term. - -sche (discuss) 03:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Tagged but AFAICT not listed. - -sche (discuss) 06:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The third definition of "A service mark owned by Google Inc." Why would we want this? Is it a distinct sense to the company name? Anyway Don't they all pass WT:COMPANY? What exactly do we need to verify? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

MEh, detagged. The RFV was two years old and went nowhere. - -sche (discuss) 22:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I was able to find references for the other Nganasan words this user added (Talk:мәну, Talk:латәә, Talk:ӈүӈкә), but not this one; the references I found gave other words as the word for 'foot'/'feet'. The user also created two misspelt Forest Nenets words, which have been deleted. - -sche (discuss) 19:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Per the talk page. (This was also brought up on our Feedback page.) - -sche (discuss) 19:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed; moved to 𒉿𒀀𒋻, which I can find some support for. - -sche (discuss) 15:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't buy either of the two definitions given, though there seems to be a thirdanother that might be citeable- otherwise I would have speedied it. There are a couple of cases where the term seems to be confused with incredible or discredited, but I didn't see enough to support an entry. I also don't think the citation given has anything to do with either of the current definitions. Rather than getting into a revert war with the editor who created it and later reverted my changes, I thought I would bring it here. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

One of the definitions was removed by the original editor just before I added the rfv tag, so there's now only one definition- which I still disagree with. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The only other meaningful cite (besides the one already in the article) is part of a play where the dialogue of the episode begins mid-conversation and hence makes it near impossible to divine the sense. It is a hit in gbooks but not visible, but is visible in Amazon's look inside:

1978, Mervyn Peake

[KITE hides in the room. Enter UNDERTAKERS.]

PARKINS: Oh, quite discredulous: it wilts me, Laurance,
To see you subdivide at such an hour -

WATKINS: Oh such a day, dear fruit, in such a year
Of such a decade as decays the chord
[half singing]

That binds us ... binds us ...

Nobody loves or ... minds us ....

Besides which the characters are drunk and not making much sense in any case. The word is not in the OED. Spinning Spark 09:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

One usenet example [51], while not a use exactly, does support the untrustworthy meaning. As do some undurable hits don't want to put a discredulous stigma on my company, Unfortunately we live in a world where the police have to protect themselves from discredulous individuals, [52], [53]. Spinning Spark 09:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Discredulous can be found in significant numbers using Google Search. I had originally thought it to mean "defamatory", but deleted that definition as I couldn't find a good quote of its use in such a way. --Victar (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The word is non-standard but it is a word nonetheless in my opinion. --Victar (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Our Criteria For Inclusion (WT:CFI) call for three independent citations in durably-archived sources. Websites, as a rule, aren't durably archived. We mostly depend on Google Books and on Usenet (accessible through Google Groups). The one durably-cited quote you included in the entry looks, from the context, to mean "not inclined to believe". Chuck Entz (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Rereading the quoted book, I'm inclined to agree with your understanding of its use in that context. I've added a definition of "(proscribed) Incredulous", and attributed the quote as that. It does indeed seem to also have a meaning of untrustworthy. His transparent party loyalty makes him discredulous and unreliable. --Victar (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That's three durably archived citations per sense, so two meanings now require a total of six citations. We still only have one. Spinning Spark 16:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Right, an impossible task at this point in time. I think it's a word worth watching, even though it may be non-standard/proscribed versions of incredulous and discreditable, respectively. --Victar (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Cited first sense. Astral (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

First sense RFV-passed, second sense RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "An arguably convincing crossdresser, transvestite or transsexual, a person born with male genitalia that one engages in a relationship with, believing that person to have been born with female genitalia."

A definition more fitting an attempt at attestation is "crossdresser, transvestite or transsexual"; the rest seems dubious even before an attempt at attestation has been made.

Edits leading to the current definition (probably incomplete): diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 18:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've restored part of the definition per Dan's comments. This new definition should be easily verified, I think. —CodeCa t 20:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

See also WT:RFV#infare.

RFV of two noun senses which were added at the same time as it was becoming apparent that the word was quite rare, "entrance" and "an entrance": are they attested? - -sche (discuss) 19:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

They are; the dates for which appear to make them Middle English. Leasnam (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Duly removed from the ==English== section. - -sche (discuss) 04:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Tagged RFV by Mike in this edit, never listed. - -sche (discuss) 23:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Mike seems to be conceding that it's valid, but saying the meka spelling is 'preferred'. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Not all that common, but easily citable: mecka on Google Books is mostly "Mecca", but it looks like at least one "tinker". Meckar turns up several "tinker"s and there's a lot more of the same on Usenet: mecka and meckar. I don't speak Swedish, so some may not be valid, but there would seem to be enough to lose some and still have enough. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Mecka is also a spelling of Mecca, but to find the verb you should google for some of the conjugated forms (meckar, meckade, har meckat). For example, "Vi meckade med en winsch bra länge" = We tinkered with a winch for a pretty good while, in the description to this lovely Youtube video. The word is in popular use, together with swear words in snow chaos, things that seldom happen to the lexicographers of our learned academies. --LA2 (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

So... struck. - -sche (discuss) 04:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 23:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There is French spectromètre but I had never heard of this spelling in English. A smattering of gbooks hits [54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62] While some of these could be put down to the preferences of non-English authors, there does seem to be enough there to make it citable. Spinning Spark 10:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It is clearly assessed by other dictionaries as too rare for inclusion. It is probably considered wrong, annoying, or distracting by most readers, certainly in the US. Does that make it {{nonstandard}}? DCDuring TALK 12:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be wrong according to even the loosest prescriptivist rules of British English, where "metre" refers to a distance or a poetic rhythm and "meter" refers to a measuring device, but those are certainly plenty of citations. My best guess would be to call it a common misspelling of spectrometer. (It's also possible, incidentally, that some of those books fell foul of some kind of automatic filter designed to convert spellings to British/Commonwealth English - the second citation talks about the "alpha proton X-ray spectrometre", even though this is a NASA proper noun, and NASA spells it "Alpha Proton X-Ray Spectrometer") Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, they may even be typos. Citation 2 contains at least 10 "spectrometer"s. Citation 3 contains 9 "spectrometer"s and 1 "spectrometre", citation 4 has 15 "spectrometer"s and 2 "spectrometre"s and so on. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no reasonable basis for calling it "common" as a misspelling. If we are to attempt to be helpful my including it, we need some other presentation. DCDuring TALK 14:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Following Smurrayinchester, I withdraw the offered citations. All except cite 5 do not have a consistent spelling and could therefore be taken as typos. Spinning Spark 16:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 18:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I see a lot of scannos, names and mentions. Any uses? - -sche (discuss) 23:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

One book hit: First there is a geyser of blue flame as the tank's puncture wound jets a stream of ignited assoline skyward. Prior reference to "methane-breathers" makes this definitely the right sense. It seems this was a neologism reported to the American Dialect Society in 2002. I had a couple of mentions on usenet also, but no real cites. Spinning Spark 02:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

One from Google groups you guys are missing the point of alcohol. yeah, when you burn it in your engine that was designed to run on assoline, you get poor mileage but I don't think it is usenet and possibly not considered durably archived. Spinning Spark 02:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 23:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Cited. Astral (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we should gloss this as "only among fans of Japanese comics and Japanese animation". Nobody would use this term unless they were a Naruto fan or whatever. Equinox ◑ 21:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"Chiefly" would probably be more accurate than "only." Much of this term's more recent popularity can be attributed to Hiro Nakamura on Heroes. Japanese character, American show. Or maybe "chiefly among Japanophiles" or "chiefly among fans of Japanese culture?" Astral (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Also popularized in Internet culture by Happatai's faddishly memed song and WTFy music video "Röbin Liönheart (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Kind of the "Gangnam Style" of its day, wasn't it? In that it was intended as a satirical commentary on the culture of living beyond one's means, but that message was lost on most Western viewers, who just saw it as amusingly bizarre. Astral (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 04:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

RFV-sense "A test used to establish causation in fact." Might be real, I can't tell. - -sche (discuss) 02:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 17:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

2003 cite is cevichería; 2006 is cebichería; and 2007 is cevichería. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 03:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 08:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

[edit] cebichería

All the citations currently in the entry italicise the term as a borrowing. - -sche (discuss) 03:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 08:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: A housecat

I've lived in the north of England most of my life, and I've never, ever heard anyone call their cat a minge, nor can I imagine anyone doing so. I found one book that claims this, but it's just a toilet book (apparently American) so I wouldn't put much stock in its scholarship (he might even have got the idea from us - the book is from 2010 but the edit dates back to 2008). Is this just confusion with the dual meanings of pussy, or do people actually call their cats "minges". Supposedly went through RFV in 2008, but I can't find any archive of this and the citations page is blank. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion (archived on the talk page) suggests the term was passed because Usenet citations existed, but they were not actually added. This time around, they can be added, if they exist... - -sche (discuss) 18:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I've lived in the North of England my whole life (albeit only in one city) and I've never heard of this. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It's the only ever addition by 87.194.182.145 (talk • contribs). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look on Google Groups. A lot of hits from people who've called their cats "Minge" (Minge, Ginger Minge and the Monsters of Minge) as a proper noun, but beyond that every use seemed to mean "vagina". Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 08:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense both senses need to pass WT:BRAND. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: To ascribe some powers or other attributes to. Is believing in Jesus any different to believing in God? Seems redundant to me. ---> Tooironic (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Citations from a sympathetic observer (not me) might help. The usage example is insufficient to convey the idea. DCDuring TALK 03:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Believing in Jesus is different from believing in G-d because for Jesus the question is whether he is what New Testament says he is, but for G-d the question is simply whether he exists. But, I would say sense #2 is pretty much the same as sense #4. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that meaning does exist, but "Do you believe in Jesus" is perhaps not the best example for it. Years ago, Peter Pan peanut butter had the slogan "Do you believe in peanut butter?", which I think is what this definition is going for. Clearly they weren't simply asking if you believe peanut butter exists. —An gr 11:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
But what do think about it being the same as sense #4? --WikiTiki89 (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, sense 4 seems awfully specific. Maybe if it were made a little more general, sense 2 could be merged into it. —An gr 11:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Sense 4 is about expectations of future performance, I think. I think the direction of further generalization is in the wording that is now restricted to people, singly or in groups. I could imagine it being applied to securities or currencies or products or technologies as well as animals. "I believe in Secretariat/Dow 30,000/the Tigers/nanotechnology." DCDuring TALK 13:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

But all the senses are synecdoches, aren't they? We are just selecting instances that span the range of usage possiblities, a "minimal spanning set" of definitions. DCDuring TALK 13:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Recently added English meaning "a pin badge worn to show fluency in, or a willingness to speak, the Irish language". While we're verifying it, maybe someone can find out what the English plural is: fáinnes? Or is the Irish plural fáinní borrowed as well? —An gr 11:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, an English pronunciation would be nice. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Now cited.--Dmol (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The citations are for [[fainne]]. Can this spelling be cited, too? Otherwise, the entry can easily be moved to [[fainne]]. - -sche (discuss) 19:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: To take a risk which may result in great rewards; to succeed after taking such a risk.

The citation offered can't support "take a risk" because meaning is conveyed by "try to" (?"try to take great risks"). "To succeed after taking such a risk" is largely repetitive of the previous, figurative sense "attain great heights [etc]". DCDuring TALK 15:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Adjective: (slang) lots, many, a great deal.

usex: There's millions of space in my car if you want a lift.

Also, if millions#Noun is the plural of million, why is there no English million#Noun?DCDuring TALK 18:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Added by now-banned user Keene. Also million is a noun, but we seem to use the 'numeral' header a lot for such nouns (one, two, three etc. are all nouns, hences ones, twos, threes). Mglovesfun (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Our number-word entries need agreement and standardization by folks more interested in words than in arithmetic. DCDuring TALK 23:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: A buzzword created to refer to and advertise a new women's bonnet style (AKA "coiffure de gaze" as seen in the early 19th century French painting Portrait De Jeune Femme (En Coiffure De Gaze) by Henri Pierre-Louis Grevedon see here) of 1723 involving a gauzy cloth or net for which the word was invented. Within months, comedies of the time created songs and verses using the new word to make light of political and social leaders. The word gained the meaning sense as a catch-all phrase such that it might refer to any silly trifle or thing of little value or merit as in the English word folderol.[1] From there, it acquired more serious, specific usages.
Rfv-sense: (music) The eunuch flute, a kind of membranophone.
Rfv-sense: An 18th-century hussar hat resembling a slightly conical shako or tall fez.
Rfv-sense: A tube-shaped pastry imitative of the shape of a short toy flute (This shape is now more closely associated with a toy siren whistle).
Rfv-sense: A tartlet or biscuit garnished with almond, first produced in Rouen around 1800.[3][4]
Rfv-sense: A version of the gold louis d'or coin made during Louis XV's reign.[5][6][7]
Rfv-sense: A railroad sign used on the French SNCF network. It is typically a long rectangle with broad diagonal black

I am sending all senses to RFV, except for the chayote one, as that is a sense present in some OneLook dictionaries. Presumably, the senses will fail the request for verification and get deleted, but let us see. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, someone should just delete mirliton, which was incorrectly copied from Transwiki:Mirliton. As a next step, Transwiki:Mirliton should be moved to mirliton, and the senses tagged with rfv-sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It is possible to merge the page histories. I don't want to bother if all the senses fail rfv. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Here's what I've found.

Membranophone: a mirliton is a kazoo or makeshift musical instrument consisting of two thin membranes through which the breath or voice passes (possibly a translation of the French, but referring to the title of Beckett play), It has an inner diameter of about 38 millimeters and is closed at the proximal end by a hollow sphere of black beeswax that has a small perforation over which a thin membrane, usually from a pig's intestine, is stretched as a mirliton., Mirliton membranes are made of much less elastic materials than drum membranes (e.g.. paper, onion skin, spider egg sacs), and they are loose rather than taut.
Hat sense: The headdress was a fur busby for the 1st-4th Regts., and a felt mirliton or Flügelmütze for the remainder (also worn by the 4th, 1752-71), By 1795 the mirliton hussar-cap had universally replaced the fur-crested Tarleton-style helmet. (Perhaps use of French word) Headwear: This was either the colpack or the mirliton.
Almond biscuit sense: have moulds prepared as for the mirlitons of Rouen (maybe French, although it is "mirlitons of Rouen" not "mirlitons de Rouen") To make the mirliton, in a bowl, break the eggs, add both the sugars, the double cream, almond meal, lemon zest and melted butter., The mirlitons popular in Paris and Normandy are made much like financiers except that the financier batter is baked in small tartlet shells made of pâté sucrée (arguably also French, although the text also italicises financier, which we have as an English word), The mirlitons I am familiar with are little puff pastries filled with almond paste/cream and decorated on the outside with almonds.

There are lots of mentions of the gold coin usage in English coin catalogues, but as far as I can tell, no uses in running text (it looks like this is an example, but sadly the snippet view doesn't show all the hits). Nothing for the railway sense. The other pastry sense may just be an extension of the first, although all the hits I found for mirliton described them as tartlets, not tubes. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Cited the fruit/vine, the flute, and the cake, which are the only senses in Chambers. Equinox ◑ 12:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The cited senses pass RFV; I have removed the uncited ones. - -sche (discuss) 05:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This can be found in many dictionaries going back at least a century or two, but I can't find it anywhere else. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It was featured on the British TV show QI just now (an hour ago, or so) and it was in Dr Johnson's dictionary. Of course we don't use the same rules as he used back then. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I have cited the spelling shape-smith, but I don't know what definition fits the cites. See Citations:shapesmith. Those four pretty much exhausted the valid cites at Google Books. DCDuring TALK 23:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't include the one from the Edda, since it seems like there are several calque-like literalish translations there. The other three seem to fit the definition in question, though. It's odd that the only cites are spelled differently than the dictionary entries.

I should mention that there was one other definition in Google Books referring to a type of craftsman, and the name of a computer application by that name. On Usenet it was all just the computer application and user names apparently associated with it. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I also just found this Chuck Entz (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I could not find any spelling of shapesmith at that last link. DCDuring TALK 03:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"This inclination to obesity has always been a heavy source of discomfort and annoyance to Mr Strumcerner and it is known that he has been in training under a multitude of shape-smiths to effect if possible a reduction of that fleshy knobbiness which so materially interferes with the symmetry of his form." Chuck Entz (talk) 04:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. I wonder why I couldn't see it. DCDuring TALK 04:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

And I agree with you about the Edda. I strongly suspected calque, but, given the scarcity, I kept it. DCDuring TALK 03:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

So, move it to the attested spelling? - -sche (discuss) 05:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I understood a shapesmith was someone who made corsets. Ƿidsiþ 05:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Per your comment, I've added that sense, to spur people to sort the citations under the relevant sense, so we can see if either or any sense is attested. - -sche (discuss) 22:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Sense: (UK, slang, dated) A man who sanctions sexual relationships between his girlfriend and his male friends.

Someone added a note requesting references. I guess an RFV is what he meant. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

According to this the sense was discovered during Balderdash & Piffle's wordhunt. The citation referred to from All Neat in Black Stockings is not stated, but is now in the OED "If she'd been my daughter in fact I'd never have let her go out with an obvious plonker like myself." Even though the OED agreed with Bald&Piff and changed their entry, I cannot see it myself just from that cite, it just seems the normal use of plonker. This description of the film does confirm that the character Ginger shares his girlfriends. Can someone who has seen the film confirm that Ginger used plonker in that sense? Spinning Spark 23:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Never ever heard of it. I suppose since it says 'dated' maybe if some of our older UK editors could comment on this, it would be most welcome. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I was at school in 1966 (date of film) and learned all sorts of new words in the playground, but I don't recall this sense. Spinning Spark 19:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Plonker is like eejit. Search youtube for "rodney plonker" [63] RTG (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I found Tony Crisp's 2010 Mind And Movement: The Practice of Coex. Are there two other citations out there? I notice a lot of citations of "COEX", is this the same thing? - -sche (discuss) 08:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Crisp claims to have coined coex from a meld of consciosness and expansion so independent cites from others are probably rare given its recentness. The main meaning of COEX (systems) in the gbooks hits is a coinage by w:Stanislav Grof for "systems of condensed experience" [64] which has been picked up by numerous other authors but does not seem to be the same concept as Crisp's. There is also COEX in South Korea and several other usages in gbooks which I couldn't quite make out. Spinning Spark 22:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 17:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

RFV-sense "A tablet, panel, or compartment in ornamented or mosaic work." Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 03:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Supposedly an initialism of "against all risk". I would have expected it to be capitalised, for one thing. - -sche (discuss) 03:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Gbooks has a few mentions of "a.a.r." and a couple of uses of "A.A.R." or "AAR" with that sense. Spinning Spark 18:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

RFV-sense "The illegal taking and detention of a female, as young as a teenager, for the purpose of forced wedlock or rape."

This is very specific, and legal definitions are notoriously variable (from jurisdiction to jurisdiction). I appreciate the work that's been put into providing references for this one, but I wonder: even if this specific definition is citeable, is a similar sense pertaining to men also citeable? And are the senses really age-specific? Would abduction of a pre-teen for marriage not count? - -sche (discuss) 07:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me, I mean yes I suppose a pre-teen would also count. The idea of abduction originally was taking off a young unmarried woman. I think I would be tempted to just drop the legal tag if anything. I seriously doubt it ever applied to men, what makes you think it might though? Ƿidsiþ 05:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

No matter what it originally meant (evidence?) isn't this just an overly-specific form of "The wrongful, and usually forcible, carrying off of a human being."? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

We do care about historical meanings, if that's what this is. I looked at Century 1913 and MW 1913, 1933, and 1828 to see whether it is historically more specific. MW 1828 certainly had it as being specific, Century at bit less so. MW 1913 was closer to the modern sense of kidnapping. MW 2 and 3 both have it as the legally specific sense, also including wards, referring to the variety of statutory language, and also the modern inclusive non-legal sense.

It would be trivial to cite the definition. It would be incumbent on the challenger in this kind of case to produce citations that indicate there are other statutes that use the word to apply to, say, male minors or adults. But, even with such citation, a legal definition would still say that the term was sometimes restricted, though the burden of attestation would seem to be back on those who want to have the specific legal sense. DCDuring TALK 13:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I think abduction of a preteen would fall under kidnapping. I'm guessing that abduction allows for the possibility that the abductee ("child, a ward, a wife, &c.") was not taken by force, but by "fraud, persuasion". Kidnapping seems to require "force" or "carrying away" and "against one's will", with the purpose often being "ransom". All of these specifications fit with what I would perceive as being the central uses of the terms currently. DCDuring TALK 13:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The definition of abduction is not reliant on the purpose or legal basis at any time. Those are definitions of the word excuses and you should act accordingly. RTG (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

In fact this is so odd I might keep my eye on it and argue the bit. RTG (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

For instance, the definition of detention is not reliant on the accusation of a crime, or even the presence of a legal system. Making sense? RTG (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

@RTG I have literally no idea what you're on about. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I said, abduction has nothing whatsoever to do with the age of a pre teen, and what the heck are you all on about, and other stories. You really fail to see that? Come on like? RTG (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I agree with that however it seems to have no relation to what you've said above. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Illegal, teenager, wedlock, rape etc. You are discussing the reliance of the definition on these words, but it does not. It means to take away the person with special focus on impropriety. Perhaps the legal nature is somewhat useful in the definition but all the other stuff is purely fanciful and in my opinion too much so. It could just as well mean the removal of a chimpanzee for the purpose of managing a theme park, and I'd rather it said that than all the thing about raping babies or whatever if you don't mind. Half lolling and half OMGWTFZOR. RTG (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

@RTG: You seem to be having trouble with the idea that words have more or less restrictive meanings in different circumstances. In a legal context the word abduction might well have or have had a meaning more specific than in general usage, just as it has a different meaning in physiology. A good dictionary prepares its users for such possibilities. DCDuring TALK 15:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

DCDuring, in this case that does not apply. I have a problem? You guys just made all that stuff up. Raping teenagers? Come on, I am just saying how fanciful that is. Adding so much information where it need not apply taints the dissemination of the intended information. Is there not a guideline about that? You guys should write one. You guys shouldn't debate all that stuff without concrete foundation, or you'll get confused no matter how smart or versed you are. The world works in that way. RTG (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Quoting RTG above "Illegal, teenager, wedlock, rape etc. You are discussing the reliance of the definition on these words". Um, no we're not. You might be but we're not. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The origins and definitions of the word abduction predate the English language and the specifics you are debating are so obscure and in content so ridiculous. The OP cites nothing and someone else then alludes to what I assume is Mirriam Websters c17th and I just fail to accept that the meaning of the word was delayed for a few years to mean something specifically about children. To suggest that a word dramatically and specifically changed ought to take more than a single publication. The significance of the citation ought to reflect the significance of the comparison in some cases at least, and this is particularly long winded, perculiar and obscure. It bangs of nought but error as they say in Bolivia and it's kind of distasteful to boot to say least. There you go I used the taste word mock me with laughter and kill me with fire I am spot on right there. RTG (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood the purpose of this discussion. It is not to find all the real meanings of abduction, but rather to see if anyone can find cites of actual use of the specific meaning challenged. If none are forthcoming, the sense will be removed from the entry. Spinning Spark 18:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

RTG, I find your tone highly inappropriate given the content of this discussion. That said, I don't see what we have achieve by discussing this here. Nobody's denying that young girls can be abducted and then subsequently forced to marry or be raped, the issue is why have a separate sense for it. Also, providing you believe abductio, it is etymologically correct to talk about abduction of a woman being the original sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

"By extension", circumstantially, because they were the easy prey for the abductors resulting most abductions being of young female children, not because abduction meant children or women in particular. And the difference is not subtle. I am insisting that for such an elaborate implication the basis be solid and readily researchable, not synonymous with possible errors, or the quality level is at risk. My frivolous tone reflects my impression of the discussion. The subject is ridiculous while the consideration is all too serious and directed in its favour. I seek to insult it. That is my intended tone. It is an old inaccuracy, not a true definition. RTG (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (intransitive) To try, in public, to attract people into a business establishment. I just don't get it, because it's intransitive it can't have a direct object, so it would be like "he waved" or "she waved to them". Maybe it's some sort of business slang I'm not aware of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Do these qualify? --Hekaheka (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)?

Bonnie Powers is the walking, talking hotdog who waves customers in off the street and greets the children with a smile. [65]
While the gentleman in blue waves customers in and out at the rate of one every three and one-third minutes, bank teller Gooding peers up through his oversized periscope and discourses on the hazards of his job.[66]
By your definition, it's not only the proprietor of the Eden Club who qualifies as a pimp, it's the receptionist at every massage parlor, the security guard in the parking lot outside who waves customers in, etc. [67]

I went to the entry only after picking up these examples. I agree, "intransitive" looks weird. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That's the sense, but they are all transitive. I would not be a surprise that we have errors in our grammar tags.

I think there is an RfD issue for which cites could help: Can one "wave" (in) someone in this sense without physically waving? DCDuring TALK 15:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Per DCDuring, in the examples does it refer to physically waving (using the hands) or is it something else? Intransitive seems wrong, also I don't think these are durably archived. They are undoubtedly useful, but I think they're not enough for a pass. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hold one hand out before you pointed slightly to the outside of the others personal space (lets say you want to move them in left hold out right hand pointing to the left of their left shoulder) now hold out left hand in the direction you would like them to move. Do not wave. It's kind of like blocking their path or pretending to be a wall. Voila, to question can you do it without physically waving, in fact, it may be the most usual way of doing. RTG (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Or how about the synonyms, motion them in or usher in, I believe create the picture of waving in without actually waving hello or anything. RTG (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It was added back in 2009 by msh210, which is good news; since he's still active, we can simply ask him what he meant by this. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

@MG: My expectation is that the situations described would (very?) often involve physical waving.

@RTG: Assuming that these are correct synonyms begs the question of how literal the motion has to be. I think the real world provides very few instances of people holding the pose you describe without moving their hands. And, of course, there is the question of finding attestable evidence that the word wave is used to describe a pose without hand motion. DCDuring TALK 15:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I've done it a thousand times. That is the real world and the waving part probably only comes in if they are ignoring you or don't notice, but it can be used to describe a person who is only suggesting with words rather than motioning with hands. RTG (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The point here is that we need evidence (See WT:ATTEST that the verb wave is used with this definition without physical movement of the hands. Everything else either helps in the process of getting the right evidence or is irrelevant. DCDuring TALK 15:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't. It is synonymous with ushering in. The motion is irrelevant on that basis unless you are going to describe it in detail. The motion part is already covered in the basic wave = motion of the hand type thing. RTG (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Start here?

I must say, I don't think that specifically waving someone into a business establishment has more merit toward definition than simply as a synonym for ushering a person in a certain direction, and I've checked briefly through the internet content hits without finding anything truly specific and dictionary-cite-worthy as I might have seen it. The hand goes from the side upwards to the horizontal. If the motion is repeated for emphasis, there is your wave. Good luck :). RTG (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You can wave people anywhere, not necessarily a business establishment. Like if you see a friend in the distance, you can wave him over. So even if it is a separate sense it need not be so specific. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this any more attested than c/e, which failed RFV, was? - -sche (discuss) 03:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we are talking about ce#English, correct? --WikiTiki89 (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I'm seeking verification of the fact that "ce" means "copyedit" in English (mostly because c/e failed RFV not long ago). - -sche (discuss) 08:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

- -sche (discuss) 08:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The only quote so far comes from Ben Croshaw, who writes in quite a visceral, playful way. Almost certainly a nonce word coined by him. Only other result I can find on the whole internet is in a badly written, non-durably-archived fanfic (and technically, in the fanfic it's written without hyphens). Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently an adjective. The citations just seem to use the proper noun attributively. Not any different to "Michael Jackson" in "Michael Jackson voice". Mglovesfun (talk) 10:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Does this prove that it's an adjective or can it still be a noun in that usage? --WikiTiki89 (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd tend to say yes, it does support an adjective sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You have to be careful about the construction "more x than y", where x and y are nouns and one is stating which one the referent resembles most. There do seem to be a couple of true comparatives, though Chuck Entz (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think in "the construction 'more x than y', where x and y are nouns and one is stating which one the referent resembles most", x and y would be acting like adjectives. There is one thing I do know to be careful about which is noun constructions like "Vodka has more water than ethanol." (which is also a good example of the ambiguity of than), but that construction did not show up at all. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? The ability to add articles, modifiers, etc. makes me think that it's more nouns acting like nouns than nouns acting like adjectives: "He's more an American than a European". "She's more a friend than a lover". "That's more purplish blue than bluish purple" Chuck Entz (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have three explanations for that:

It is a noun phrase being used adjectivally.
more is modifying is
It's really "more of" but the of is dropped.

--WikiTiki89 (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

How about these:

2008, Lisa Margonelli, Oil on the Brain: Petroleum's Long, Strange Trip to Your Tank, p. 68:
This is all a little more Alice in Wonderland than I had expected.
2008, Gordon Stobart, Testing Times, p. 137:
What gives this an even more Alice-in-Wonderland feel is that the Average Yearly Progress targets are based on what must be done to achieve this impossible goal...
2002, Alan Stripp, Codebreaker in the Far East, p. 35:
It became more Alice in Wonderland all the time: was I now to navigate as well?
1984, Great Britain, Parliament, House of Commons, Parliamentary debates: Official report, Volume 75, p. 335:
Members with a fascination for the horrid to look at the explanatory memorandum, which deals with fresh fruit and vegetables. It discloses the most Alice-in- Wonderland situation ever.

Cheers! bd2412 T 20:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense #3: "something that is enchanted". I disagree that the given citation I see now that it's all enchantment in this house; is indicative of this usage. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"To destroy, ruin, undo, lay waste to." No example offered. --Jerome Potts (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussion: WT:RFM#Click_characters_in_language_names_and_2x_.21Kung.

This has been moved from !Kung, which is now a redirect (yes, they are Unicodally different). Even though the old version has 5,500,000 b.google hits compared to the four dubious ones I see for this new version. If anything, the redirects should be the other way round. Ƿidsiþ 05:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It's very well attested in books; I've added three more citations.

Now, you might be tempted to say we can't be sure which character the book uses (click vs exclamation): but as I said in the discussion which preceded the move, "we wouldn't move Москва to Moсквa (or any other such variant) — even if the only citations of the word were in books rather than online, and thus it were philosophically impossible to tell whether о or o were the character used: we would find the character in Cyrillic text and so use the Cyrillic codepoint. Here, we find a click, and so should use the click codepoint." - -sche (discuss) 05:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Since it's in English text and English has no such character as "ǃ", it must be an exclamation point ("!"). --WikiTiki89 (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

English does use the ǃ character, namely to spell words like these. You might as well say English doesn't use ó or õ — even though they're used in ǃXóõ (check the citation in that entry). How would you re-interpret those characters? How would you like to re-interpret the citations of [[ǁXegwi]] which are in that entry; do you think they're secretly of *llXegwi or *11Xegwi? - -sche (discuss) 07:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

What characters are used in English is not a well-defined set; e.g. we have háček, haċek, and haĉek (the latter passing RFV despite my objections). ǃ is part of the extended Latin alphabet, so it's not that surprising; on the other hand, the exclamation point "!" isn't a letter at all, and can't functionally be part of a word, and the trademarks that use it as part of a trademark always put at it the end and use it as an exclamation, which isn't the use here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"the exclamation point "!" isn't a letter at all, and can't functionally be part of a word": Yet somehow "!Kung" has five and a half million google books hits compared to four for the (hyper)"correct" version. Ƿidsiþ 07:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Aren't there precedents of this kind of situation? I seem to remember with Dutch we always use ij even thouigh the "official" character is a (sort-of) ligature, because in practice everyone just types them separately. I am not at all convinced by the Moscow comparison, because as you (-sche) say, "we would find the character in Cyrillic text and so use the Cyrillic codepoint"; similarly here we find the character in English text and so we should use the normal English character. I mean I don't *really* care, except that it just seem like one more technicality which reduces user-friendliness (everyone who enters something for !Kung will be getting it "wrong"). Ƿidsiþ 07:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly agree that ǃKung (click) is a lot harder to input than !Kung (exclamation). But !Kung (exclamation) seems like an entirely hackish way of easing input, and there aren't hackish solutions to many of the other characters (õ, which is just as hard to enter, could be replaced with o, but what could substitute for ǂ?), so I prefer to go ahead and use the technically-correct names for all of them. The redirects are there for user-friendliness, and having the pages at the click-character titles means anyone copying the pagenames to paste them elsewhere will be copying the technically-correct rather than the hackish string of characters. And I would say the redirects don't deviate from our practice of not using redirects in cases where someone "got something wrong" (e.g. beleive doesn't redirect to believe, it's an actual entry that explains the misspelling) but using them where someone enters an "OK" but non-lemma form (e.g. all the redirects from variant forms of proverbs to the lemma forms). - -sche (discuss) 08:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Another thing to consider: If you take a survey of every English speaker in the world, asking them if "ǃKung" and "ǃXóõ" are English words, a very, very insignificant minority will say they are. I would even bet that most of the people who use these words do not consider them to be English. Even take a look at the reference note on [[ǃKung]]: "When speaking English, I myself say Kung for 'ǃKung', Gwi for 'Gǀwi', and Gana for 'Gǁana'. […] Ko for 'ǃXõ', Kam for 'ǀXam' […] " --WikiTiki89 (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You may appreciate my effort to have {{nmn}} renamed to "Taa" precisely to avoid at least one click character (/exclamation mark). Of course, if Liliana's comment in that discussion is to be believed, even fewer people would recognise "Taa" as an English word than would recognise what it's currently called, "ǃXóõ". For that matter, the number of English speakers who recognise "terpsichorean" as an English word is probably minuscule, so commonality/recognisability is really only good for deciding whether to tag something as {{rare}} or not. (Even then, there are those who feel—and have mostly persuaded me—that rare should only be used if a term is rarely used for a thing relative to other terms which are used for the thing, not if the thing itself is simply rarely discussed. So "ǃXóõ", for example, is not rare, because it is as common a name for the language as "Taa" or "Xoo", even though each of those gets <50 Google books hits.) - -sche (discuss) 08:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I would support that renaming. And I disagree about terpsichorean. Rarity has nothing to do with this. People might not know terpsichorean or what it means, but they will accept that it looks and sounds like it could be an English word, much unlike ǃXóõ. Taa would be a little bit more passable as English. This is much like how I sometimes use острый and горячий with my family while otherwise speaking English, in order to differentiate two senses of "hot food". I would say that that wouldn't make these words English even if it were attestable in English text. Also compare War and Peace, which frequently uses French words in the middle of Russian sentences, as well as Russian words in the Middle of French sentences. This doesn't count towards attesting these words in the other language. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That's code-switching. That's not what's going on here. I don't know what language ǃXóõ is from (ǃXóõ, I guess), but it's being used by authors who don't know ǃXóõ writing to an audience that doesn't know ǃXóõ. You may not like the spelling, but the audience that discusses ǃXóõ apparently has no problem with it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it being used by authors who don't know ǃXóõ? Better question: Is it used by authors who are not linguists? If not, can we add a {{linguistics}} tag? --WikiTiki89 (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Of the people who use ǃKung as the name of an ethnic group: Nicholas Blurton Jones, Kristen Hawkes and James F. O'Connell are professors of anthropology. Jenny Diski is a writer (specifically a "proto-post-postmodern" writer). Gary M. Feinman and T. Douglas Price are archaeologists. Timothy Oakes and Patricia Lynn Price are professors of geography.

Of the people who use ǃKung as the name of a language: Elizabeth Marshall Thomas is an anthropologist. (I haven't worked out who wrote the ǃKung section of Keith's book.) - -sche (discuss) 21:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Of the people who use ǃXóõ as the name of a language: Anthony Traill, Keith Elwin Johnson, Amana L. Miller and Nicholas Evans are linguists. Michael C. Corballis is a professor of psychology. Houman Sadri is a professor of political science, Madelyn Flammia is a professor of English. - -sche (discuss) 04:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Since they're all professors (except for the one post-post-modernist writer) maybe we should add an {{context|academia}} tag? --WikiTiki89 (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

@Wikitiki re the author I cited regarding the anglicised pronunciation, who wrote "I myself say Kung for 'ǃKung'": I myself say canidate for 'candidate', but as a feature of pronunciation, it doesn't affect the spelling of the word.

re terpsichorean: how do you expect these English speakers you refer to to know that "terpsichorean" isn't a Limburgish word? Why wouldn't they say, "no, terpsichorean doesn't sound or look like English"? It looks like a made-up jumble of letters to me. Also consider that German speakers often think of "Handy" (=cell phone) as English, not German, because it looks and sounds like English, not German. And you must admit that an English speaker who was willing upon seeing "terpsichorean" for the first time to accept that it looked and sounded like an English word would also be willing to accept "Handy". (Even capitalisation is a feature English has: "Hoover"=vacuum). Nevertheless, "Handy" is a German and not an English word for "cell phone", despite the gut instincts of each group. Likewise, as Prosfilaes says, you don't like the spellings of ǃKung and ǃXóõ, but the people who write about ǃKung and ǃXóõ have no problem with them. - -sche (discuss) 21:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Terpsichorean doesn't have any features unusual of the English language. ǃXóõ has three characters (75% of the entire word) that are unusual of the English language. As for capitalization, I think capitalization is not a part of spelling but a part of grammar, in English and in German and in every other language I know of. So yes, Handy is an English word. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Terpsichorean certainly has features that are unusual of the English language; for example, terp doesn't start any words in the 100,000 word wordlist that comes with Linux, and Terp only appears as part of an Greek proper name. "ichore", likewise, only appears as part of that proper name. And who cares? The proof of the pudding is in the eating; English speakers use ǃXóõ in English writing for an English audience, without any marking of a foreign language. It is listed as the English language name of the language in an international standard (ISO 639-3), people have published books called A ǃXóõ Dictionary and Phonetic and Phonological Studies of ǃXóõ Bushman, and so on.

Capitalization is certainly part of spelling. The word Polish may only be spelled with a capital initial letter in English, whereas the word polish may or may not start with a capital. I suspect someone can provide an example for German and many other languages of words that change meaning when capitalized. In any case, "Handy" meaning "cell phone" is certainly not an English word.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The standard you link to happens to spell "!Xóõ" with an exclamation point.

So according to you: THIS IS NOT AN ENGLISH SENTENCE BECAUSE MOST OF THESE WORDS ARE REDLINKS AND THE ONES THAT ARE'T DON'T MAKE ANY SENSE IN THIS CONTEXT. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, take a look at Prosfilaes' "Polish" example: you can capitalize "polish" (shoe polish) if you're using it at the start of a sentence; you could even put it in all-caps in a book title, but the default form is still "polish", whereas the default form of "Polish" (from Poland) is with a capital "P", though it, too, can be rendered "POLISH" on e.g. the cover of a POLISH-ENGLISH DICTIONARY.

Meanwhile, according to you, "Handy" — which AFAICT never appears with the meaning "cell phone" in English, and which if it does appear is almost certainly a result of the German word and certainly not a cause — is an English and not a German word... :/ - -sche (discuss) 18:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

LOL I found the answer to my question of "if ǃ is re-interpreted as !, how can ǂ be re-interpreted?": judging by Google, "ǀHanǂkasso" is variously OCR-ed as "/Han‡kasso" (with double dagger), "/Han#kasso", "han!=kasso", "/Han//kasso", "/Han=kasso" and "IHan=Kasso", in addition to the entirely Anglicised/Teutonicised "Han-Kasso". I'm surprised "|" isn't in the first few pages of results. Nonetheless, those scannos seem more common on Google than the correct spelling: yet I defy anyone to say "/Han#kasso" is a more English spelling than "ǀHanǂkasso". - -sche (discuss) 22:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I provided 3+ citations for all senses of ǃKung and ǃXóõ. The preceding debate is mostly over whether the character that looks like a line with a dot under it is ǃ or !, but I hope we agree that the citations show that one or the other of those characters is used, i.e. that the words (spelt with lines with dots under them) do exist. - -sche (discuss) 04:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Belatedly @Widsith: ǃ and ! aren't merely "Unicodally different", they're etymologically different: the exclamation mark is an I with an o under it, from Latin "io", the click character is the click-line ǀ with a subscript pronunciation diacritic. It's not like ij vs ĳ, where the latter is a variant of the former — it's more like B vs ß or O vs 0, where the two are unrelated and only happen to look similar. (There are plenty of Google hits for German words misspelt with "B", such as the amusing "GroBdeutsch", which wants to be "great German" but ends up being "coarse German".) Also, of the "5,500,000 b.google hits" you cite for "!Kung" (with exclamation mark), 93 of the first 100 are spurious hits for books about Kung Fu or Hans Küng, not uses of "!Kung", and most of the hits that are of the language are repetitions of the same book. - -sche (discuss) 04:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You'll forgive me if I don't believe that for a moment. Maybe the exclamation mark was picked because it can be explained as combining a click-line with diacritic, but that's as far as I'd go. Anyway, I'll let this drop for now, at least until anyone else gives their opinion on the subject. Ƿidsiþ 08:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I think

the illustration at right, as well as w:Click letter is pretty clear about it; in particular, note that the ǃ in the illustration does not have the dot sitting on the baseline, but instead the pipe, with the dot acting as a descender.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, my Handbook of the IPA describes the symbol explicitly as an exclamation point. You can see it at Google Books, p. 171. Ƿidsiþ 06:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

And if you read across the line, it says explicitly that the Unicode encoding for the symbol is U+01C3; that is, ǃ, not the normal ASCII ! (U+0021).--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

So are we gonna start using the IPA ɡ now also, instead of the normal g? --WikiTiki89 (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

My own preference in the absence of arguments to the contrary would be to continue to use IPA "ɡ", yes. Ruakh's suggestion in the Grease Pit of using the orthographic "g" surprised me and is the only such suggestion I've seen... before that, I didn't realise anyone used non-IPA "g" in IPA transcriptions except by mistake. Of course, unlike click-sound-ǃ vs punctuation-mark-!, g and g have the same origin and signify nearly the same thing, so I wouldn't be surprised if Ruakh were right that the IPA-icians have abandoned the distinction or even switched to g, in which case I would acquiesce and obey them. - -sche (discuss) 08:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The 1999 edition of the Handbook of the International Phonetic Association lists g as looptail g and calls it equivalent to open g, ɡ. So it seems they have given up the fight.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually I was sarcastically talking about using IPA "ɡ" in headwords as a response to Prosfilaes using the IPA handbook's unicode point as justification of using the click-sound-ǃ in headwords. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for not getting the humour. :b In that case, this whole subthread is chasing something of a wild goose, since (as you say) we are talking about a headword, not an IPA transcription. (Not that there aren't languages which seem to use the IPA as their orthography...) - -sche (discuss) 20:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

This RFV is for an English entry. IMHO, the citations for "ǃKung" have to show clearly that the character used in them is not the plain exclamation mark used in English. Quotations from which it is not apparent which of the two characters they are using should count toward the plain explanation mark, IMHO. For one example of a web site that uses the plain explanation mark, see http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=knw; see also http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/324909/Kung. Furthermore, Wiktionary:RFM#Click_characters_in_language_names_and_2x_.21Kung does not show anything like a consensus supporting the move to ǃ character; there is not a single boldfaced "support"; there is actually no "support" occurrence at all. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do you consider the puncuation mark "!" to be a letter used in spelling English words, but the letter "ǃ" from the extended Latin alphabet to not be one? If you interpret "ǃKung" as using the unrelated ersatz character "!", do you also interpret "ǁXegwi" and "ǂHoan" as using characters other than clicks? If so, which characters? If not, why the inconsistency? - -sche (discuss) 10:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Of the first twenty results in gbooks using the search string "Kung language", 10 are spelt "!Kung", 4 are spelt "Kung" (with at least one going on to give example words using the "!" character), 4 are indeterminate, 3 are irrelevant or Wiki clones, and none at all use "ǃKung". I am assuming the ǃ character would be seen in typesetting as as having a constant width, unlike !. Spinning Spark 17:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason to assume that, and there's good reason to assume the contrary: in many (most?) modern fonts, the characters have identical widths. Vide ǃ vs ! right here; also compare the way the other clicks behave (ǂ, etc). - -sche (discuss) 04:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I've added two citations (Second Wave and Anthropology for Dummies) to ǃKung which call the symbol "an orthographic symbol denoting a "click" sound" and "the ǃ symbol […] a click sound". In contrast, I've added two citations to !Kung (making it an entry rather than a redirect) which call the symbol they use an exclamation point. I note that the works on Google Books which specify that they are using an exclamation point are mostly sociological works, whereas the works which write about click consonants and symbols are mostly linguistic works which often simultaneously mention ǁXegwi, ǂHoan, terms spelt with ʘ, etc (i.e. click characters which are unambiguously not other characters). - -sche (discuss) 18:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that we are not reaching any consensus (each side has its own opinions and facts supporting references), is a colour/color split between ǃKung/!Kung the way to proceed? Obviously, the fact that colour and color are even now not in sync indicates the downside to trying to satisfy each side by having two full pages. (Postscript: I have synced colour and color, which entailed large edits to both entries.) - -sche (discuss) 02:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't find anything relevant in Google Books or Groups. Equinox ◑ 15:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably means swing both ways. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
bat both ways would also be attestable. That's the version I've heard most often in the US. But, for other forms of the metaphor, there's also bat for the other side and bat for the other team, both attestable. DCDuring TALK 16:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 03:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-sense "Without equal, matchless." - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Tagged but never listed, with the comment "acronym of a phrase that failed RFV". - -sche (discuss) 03:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 08:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

RFV-sense "Automatic Number Identification". Tagged with the comment "acronym of a phrase that failed RFV" but never listed. - -sche (discuss) 03:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a basic telecom term (see w:Automatic number identification) that's not as widely used now that phone technology has progressed beyond hard-wired telephone numbers. When I had a job working with payphones a couple of decades ago, ANI was also used as a term for the numbers themselves, pronounced the same as "Annie". I'm surprised that such a well-known term could fail RFV. At any rate, there are plenty of hits on Google Books: [68] Chuck Entz (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussion is at Talk:Automatic Number Identification. There are plenty of Google Books hits for both uppercase "Automatic Number Identification" and lowercase "automatic number identification". If you think it's not SOP, please restore the entry: it seems it only failed RFV because no-one cared to check the definition or cite it. - -sche (discuss) 19:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Tagged but never listed. RFV-sense of the "unit of currency in the Czech Republic, anad ^[sic] formerly in Slovakia, equalling one-hundredth of a koruna." Tagged with the comment: "I've never seen this word used, can't find good sources online, and doubt that English would adopt such a strange plural form, especially when the Czech nominative plural is "haléře"; Wikipedia uses the term "haller", pl. "hallers", which seems like a better fit." To that, an IP added, below the translations table, "I recently did a crossword and the clue fore this word was hearty." - -sche (discuss) 03:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed for now. I could only find 2 BGC hits. - -sche (discuss) 08:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Esperanto RFV-sense "the Arabic language". Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 03:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I went through everything google books:arabo kaj came up with, for one cite. I wasn't expecting anything, but early on I found a hit, so I went through the rest. Hopefully someone else can go through Google Groups / Usenet. It is, however, non-standard.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Spanish RFV-senses: "popular", "fashionable", "sexually appealing". Tagged but not listed. Seems plausible. - -sche (discuss) 03:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV of the adjective POS. Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 03:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Spanish RFV-sense "to know perfectly, to master (a language)". Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 03:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-sense "(by extension) Something heavily guarded." Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 03:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-sense "Washington D.C." Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 03:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Also I'm dubious that the adjective exists in a comparative sense. "Most Beltway" doesn't sound like something anyone would say. Happerslaffer (talk)

As to comparative form: 2 from Google Books. DCDuring TALK 01:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV of the Italian section. Tagged in this edit but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 03:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Three citations added. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The citations look great.

Side note: someday, "(all senses)" should be expanded into separate sense lines for each sense: I doubt it really has all the same senses as the English word (e.g. the Canadian First Nations sense). - -sche (discuss) 08:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 17:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Two of the three citations given on the Citations page explicitly use the word as a Sloven* (Slovene, Slovenian, take your pick) word and so don't count; the third puts the term in italics strongly implying it's being used as a Sloven* word. Compare #mäkčeň. - -sche (discuss) 05:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The quotations currently provided in the entry do not satisfy WT:ATTEST, especially use in permanently recorded media and spanning at least a year. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell this is not an acronym, but the actual name of the company. As such, it needs to meet WT:COMPANY rules. -- Liliana • 09:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The Maori section was tagged with {{rfv}}, but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 10:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Tagged with the comment "Is this a typo for chwilio?", but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 10:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-sense "The collective noun for donkeys." Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 10:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

In the unlikely case that that's true, I'm nominating it for word of the day. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we do indeed have a word of the day,[69][70][71][72] shall I nominate it or will you?

The Google snippet link to one of those is a deadlink, but this is scraped for the results page

The economist - Volume 381, Issues 8498-8509 - Page 56

books.google.co.uk/books?id=XanqAAAAMAAJ

2006 - Snippet view - More editions

A pace of donkeys fans out in different directions. For centuries, the asses have served as Mardin's rubbish collectors, penetrating streets so narrow and steep that no car, let alone a dustcart, can squeeze through. Carrying loads of up to 70kg ...

Spinning Spark 15:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Nominated. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Cited in under five hours—nice work! - -sche (discuss) 18:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"Pace of asses" gets even better results. OED says it's obsolete, but it seems to still have a bit of usage. Ƿidsiþ 18:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I did try "pace of asses" but I only came up with mentions, dictionaries and the like. Spinning Spark 20:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-sense: "An inscription consisting of the letters of an alphabet, almost always listed in order." Tagged but not listed. (But now that it is listed, I think all the pre-July 2012 ones are listed.) - -sche (discuss) 10:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Compare #abecedarian. - -sche (discuss) 18:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Not an abbreviation for "socialized medicine" as I first thought, but "social media". Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 11:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-sense: "One who is no longer new to a game but still exhibits novice tendencies." Tagged but not listed. The whole entry is messy. (Now all the entries tagged before August are listed. That's one step closer to my goal of having only the past 2-3 months of requests still unclosed.) - -sche (discuss) 11:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I would revise the definition to an alternative form or synonym for nub/noob/newb. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The best definition I found on the Internet comes from this forum thread: Someone who plays badly and refuses to get better. If you're looking for citations for similar definitions, this book chapter by David Sirlin (tournament-level Street Fighter player) and this forum post discuss the concept in detail. -- 138.88.186.77 20:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

—Ruakh_TALK 14:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

SOP: edit +‎ -a-thon. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it's approximately a single word, so would be kept if verifiable. DAVilla 09:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

We don't really have a policy on whether hyphens split words. But I would say that if it were seen as a single set word, the hyphens would not be necessary. --Wiki Tiki 89 09:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You might have a point. The double hyphen framework is notorious for invention. It might have to be as common as gramophone before it ceases to be a compound. But even when they can be compressed, these intermediary vowels tend to survive with the two hyphens: ice-o-matic, rent-a-cop, truth-o-meter, smell-o-vision, smell-o-rama... I could even cite sing-a-long! DAVilla 03:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

-- Liliana • 15:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The only book hits I could find were a large number of Wikipedia-derived books which use it in the index. I'm guessing indices don't meet the CFI, but I'm only guessing at that. Spinning Spark 20:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, do any of these instances 'convey meaning'? I think that's the test. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

No more than any book index entry usually conveys meaning. Such Wikipedia-derived books have machine-generated indices which are pretty devoid of meaning (or usefulness) anyway - [73] is a typical example. Note that both "Wiktionary" and "Wikt" are used, presumably depending on how the original editor typed it in the interwiki link. Spinning Spark 07:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

They may possibly convey meaning, but they're not independent, being derived from Wikipedia. -- Liliana • 20:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 08:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Alt form of a deleted (RFV-failed) entry. I have no objection to speedy deletion of this. If kept, it needs to meet the relevant attestation requirements. - -sche (discuss) 19:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 08:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Adverb: "in a small fashion". The given example is "writ small", but this is surely an adjective use. Compare "painted red". Equinox ◑ 22:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Aim small, miss small. ? --WikiTiki89 (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Is "writ small" for write small perhaps? Expressions like think small (cf. think big (= think in a big way), live large (= live extravagantly or to the fullest extent), etc.) are clearly adverbial. Leasnam (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Nauruan section. Per Liliana's comment in the RFC discussion. (Liliana, if you wanted to RFV the Japanese section, too, say so.) - -sche (discuss) 22:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 18:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

"Year of the Linux Desktop". —Ruakh_TALK 14:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing but scannos on Google Books, and exactly 2 hits on Usenet that might qualify: [74]] and [75]. They seem to be reflective of limited use somewhere, but not enough in the right places for CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that ríomhshábháilteacht just failed RFV... - -sche (discuss) 01:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. I see a couple of Google books its, but it's not obvious that they support our current definition. - -sche (discuss) 18:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A space alien's greeting? Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 18:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess WT:FICTION applies, needs to be cited outside of Mork and Mindy. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Mzajac and Robin Lionheart have gathered citations. - -sche (discuss) 22:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Pass. DAVilla 08:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks a little early to me to pass this. At the very least, the definition should match the citations, which currently it does not. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning it. DAVilla 03:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Supposedly means "steroids", so called after the governor of California. Tagged by someone else but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 18:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

One book usage [76] The Steroid Deceit: A Body Worth Dying For? By Jeff Rutstein , Custom Fitness Publishing, LLC, Aug 31, 2005. AFAICT, the publisher is Rutstein himself - and I found no other usages. I suspect that therefore there might not be 3 independent usages. If 2 more are not found shortly, I would consider the verification - failed. Collect (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-sense "an insect". Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 18:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 16:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

RFV-sense of two senses, tagged this this edit but not listed. Both senses are probably attested, if archaic. - -sche (discuss) 19:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I've added two citations to the first RFVed sense, and one to the other. I suggest that they be combined. - -sche (discuss) 22:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

All three cites are mentions, not uses. The first one defines the term as meaning "anal sex", not "anus". None of them supports the "especially" part of the definition. —An gr 20:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Cited. Nine cites on the citations page, three of which (the ones that seemed least NSFW) I selected to replace the three mention cites in the main entry. Astral (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know if this place exists? I mean, outside the internet. German and English Wikipedia don't have this word in their texts. This Austrian index doesn't know it: http://www.orte-in-oesterreich.de/orte-suchen.html, nor do the two German telephone catalogs I searched (http://www.klicktel.de/telefonbuch and http://www.dastelefonbuch.de/). According to me, it is a nonsense entry, created by nonsense information in an old version of Woltz: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Woltz&oldid=1581479 (see "Name" section). --MaEr (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

And how can a place name be "rare".--Dmol (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I can find a placename Wotzdorf and the surnames Wolzdorf and Wolsdorff, but not this. —An gr 16:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I found it in one gazetteer:

1823, A geographical dictionary or universal gazetteer, ancient and modern, volume 2, edition 2, page 902:
Woltin, t. Pomerania; 12 SW. Stargard.

Woltzdorf, t. Austria; 2 NNW. Weikerstorf.

Wolvergehen, t. Neth., in South Brabant; 8 N. Brussels. Pop 1,304.

But Ritters Geographisch-statistisches Lexikon is what helped me crack the case: it has what looks like the same name, Woltzdorf, as an Austrian town: but it has the town sorted alphabetically between various Woi- and Woj- placenames, suggesting that what appears to be an l is in fact an i. It looks someone misread Woitzdorf, and the misreading subsequently proliferated into at least that one other gazetteer. - -sche (discuss) 16:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

About Woltzdorf in Austria... the frontiers of Austria have changed a bit since 1823. If this place still exists it might be in Czechia, Poland, Italy or Ucraina now, with a completely different name. If it is in modern Austria, its orthography might have changed.

And the original base information was: This name [Woltz, my insertion] is normally or oftenly found with an extra -en at the end or -dorff to make Woltzen, making it plural for young leaders, and -dorff making it mean young leader town. This name is one of the original names of the Germanic peoples. (see Woltz)

It's just complete nonsense.

--MaEr (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Per w:de:Woitzdorf, there were two places by that name, and they're both now in the Czech Republic. —An gr 17:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed: two Ortsteile (quarters) of their respective municipality. According to de:WP, one of the two quarters (quarter Vojtíškov) has 130 inhabitants; the second quarter (quarter Vojtovice in Vlčice u Javorníka municipality) isn't listed but its municipality has 425 inhabitants. Do we really need this entry? Insignificant place in Czechia, with a German name, mis-spelled title... --MaEr (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Woitzdorf, with the correct spelling, is a valid entry if attestable (which I presume it is). We have other small villages, like Hitlersee. -- Liliana • 19:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think we can close the case. I moved "young leader town" Woltzdorf to Woitzdorf (which accidentally exists). --MaEr (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Claims to be an alt spelling of kablooie. Equinox ◑ 19:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the hyphen. Without it, there are both Google Books and Google Groups/Usenet cites. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this term should be undeleted. It was deleted via RFV in 2007 as uncited. The term is attested; as evidence, I provide google books:primitivization, finding more than 4000 hits. Particular hits: [77], [78], [79]. A generic definition could be "Making or becoming primitive." OTOH, the term sounds non-English to me, regardless of the Google book finds. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Undelete. There are only 320 Google Books results, though (as you realize when you get to page 32 of the results). --Wiki Tiki 89 07:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I would think a speedy undelete is justified. The deletion rationale (Handful of citations suggest this may be limited to psychiatry?) seems invalid, at least by current standards. Spinning Spark 08:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Citations:primitivization is still red. Make it blue first. -- Liliana • 08:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Gotta go buy some paint. BRB. --Wiki Tiki 89 08:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it's blue now. --Wiki Tiki 89 08:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There. Have fun with the entry. -- Liliana • 09:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I ask undeletion. Appears attested; have a look at google books:"preorgastic". --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure it ever failed, it was nominated at RFV, but then moved to preorgasmic which is clearly a separate word. There's nothing to undelete; the only edit is the one that redirects to preorgasmic. So this needs to be created, not restored. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: Not subject to any copyright or patent restrictions. Isn't this just an attributive form of the noun? ---> Tooironic (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Even when it's used predicatively? —CodeCa t 23:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if the definition for the noun actually made sense: "The feature of intellectual property being not protected under patent or copyright". Just try to substitute that into the phrase "in the public domain" and use it in a sentence! Chuck Entz (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This needs citations which demonstrate that it is English, singular (as is currently claimed), and not a typo. - -sche (discuss) 07:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds pretty likely, but I don't know it for a fact. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I cited the verb, but I couldn't find a single hit for the noun. Watch out for scannos of "prefixt". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a very plausible entry (what else would this device be called?), but the only durable citation I can find is one in rec.toys.action-figures.marketplace. - -sche (discuss) 08:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I would have hyphenated it as bang-flag gun. But if I were ever to call it something myself, I would call it gun that shoots a flag that says "BANG!". --Wiki Tiki 89 08:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently bang flag gun or "bang" flag gun is also what several novelty manufacturers' packaging calls them.[80][81][82] ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Except that two of those put "bang" in quotations marks. --Wiki Tiki 89 15:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "(Australian slang) The buttocks, the anus." Was removed without comment by an anonymous editor, who presumably didn't believe that this sense exists. —Ruakh_TALK 18:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Cited. Astral (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-passed; thanks! - -sche (discuss) 15:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

[edit] na'via lingvo

I consider the odds of this meeting WT:FICTION to be rather low. See also #Na'vi, above. - -sche (discuss) 00:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so pessimistic. Some Esperantists like to contrast Esperanto linguistically with other planlingvoj like Elvish, Klingon, Na'vi, or Dothraki quite separate from their fictional universes. I've added some Web cites, though print cites may be difficult. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

As you note, those are web citations, and thus not durable (at least not unless the WebCite vote passes). The first citation of na'via (from 2010) also specifies that it is the language of the film Avatar, which IMO means it doesn't meet WT:FICTION standards; the citation of na'via lingvo also references the film (and is apparently a translation of something by the person who created the language for the film, and thus of questionable independence in that regard, as well). - -sche (discuss) 01:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "the lack of intestinal bacteria caused by strong antibiotics (or a genetic defect)". Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 00:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-senses:

2. A pole with lights, similar to a traffic signal, used for signalling the start of an automobile race.

3. The collection of valves sometimes found at the top of a working oil well.

They were added back in 2003 in this diff. After they are verified, I think they need some sort of context tag. --Wiki Tiki 89 08:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

MWOnline, for one, has the oil-well sense. See this glossary (available through OneLook) for the auto racing sense. Technical terms that have been added here are not commonly hard to cite. DCDuring TALK 12:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

See [83] for the racing sense, this is easily citable. Why don't you search yourself before listing here? Spinning Spark 15:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The well one is also easy to find, and w:christmas tree (oil well) also exists. glossary link you can buy one on Alibaba or check this brochure HowStuffWorks also talks about it it's even available from Merriam-Webster -- 70.24.250.110 09:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

--Wiki Tiki 89 12:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Used in manuscripts, especially ones written by lawyers or clerks 19th century and earlier. DCDuring TALK 17:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

How do we know then that it's a contraction and not just an abbreviation? --Wiki Tiki 89 18:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

--Wiki Tiki 89 12:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Easily citable [84]. Probably the others also. Spinning Spark 15:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Um...clearly widespread use? Did you even try a basic Google search? Ƿidsiþ 15:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
If it's so easy then do it so I can close this case. --Wiki Tiki 89 15:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
You are making unnecessary work for people by listing words that are immediately found in quantity with a gbooks search. I think you will find that Ƿidsiþ was quoting the CFI, that is, the word does not need citations for verification. You could add citations yourself if you are so concerned that it does not have any. Spinning Spark 16:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Widespread use in 19th cenutry and older poetry. DCDuring TALK 16:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
So can I mark them as archaic then? --Wiki Tiki 89 16:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure. Poetic contractions are from the time when poets adhered strictly to meter. Other contractions are from reported speech or from trying to save 'ink' or 'keystrokes', really time, IMO. DCDuring TALK 17:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I would say {{archaic|or|poetic}} or something rather than just {{archaic}}. - -sche (discuss) 18:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
What about {{archaic|poetic}}? or do you really want that "or"? --Wiki Tiki 89 18:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd prefer "or", because I expect the forms are still used by some poets and songwriters. I've found a modern citation of where'er; I'm trying to find one of whate'er. - -sche (discuss) 22:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

(I also wonder about "influenze".) Ƿidsiþ 20:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The only English uses among Google Books' hits are two uses of it in italics as a singular(!) and one usage of it in italics as a plural. I've added the plural citation to Citations:paparazze. Doremítzwr had already placed one citation there, with an edit summary rightly noting that it's nigh-impossible to tell whether the citations are simply misspelling paparazzi, or intentionally using paparazze as the plural of paparazza to specify "female photographers". The only uses on Usenet are likewise split between singular and plural, and one clearly uses the plural to refer to a group of male paparazzi. I would banish it to the citations namespace.

I share your doubt of influenze. I found one citation of it as a plural, from the 1840s. I wonder if it is too rare to merit mention in the headword line—compare nexus. Citations will tell. google books:"the influenze" shows that influenze is more common as a misspelling or alternative spelling of the singular than as a plural, though "the influenze" is still dramatically less common than "the influenza" (154 BGC hits vs upwards of 10 000—supposedly 568 000). - -sche (discuss) 01:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 22:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

[edit] influenze

Æ&Œ (talk • contribs) has posted several citations to the citations page, but in my opinion it's easier to read them as using an {{alternative spelling of|influenza}} than a {{plural of|influenza}}. The first speaks of "a severe epidemic of influenze", and while one could speak of an epidemic of a plural noun ("epidemic of bears"), it seems more usual to speak of an epidemic of a singular and/or non-count noun ("epidemic of the plague", "of the flu", "of flu", "of drug-resistent staph", "of HIV", "of blindness", "of racism"). "[A]n attack of influenze" in the second citation seems even more likely to be singular, and I would also read the third citation's "combined mortality from influenze and pneumonia" as "from flu and pneumonia" rather than "from (flus / kinds of flu) and pneumonia". The 1920 citation also uses "influenza"; it's debatable whether that suggests "influenza" is a misspelling, or a plural. If "influenza" is a plural, it should be possible to find more citations like the one I posted in the entry, where "various influenze" has to be read as "various flus" because "various flu" doesn't make grammatical sense. - -sche (discuss) 18:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing on Google books, neither for this spelling, nor "oenamnesia", nor "enamnesia". - -sche (discuss) 20:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

'cenamnesia' does not turn up results either. He must have found this term in an Oxford Dictionary, I suppose. --Æ&Œ (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed, sadly. It would have been a nice WOTD. - -sche (discuss) 19:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

RFV-sense of the noun "homeland" and the adjective "noble". Those were meanings of this term's Germanic forebear, but are they meanings of the English term? In the process of trying to cite this, I discovered that the word also refers to a kind of tree. - -sche (discuss) 21:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ethel is listed as both in NED "ancestral land or estate; patrimony; native land", and as an alterantive form of athel (cf. ethelborn).

- 1882, William Babcock Weeden, The social law of labor:
  The land held in full ownership might be either an ' ethel,' an inherited or otherwise acquired portion of original allotment, or an estate created by legal process out of the'public land.
- 2010, Liliana Sikorska, Thise Stories Beren Witnesse:
  Heaven is the 'ethel', the homeland.

The second is more likely a mention (explaining a ME passage). I would class the word as (historical) in Modern English. Leasnam (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I can find 1 b.g.c hit for "hemorrheic", 2 for "haemorrhoeic", and none for this, although it already has one citation. There are also a handful for "hemorrhoic", but upon inspection, they are all scannos of "hemorrhoid" or "hemorrhoids". Is any spelling of this term attest? "Hemorrhoidal" is the usual adjective for hemorrhoid-related things. - -sche (discuss) 00:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete. --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I found two hits using "haemorrhoeic", one of which is the one that the contributor added. I think that the contributor must have spent vast amounts of time just doing Google searches of older works for words containing Greek-derived morphemes that offered digraph potential. And he seems to have been perfectly willing to insert something knowing that there were not three cites available. This is why it is very hard to truly believe AGF, whatever public pose one may (and should) maintain. DCDuring TALK 01:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel that way about me. I shall freely confess that I didn't always search thoroughly for extra citations for some of 'my' entries, but I take responsibility for any time or space that I wasted with my vain labours and I support the deletion of any rubbish that I include. Does that raise your opinion of me? Probably not, but I am sure that you wouldn't doubt that my trust could be regained, and I personally like to think that I have improved as an editor. However, you can always block me if you would like, as it would be best if I weren't a burden on the project. --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think it was you. I was sure it was the other guy. We will challenge any entries that seem bad as we find then. If there are any of yours that are both bad and convenient for you to find, feel free to then it. I've made mistakes on templates that screwed up multiple entries - I had to clean them up and fast. This is different. It's mostly just a bit of a waste of time. We could use all the help we can get on all sorts of other things so I get upset about such waste. Just find some good work to do and do it well. DCDuring TALK 03:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This was part of a series of half-finished and sometimes accurate idioms from a while ago. I can find many examples of this but I can't find any sources that define it. At any rate I'm confident about the reading, but I don't know the meaning or what the full idiom is. This appears to be part of a longer idiom, or it may just be part of a famous quotation. It's rare at best. --Haplology (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I have corrected the definition. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I found one citation of oesophagospasmus, and a lot of citations of Oesophagospasmus (an obsolete spelling of the German word Ösophagospasmus), and I've created esophagospasm, but no spelling ending in -us seems to meet CFI as an English word. - -sche (discuss) 03:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete; 'cesophagospasmus' doesn't turn up much. --Æ&Œ (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It also doesn't have the letter 'c' in it. --Wiki Tiki 89 10:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I know, but Google's book scanners were developed by enslaved, stolen Ukrainian orphans, so the scanners 'think' that œ = ce. You can do a search for 'cesophagus,' for example, and tell me how many results are not actually for 'œsophagus.' I learnt this when I noticed that other instances of these words were not highlighted in the same pages, so I had browsed through the poorly transcribed text versions to inspect the problem. --Æ&Œ (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Prospects may be bleak, but not so unfathomable as to deprive the entry of a month. DAVilla 11:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

French. Author speedied it claiming a lack of cites, but I brought it here instead of deleting in case he's wrong.—msh210℠ (talk) 06:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Cited, I think. - -sche (discuss) 07:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, follows the spelling rules of the age trying to 're-etymologize' words to look like their Latin etyma, no reason to think it's not legit IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Passed. - -sche (discuss) 03:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The definition says it's a feathering strip (as used in roofing). A quick look didn't turn up any cites. There does seem to some usage in the sense of horsefeathers aka "nonsense" used in grammatical contexts where plural isn't marked, such as modifying a noun. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Blogger Stephen Dodson (better known as Language Hat) posted about this word yesterday; see http://www.languagehat.com/archives/004794.php. —Ruakh_TALK 14:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't find it in the singular, though it must be used on the job by workmen. This search found a few hits, mostly use with explanation immediately following. DCDuring TALK 15:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This and same author's media bridge seem to have been used by only one author, possibly in a patent filing. Equinox ◑ 15:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If attestable, move to RFD. Ƿidsiþ 15:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Sum of parts, surely. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Per Widsith, if cited move to RFD anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

These are not sum of parts at all. They are, taken together, a unique identifying term which has been coined in a growing body of work by the MIT Tangible Media Lab (www.tangible.media.mit.edu/) giving rise to a collection of new technology such as that found in the following US Patents: 8,230,337 (Associating objects with corresponding behaviors); 8,194,986 (Methods and systems for content processing); 8,180,844 (System for linking from objects to remote resources) 8,108,484 (Fingerprints and machine-readable codes combined with user characteristics to obtain content or information); 8,051,169 (Methods and systems useful in linking from objects to remote resources); 8,023,691 (Methods involving maps, imagery, video and steganography); 7,991,157 (Methods and systems responsive to features sensed from imagery or other data); 7,760,905 (Wireless mobile phone with content processing); 7,257,583 (System and method for updating an on-device application catalog in a mobile device receiving a push message from a catalog server indicating availability of an application for download; 7,065,559 (Media bridge method and apparatus)]

The complete phrase tangible media object is term of art employed by technology research groups such as the MIT Tangible Media Lab (www.tangible.media.mit.edu/) and in such patented processes as Media Bridge and Apparatus (US 7,065,559 (http://www.google.com/patents/US7065559)).—This unsigned comment was added by Vanguard33 (talk • contribs).

First, each of the two definitions needs three independent citations in durably archived media (likely to survive, not subject to deletion or editing). The citations may help establish the definition as one that it is not SoP. I don't think that a family of patent applications counts as more than one independent citation. DCDuring TALK 01:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

In response, see http://tangible.media.mit.edu/, discussing Professor Ishii's discoveries and findings in the new world of giving physical form to digital information and vice versa; ergo the birth of the now ubiquitous complete phrase, "tangible media object."

((see also, discussion of radical tangible atoms) http://tangible.media.mit.edu/vision/)). There is no family of patents set forth above. Each patent represents a complete and separate technology (non obvious and unrelated innovation), yet each contains the touchstone term, championed by Professor Ishii's MIT Tangible Media Group, now known as the "tangible media object". Many citations exist within the patents cited and the MIT Tangible Media Group links cited which support a non SoP stand-alone definition of the new tech term, "tangible media object." See also, http://www.neverdesign.net/oldsite/old/images/kamelion/kamelion.pdf (tangible media objects in music); http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/r.harper/papers/videoworkchi.pdf (Microsoft scholarly "white paper" on videoworks as tangible media objects); http://pdf.courses.qut.edu.au/coursepdf/qut_IX69_24338_dom_cms.pdf (Queensland University of Technology course description KIB 314 in Tangible Media including coursework on "tangible media objects" within technology).

Vanguard33, you're missing the point, though I imagine you're doing so deliberately to promote your own interests, so no amount of us explaining will help. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I may be wasting my breath, but I have looked at a few of your sources and can give you an idea of where you are going wrong here. It is useless to present us with documents from the web unless they can be shown to be durably archived somewhere (that is, other than on a server). They will not count towards verification. Even so, looking at a few [85][86][87], they do not contain the phrase "tangible media object". We need that exact phrase for their to be an entry. Likewise, patent 8 230 337 has only "tangible computer-readable medium". 8 194 986 does not contain "tangible". 8 180 844 has only "tangible object". 8 104 484 does not contain the word "tangible" and in any case is not independent of 8 230 337 (same principle authors Rhoads and Rodriguez)—and so on and so on. Exactly the same terminology is not important for an encyclopedia article, but we are writing a dictionary here. Spinning Spark 10:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Mglovesfun: While appreciated, your insinuative comment is off the mark. Member of a technology association with no agenda other than a student and follower of all things tech and digital. Spinnerspark: Thank you for reviewing some of the cited patents. You missed a few including 7,065,559 which makes direct reference with examples to a "tangible media object" as well as the published sources on the MIT Media Object Lab site, Professor Ishii's own white papers (also published on that cite link provided) and the academic white papers and course curricula from Queensland University of Technology including published definitions for "tangible media object." This is not an encyclopedic discourse, rather a new term given rise in each of these published sources and now popularized in a particular technology corridor (e.g., MIT Media Object Lab). With all due respect, there is no agenda here other than to record use of a new and important technical term. —This unsigned comment was added by Vanguard33 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 25 October 2012.

There are no acceptable cites in the entry so it will be deleted. Personally, I am not willing to spend any more time reviewing more of your sources even if you had been thoughtful enough to provide clickable links or the text of the cites. Spinning Spark 13:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what sum of parts (SOP) is referring to here. It doesn't have to mean that these are all just independent words, but that at least one of the words isn't part of the idiom. There should really be an an entry for tangible media, not this entry. This entry just refers to an object used in tangible media. We don't need entries for things like "tangible media system", "tangible media interface", "tangible media interactivity", etc., and we don't need this- because they all should be covered by tangible media plus the entries for the other parts. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I have added the only two valid citations I could find at Books, Scholar, News, Groups, and Patent. We need another one. Any ideas? DCDuring TALK 14:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggest the following: S. Jang, C. Shin, Y. Oh, W. Woo, GIST U-VR-Lab, S. Korea, Introduction of 'ubiHome' Testbed, (p.3) @ http://icserv.gist.ac.kr/mis/publications/data/2005/P3_04(seiie%20jang).pdf ("TMCS is a tangible user interface providing intuitive ways to access and control digital media contents with identity (What) of object such as CD, picture and movie title. See items A, implimented TMCS and B, 'Tangible Media Object' and controller.")
Could I find a copy in print in a library in the US or the UK. DCDuring TALK 19:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I tried to find the proceedings of the conference on WorldCat which has many major libraries, especially university libraries: No joy. DCDuring TALK 19:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

And baw caw. Chicken sounds. Equinox ◑ 22:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Cited bakaw. Could not cite baw caw. Astral (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I have also seen this sound represented as bagawk and bagurk; no idea if those variants are attested. - -sche (discuss) 06:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Btw, we're missing [[bawk]], which Astral's citations also attest. - -sche (discuss) 06:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

bakaw: RFV-passed.

baw caw: RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 19:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

"(computing, proscribed) JavaScript". Not just an occasional mistake by newbies? Cites please. Equinox ◑ 00:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I've met so many people who thought they were the same thing, it's not even funny. So if it is occasional, it certainly happens in plenty of occasions! —CodeCa t 23:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to 'cite' this exactly, but this is clearly a case of someone calling JavaScript Java: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!search/java$20alert/comp.lang.javascript/gty7RHUi86o/bpsfTy4YiNQJ Note that it is actually posted in comp.lang.javascript, so whoever posted it was likely aware of the proper name. —CodeCa t 23:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is number two: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!search/java$20alert/comp.infosystems.www.browsers.ms-windows/QsUSJr9p4rQ/PbO8CMV8q-IJ —CodeCa t 23:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

But if I find 3 cites of somebody erroneously calling a dog a cat, is that a new dictionary sense? I think not. See User:Dick Laurent/your shipment of win is in, sir. Equinox ◑ 23:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Why not? The word nice originally meant something else. If we had been there to document that change, you could have similarly argued that it isn't a new dictionary sense, despite usage examples to demonstrate the contrary. Wiktionary is neutral so it cannot judge what is correct and what is erroneous; see WT:WWIN. Of course we can document that the consensus among today's English speakers is that it is not correct (so we label it "proscribed") but to delete citable uses entirely would go against Wiktionary's principles. (So yes, if we can find 3 cites of someone using cat to mean what is commonly known as a dog, then I see no reason why that shouldn't be added.) —CodeCa t 23:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is number 3: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!search/java$20popup/macromedia.coldfusion.cfml_general_discussion/43uMMm6WO3I/hvVz3n-fFWoJ . Note that in this last case, the user uses the two terms interchangeably; Java in the message subject but Java Script in the text itself. —CodeCa t 23:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Even if we deem a sense-line at [[Java]] to be the appropriate way to note confusion between Java and JavaScript, it might be more descriptivist to define that sense as something like "(computing, proscribed) Java, JavaScript, wev, I don't know the difference, who cares" (suitably reworded) rather than as simply "(computing, proscribed) JavaScript". (Granted, we frequently — or usually — separate senses on the basis of grammatical or semantic differences that lexicographers perceive, without regard for whether speakers perceive them; but in a case like this, where the entire existence of the sense is due to speakers' lack of perception of a distinction, I think it might be better to respect that and leave it be.) —Ruakh_TALK 03:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Ideally, this should be a usage note explaining that the two are often confused. It doesn't look to me like anything of lexical significance, just the misapplication of existing senses. I think this is a lot like typos and mispronunciations ( when I was a kid, I thought infrared rhymed with prepared). Chuck Entz (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"Microsoft Moment". What is one? Has anyone used this? Most Microsoft stuff in Wikt seems to be PoV-pushery. Equinox ◑ 00:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

(Old Portuguese section)

I've only seen this form (with the acute accent, instead of coraçon) in normalised transcriptions. However, I'm not familiar with every Old Portuguese text, and different manuscripts used different rules for acute accent usage, so it is possible this form exists.

I propose that we ban forms with acute accent added by normalisation, just like we don't have entries for Latin and Old English with macrons and breves. This won't affect terms with acute accents in the original manuscript. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 03:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I hate normalized transcriptions. And I would agree that we ban forms like that. --Wiki Tiki 89 09:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

What about Old Norse, Old English and other old Germanic languages, where it is standard practice to normalise? —CodeCa t 14:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know much about Old Norse manuscripts but as for Old English, our pagetitles only use characters that would have been used back then with the only discrepancy being thorn vs. eth, where either one could have been used and we chose thorn as the standard regardless of context. As far as I know, Old Portuguese used "o" and "ó" interchangeably and not for any particular stress pattern or pronunciation and so we should either "o" or "ó" for all O's regardless of context, obviously it would be very stupid to use "ó" for every O. --Wiki Tiki 89 14:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the practice among other dictionaries of Old Portuguese? —CodeCa t 15:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, note I don't think it should be omitted completely, but only in the pagetitle, just like Latin and Old English macrons. --Wiki Tiki 89 16:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "A title of respect used in the modern pagan faith of Heathenry." Presumably a non-gloss definition which should use {{n-g}}. I'm not sure how one would look for citations; the only modern citation I can find of "my atheling" seems to be a reference to a prince and thus a use of the previous definition:

2007, Cynthia Breeding, My Noble Knight, page 193:
"Can I count on you to be vigilant and not let me down?" "Yes, my atheling," he answered with a slight tremor in his voice.

This is part of a batch of seemingly unnecessary but worded-so-as-to-seem-not-redundant senses I am cleaning up; I have no objection to deleting it more speedily that usual. - -sche (discuss) 05:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

A search for "paganism"+"atheling" finds nothing relevant, either on Google Books or (more surprisingly) Google Groups. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with this entry? Does anybody believe that I made this up? --Æ&Œ (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are you creating entries with RFV tags in them? There are more productive uses of our time, and more friendly ways to ask for help.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Because I do not always hold a good sense of judgement, and it would be considerably more desirable to have entries peer reviewed. --Æ&Œ (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of the Google books entries seem to also contain other incorrectly welded words. --Wiki Tiki 89 07:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Then would you mind properly citing the word beforehand? Because that's really what RFV is for, finding 3 cites for a definition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

All right, fine, sheesh. I do not feel comfortable copying from modern books due to a lack of that experience, so I used Google Groups instead. Unfortunately, I do not know how to find the authors' e‐mail addresses any more (another step forward in Google's quest to cleanse the Earth of all things useful), so I left them blank. If you don't like that, bite me.
Citations:Frenchperson --Æ&Œ (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-senses:

4. A pothole

5. A group of airborne hawks riding a thermal.

After verification, they also need context tags. --Wiki Tiki 89 08:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

We already have the geological term meaning kettle hole. I'd be surprised if there was a separate meaning of pothole but perhaps an expert can clarify. Dbfirs 19:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

... (later)... I've combined the two geological senses (the OED has both), and I've provided cites for the ornithological sense (lots more are available). Please put the rfv back if you still have doubts. Dbfirs 19:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm satisfied, thanks! --Wiki Tiki 89 08:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense

I am working with Taber's Medical Dictionary and it does not mention the hereditary disorder at all. Can someone work their magic? I notice that abiosis also has a similar definition and an rfv as well. Speednat (talk) 06:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Luciferwildcat entries

[edit] dickwod

The unreliable Luciferwildcat added this as an alt spelling of dickwad. I think it only appears CFI-attestably in the one cited book, so have changed it to "misspelling of". Still needs 3 cites. Equinox ◑ 20:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Added 5 more cites, from Usenet. Not entirely sure this one is inclusion-worthy, though. Astral (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

[edit] rearseat

[edit] rearseats

The citations which had been in the entry (for the singular) were either fake (Lucifer transcribed them incorrectly), or were typos in the book, as the books also used the spelling "rear seat". The plural seems to be attested only as a scanno. - -sche (discuss) 20:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Eight cites added here. Independently attesting the plural form strikes me as unnecessary. It's rear + seat. Standard -s suffix should logically apply, as it does to seat. Astral (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It is curious that 7 of the 8 cites have it used attributively. An absence of plural, plus a lack of much singular use might make this better presented as an adjective, as odd as that may be. DCDuring TALK 03:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

@Astral:It is necessary to attest the plural because there is reason to believe it does not exist and that [[rearseat]] (unlike [[seat]]) is uncountable. Of the first ten hits on Google Books, Google's snippets imply that all are scannos (they also run together "crutchesresting", "Thecarisnot afull fourseaterbut", "systemandsplit", "frontof thevan"), and upon individual inspection of the books, neither "rearseats" nor "rear seats" appears in any of them, AFAICT. - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

@DCDuring: my thoughts exactly. Or if it is a noun, it must be an alternative form of [[rear seat]], not a lemma. - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand needing to attest the plural form to establish it's a noun, rather than an adjective (this possibility hadn't occurred to me until DCDuring brought it up). However, if the singular form of the noun has already been attested (with 1971, 1994, and 2010 now added to the citations page, it is), I don't see a need to independently attest the plural form, unless the word has more than one potential plural form. For example, with the word supercow, the plural form could conceivably be either supercows or supercattle, so independent attestation of both potential plural forms would help resolve which is actually used.

Will root around on Usenet for plural cites. Astral (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Plural form cites here. Astral (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

[edit] ankh

RFV-sense "a protection". - -sche (discuss) 17:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Methinks "protection", in this case, is just another way of saying amulet. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 19:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

[edit] apothecary

RFV-sense "(Wicca) Supplies for spells, especially herbal ones or spells". The hits I see all seem to use the other senses. - -sche (discuss) 17:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

[edit] derritos

This is the plural of a Spanish noun which I think may be uncountable. Of the four Google Books hits for the collocation "los derritos", only one isn't a scanno:

Homúnculus: el revisto poética^[^sic], issue 1, page 88
corear torno antes derrite los derritos

The only hit for "y derritos" is also a scanno. - -sche (discuss) 18:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

[edit] threefold

RFV-sense: "(Wicca) relating to the threefold law". I'm not sure how this can be attested separate from the usual sense. - -sche (discuss) 22:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 19:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Not attestable. --Æ&Œ (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: A sex toy comparable to a very narrow dildo inserted into a penis through the urethra

By Luciferwildcat. I was inclined to just remove the sense together with its translation table. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

What is questioned here exactly? Is that the existence of such sexual toys? Urethral sounds do exist as BDSM toys, see w:Urethral sounding (and ext. links). Or do you suggest this sense should be merged with sense #1? That wouldn't sound unreasonable to me, since originally the toy was identical to the medical instrument, except it was used in a sexual context. But, thanks to the creativity of designers, today's toys don't seem to have much in common with the medical ones. — Xavier, 13:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I am asking for citations of use of the word "sound" to mean what the definition above says it means, such ones that meet WT:ATTEST. You seems to suggest the defition is related to the one above: "A probe (e.g. a surgeon's tool)". Unfortunately, the definition above is subprime; it should read "A probe: any of various medical instruments used to explore wounds, organs etc." or the like, to be perfectly clear which sense of "probe" is being picked by the definition. If this definition is accepted and you can cite "sound" as referring to sex toys that are not medical instruments, then you will have attested the sex toy as a distinct sense, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The Spanish Wikipedia disagrees with our entry — es.wiki claims that this term means "casting" (a certain manufacturing process), while our entry claims it means "smelter, smelting furnace" — but more to the point, the term doesn't seem to be in actual use, in either sense! —Ruakh_TALK 16:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense The definition of abloom means blooming, but I am not sure if all of the senses for blooming transfer right over and would like to know.

The sense in question is Thriving in health, beauty, and vigor; exhibiting youth-like beauty. Let me know how you found this out if you do, as I need to get better at RFV searches. Speednat (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense I did a quick search on google books and found only the first sense, and none for a person exhibiting ablepharia. Speednat (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

When a main character is described as a hero without being heroic, or a protagonist without promoting anything, that's sarcasm without the moisture isn't it? RTG (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

So, which senses are you disputing? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The most common use of "protagonist" in my experience is the "main character" meaning, not the "promoter" one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

@RTG, sorry to be a bit of an arse, but this is a massive page, so any off-topic material, I'm very keen to remove it. Nothing personal. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The ones where it implies, the words hero or protagonist define a main character, specifically without any other prerequisite quality than being characterised at all. I suggest such sense is contextual, expectant of a situation rather than descriptive of a subject and therefore requisite of explanation as such, in definition as such. Can you verify that a main character is always a hero simply by being main, as opposed to being merely described as one, in the implication that fiction best provides a hero for a main characters adventures? It's a bit tongue twistery to explain but it's not very complicated or long. If a fictional work about Satan sacrificing babies describes him as the hero of the story without any heroic aspect to his adventure, are we left requiring context for defintion? I say, yes of course. RTG (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not insisting you do anything Mglovesfun, but the senses are unverified and that is interesting as the context is totally overlooked which makes them kind of undefining too. RTG (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you tag the disputed sense with {{rfv-sense}}, then we can all know what they are, instead of just you? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Done and I would suggest scrolling up a little to the RFV for James Bond as that is pretty much something like this, more of an ironic use. Please verify that these senses are not ironic. RTG (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Though the use is so common I would suggest describing as ironic rather than deleting? RTG (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

This looks more like a topic for WT:TR than for rfv. Here you're asking people to look for examples of usage to verify that the term (or at least a particular sense of it) is in use- mostly to determine whether it meets WT:CFI. If the term or sense fails verification, it gets deleted. The Tea Room is for more general discussions about a term. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I find it weird that when searching here, Google Books comes up with hits for "hero" when searching for "protagonist". Searching for google books:protagonist of Paradise Lost finds that Kaplan's guides say "Satan is the protagonist in Paradise Lost. Although there may be evil elements in the other works, Satan himself does not actually appear." and "protagonist: This is the main character of the story." google books:"evil protagonists" finds "Wood's strong evil protagonists are punished, of course - but only after the readers have been afforded a chance to identify briefly with female force and power." and "Amusing vampire flick featuring real-life twins Madeleine and Mary Collinson as the good and evil protagonists." Hero is more complicated, but I don't see any question about protagonist.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Satan could be described as a major protagonist without any loss of the meaning of the word because of course the stereotypical Satan promotes something, but when I change that search to "hero of paradise lost" in brackets, the first hit I get says, "Satan is wrongly called the hero of Paradise Lost. He is really the villain-hero or the counter-hero..." and so on which I think makes the exact point I was trying to make. RTG (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Also I've tagged the 'champion' sense, which is tagged with rfc, but I'm now changing to RFV since nobody has been able to clear it up. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

RTG, above you seem to want to withdraw your nomination, do you still want to? You seem to think that this exists, so, rfv is the wrong place. I'm pretty sure you've just got this totally wrong. I was hoping you'd realize that for yourself and it would save me saying it. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The above quote is from a book called The Tragic Hero Through the Ages by Karuna Shankur Mishra. Is that a good attestation? RTG (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

When a word is "wrongly used", it is still used. We are not a proscriptive dictionary. --Wiki Tiki 89 18:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then what about the sense evil hero. It's definitely attestable. Should it be put in as a mere attestion without definition? Should it be implied that, because it can be found to be used, it has become the truth? Do you imply that hero is attestably used in the phrase evil hero, or do you imply that hero means a person of evil, as attested by use of the phrase evil hero? RTG (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

@RTG, what's it to you? You're convinced the sense is valid anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It just lacked that aspect of definition and I couldn't see a simple edit from me to suffice so I tried it on the experts. Nothing strange. I'm just dragging it in off the porch for you to see I guess. The point is now made in the attestations I guess? I think it works best when it's all covered, and I get what it says on the tin, a very good dictionary at the expense of selfless dedication such as your own. Ask me to do something if you like. RTG (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "Describing a method of murder" (sic). Just looks like the noun used attributively. Maybe it should be speedily deleted, not as if the definition adds anything useful to the entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't see any sense in saying, the most necklacest murder, if that helps. RTG (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Real - as an adjective "necklace execution" appears to be fairly common as a term as is "necklace murder". Many cites around, including in newspapers etc. Collect (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No, that's just an attributive use of the noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep. The example I usually give is "tractor parts": tractor is not an adjective. Equinox ◑ 11:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The one I got taught is "house keys". You can't say my keys are houser than yours, even though house has only one syllable. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This supposedly means "case law". Is this correct? In Wikipedia νομολογία means "precedent". Common law is Αγγλοσαξωνικό δίκαιο ("Anglo-Saxon law"). --Hekaheka (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Three durably archived uses, please. —An gr 21:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy keep because it's to do with cats. No seriously, I'm aware of the term but I think it's only used in cat memes and has no real 'meaning'. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Here you go:

  5. Caturday,. yu. no. werk. If yu think faek Ceiling Cat iz Ceiling Cat,I maek. Teh Ten Big Roolz

In 2005, users on /b/ had started encouraging each other to put funny captions under cute cat photos on Saturdays (or what became known as Caturday).

The Boy Kings: A Journey into the Heart of the Social Network, Katherine Losse, (c) 2012 Page 148: When he and his wife began to have children, they nicknamed them after Internet memes like the lolcat holiday, Caturday. Jeremy Jigglypuff Jones (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Your first citation is hardly English! Equinox ◑ 12:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Cited. Astral (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

delete as encylopedic. Siuenti (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep, cited.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't RFD, and the entry isn't encyclopedic. —An gr 22:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks cited to me. I'm not crazy about it, we probably need to be a bit clearer on the meaning, but I suppose everything else is ok. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a real term, and it is cited. What's the matter? It honestly isn't any worse than ObamaCare. -- Liliana • 15:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This kind of thing (something made up for a website) should have an equivalent of WT:BRAND or WT:FICTION Siuenti (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

But people "celebrate" Caturday on sites other than 4chan now. Jeremy Jigglypuff Jones (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That would give it a better chance of passing WT:BRAND. Siuenti (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it automatically pass WT:BRAND under any circumstances, since it's not a brand? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Correct, non-brand terms like this don't have to show they have "entered the lexicon". There just isn't any good reason why not, IMO. Siuenti (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That's what three cites is for, to show they have entered the lexicon.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Our first sense, which I find in other dictionaries too, is "a girl or woman with brown or black hair." The second, challenged sense is: "A white brunette with dark eyes and a relatively dark or olive complexion." Equinox ◑ 12:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, no, I can see what they're getting at. It's a bit pointless to refer to black or Asian women being brunettes as they all have brown hair (naturally I mean) so the distinction is more meaningful when talking about white women. But of course brunettes don't necessarily have brown eyes. Most commonly, sure, but it's not a factual thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should remove this sense and add a usage note about how the term is not generally used for dark-skinned people. Equinox ◑ 17:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't people of African, South/Southeast/East Asian, and Native American ancestry generally have black hair, not brown hair? Is brunette used of black-haired women as well as brown-haired women? —An gr 18:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. My wife is Chinese, and her hair is naturally dark brown, not black. It's not terribly common, but it's not terribly rare either. On the other hand, I agree that this dichotomy of usage can be addressed through a usage note. bd2412 T 21:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll vote for usage notes too then. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature." Was tagged with {{fact}}, I thought it would be better to list it here. I feel like it's attempting to be genuine, but the way it's worded I don't think I understand it. A dam counteracts the work of nature by stopping water flowing, and it's clearly a human effort, is a dam therefore art? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like tosh to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Reasonable in the sense of anything produced by skill - especially considering the general use of "term of art" in engineering etc. And yes - the Hoover Dam is a "work of art" in that sense. [88] "It also is a work of art" Collect (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The first definition of art is in the aesthetic and the second is in the practice of skill. Any relation to nature after that is consequential or situational. If that is true it is either etymological or fanciful. Is the list not, paint, sculpture, scripture, method..? I'd have said a dam could be art if consideration was paid to the aesthetic, and that damming was artful if it were skilled. Counteracting nature is just a poetic abstraction. RTG (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The focus of the definition does seem to be nature. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't get why the word nature needs to be in the definition either.

The current configuration of main definitions, on which the translation tables are built, has been there since 2005. But I find the definitions variously hard to understand, tendentious, or duplicative, especially in the absence of usage examples of citations. I'm also not sure about completeness. This would be a candidate for some kind of advanced cleanup. DCDuring TALK 14:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense - An aspect of technology or collection of products or services; a complex or nebulous collection of concepts. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

All I can find on Google Books and Usenet is the first sense. Even if usage existed, the second sense is utterly useless as a definition: "a complex or nebulous collection of concepts" seems oddly self-referential. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (Australian, slang) The process of defecating (compare a liquid trundle).

Nothing obvious in G books or groups, though there is a missing verb sense by which one can trundle (off) to the toilet (or indeed elsewhere). — Pingku^dimmi 15:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added two senses not connect to 'wheeling', based on cites findable at COCA. I think this term has lost the wheel association for most people. The rhyme with "bundle" may account for some of the non-wheel transitive use. I have no ideas about the purported Australian sense. DCDuring TALK 15:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

RFV-sense "A forward girl, ready to oblige every man that shall ask her." I can only find one book that uses "a quicumque vult" this way. - -sche (discuss) 22:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Basically the 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue wording for a slut. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"A person who plays tennis, especially professionally." Talk:tennis player states that this was kept because tennis player implies a professional (though the definition doesn't reflect this, has the definition been changed?) Anyway, to the best of my knowledge tennis player does not imply a professional. It implies a player of tennis. Am seeking verification of that. Definition will be reworded to fit with RFD debate. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Same or almost same wording is used in soccer player, baseball player, basketball player, ice hockey player, squash player, chess player and whatnot. If I recall right, the reasoning was that these may be professions and all professions should be included. The reasoning also served as justification for the current wording and, I think, to circumvent the obvious SOPism of defining a tennis player as one who plays tennis. BTW, for some reason we do not have golf player, although "professional golf player" gets more than 30,000 hits in a Google search. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Doubtless, the term is attested in the sense "A person who plays tennis." If the "especially professionally" part of the definition does not get attested, a pro-keeping argument to be subsequently used in RFD is translation targets per Italian "tennista", Polish "tenisista", and Russian "теннисист", all single-word translations that are non-compounds. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

But all other-languages arguments are irrelevant, a point that is well-established. DCDuring TALK 22:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Where is that point well established? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep all and reformat like one and a half into Category:English non-idiomatic translation targets. A great number of languages have "players" incorporated into the name of the game (if not a majority) but English words like footballer are less common. The template {{translation only}} will solve the problem with definitions. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I say keep as-is. Barack Obama plays basketball, but he isn't a basketball player; LeBron James is a basketball player, even though he might also have played a game of tennis or football at some point. The term passes the, well, "tennis player" test of WT:IDIOM. Most available citations are of the given definition, which adequately conveys the quasi-idiomatic nature of the term. - -sche (discuss) 07:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Barack Obama is a basketball player, it just isn't the first thing that comes to mind when you hear his name. LeBron James can be called a tennis or football player during any period of time during which he at least semi-regularly plays tennis or football. In any case, you can put any sport in front of the word player and get the same result so it is SOP with the relevant definition belonging on player. --Wiki Tiki 89 08:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, delete: of course Obama is a basketball player because he plays basketball. The phrase "keen basketball player" (always an amateur) makes this clear. Equinox ◑ 09:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Since this has turned into an RFD discussion, (and I would claim "clear widespread use" as far as RFV is concerned, I suggest moving to RFD. - -sche (discuss) 20:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed (belatedly) that the term in its first sense (professional) had already passed RFD and was kept. The word "especially" implies that non-professional tennis players can also be called that. No need to create an additional sense for non-professionals. The entry should be detagged and left alone. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Appears unattested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

As I noted elsewhere, there appears to be no actual usage with anything remotely near the meaning claimed. A "willie-wag-tail" is a kind of bird, and Robert Burns used the term in a poem, but I canna conceive of it having the meaning asserted here at all. And I looked assiduously for such a usage. Fail. Epic fail. Collect (talk) 02:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The term does seem to have some hits in Google books, but I cannot confirm the sense of prostitute from the quotations that I find. See google books:"lady of light virtue" and google:"lady of light virtue". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"Chardin was approached ... by a lady he took to be a high-class prostitute. ... He had not long since arrived in Isfahan and, wary of the possible implications of being accosted by a lady of light virtue, refused her offer and passed by."[89]--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Most of the uses seem to refer to a slut (in layman's terms). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Useless manager in a corporation. Equinox ◑ 23:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This should be able to get cited. --Adding quotes (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Appears unattested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I deleted it as a bad redirect, do you wish to create it then rfv it? If not, then what shall we do? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The entry had the definition "A lesbian" for an English noun. So if someone gets to attest "scissorchick" in that sense, they can re-create the entry. If no one attests the term within a month (or whatever longer period is customarily used), the page remains deleted, and this nomination gets closed and archived to Talk:scissorchick. Urban dictionary has the term, so having Wiktionary's talk page document the page as having failed an attestation request is kind of useful, right? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely. Not supported even by blogs. DAVilla 07:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (slang, vulgar, extremely pejorative) One who has sex with pigs. I'd be surprised if it's ever been used that literally. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's a scene near the beginning of the South Park movie, where:

Terrance (movie): You're such a pig fucker, Phillip!

[In the audience, the kids gasp.]

Kyle: What did he say?

Phillip (movie): Terrance, why would you call me a pig fucker?

Terrance (movie): Well, let's see. First of all, you fuck pigs.

Phillip (movie): Oh, yeah!

South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut (1999)

And here as literal outlandish accusations:

2004 November 9, Peter C. Newman, Here Be Dragons: Telling Tales Of People, Passion and Power, Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, ISBN 9780771067921, OL 3377718M:
If you want to allege an MP is a pig fucker you don't have to produce the pig. You just have to get him to deny it.
2010 May 11, Paul Provenza; Dan Dion quoting Paul Krassner, ¡Satiristas!: Comedians, Contrarians, Raconteurs & Vulgarians, New York: !t books, ISBN 9780061859342, OL 24488548M, page 22:
I also went on all these radio shows and would not cop to a hoax—partly to see the fury of the interviewers, but also with that old idea that if a politician says his opponent's a pig-fucker, it puts his opponent in the position of having to say, "I'm not a pig-fucker!"

~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

All of these seem to have drawbacks. The third one doesn't really support this meaning more than any other meaning of pigfucker. The second one looks good but it pig fucker, the first one has the same problem; is it spelled pigfucker, pig-fucker or pig fucker in the original script? Or is that just a transcript from a website? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I checked the spelling in the South Park DVD subtitles. The lines are subtitled "pig fucker" with a space. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 08:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

What is supposed to be done now - write examples or find outright citations in written sources? Because this is slang and I think it is hard to attest Serbo-Croatian with citations that satisfy durably archived criteria. --biblbroks_{дискашн} 12:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There are hits on Usenet, but with my limited knowledge in Slavic languages I have no way to verify if they're good- or even if they're the right language. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you link to the Usenet hits? I still can't figure out how to search Usenet on Google Groups. --Wiki Tiki 89 16:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure: [90]. I have Advanced Search bookmarked: [91], and enter the term in the "this exact wording or phrase:" field and select "Google Groups" to filter out regular websites (though there are Google Groups that aren't Usenet, so you still have to sift through the results a bit). Chuck Entz (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I've found and added two citations of the Latin form and one citation of the Cyrillic form. I don't think we require the Latin and Cyrillic forms to be attested separately (unless, perhaps, there is reason to believe one form is dialectal or otherwise restricted). Unless there's a problem with the citations, that would seem to verify this. - -sche (discuss) 17:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Does a citation that is just "Ska probljem!" really count? I think you need more context. --Wiki Tiki 89 17:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If it needs more context to demonstrate the meaning, then maybe we could require the messages of other users as part of the citation? We'd probably run into the same problem trying to cite no problem or even yes! —CodeCa t 18:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought that it was pretty obvious to include the previous messages of other users. --Wiki Tiki 89 18:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Tnx, ppl. I was under the impression that usenet in the sh-sphere was much more dead. --biblbroks_{дискашн} 20:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added one more cite (from the same thread where the Cyrillic one was, just a little further down), so do these three suffice for the phrase/interjection to be attested? --biblbroks_{дискашн} 19:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Cited and kept. --Wiki Tiki 89 19:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Irish. Appears unattested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Following Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#the_presence_of_Irish_and_Welsh_online, I have removed Irish and Welsh from the list of languages which are well attested online. However, this word does not seem to meet even the reduced CFI to which it is now subject. I see only 70 Google hits, though one is from education.ie. - -sche (discuss) 22:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't see the relevant snippet of the book quoted on the citations page to tell if it is valid or a scanno or typo; other Google Books hits are scannos. - -sche (discuss) 22:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: uncountable, US. I don't see how this is uncountable. There might be a proper name that does not have a plural, but is it normal English to say "too much/little electoral college"? If that is OK, doesn't it apply to the first sense, too, which leaves us with no difference between the senses. DCDuring TALK 22:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I feel like the second sense was an attempt to cover the proper noun. I would just move it to a new ===Proper noun=== POS section. - -sche (discuss) 23:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with both. Not uncountable but proper. DAVilla 06:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Neither Electoral College nor electoral college appears to be the proper name, except as a nickname, for the college of electors of the president of the US. I'm not sure that such a proper name exists. The US Constitution and the US Code refer variously to the electoral college and college of electors. I suppose it is only with the decline of the use of college other than in reference to education and learning that this has become a set phrase. Its apparent existence as an institution (or "process", as it is defined in some dictionaries) seems to make folks sometimes want to capitalize the words in the set phrase. To me it seems like calling University a proper name because it is used to refer to any number of specific universities. DCDuring TALK 13:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think (as you say) this has become a set phrase. A term/phrase needn't be official to be a proper noun. In turn, I think if it's how the term is used in US English, that's sufficiently broad usage to merit a sense, whereas phrases like "I head back to [the] University next week" and "I went to the store this morning" do not suggest that [[University]] needs to be defined as my local uni, or [[store]] as my local store. - -sche (discuss) 19:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I have edited both the RfVed sense at [[electoral college]] and [[Electoral College]] in line with this discussion and my understanding of the facts. I think most people are referring to the overall process any specific existent Electoral College (51 in total). Many people definitely believe that there is a single Electoral College that meets to formally elect the president and vice-president. DCDuring TALK 21:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure whether three suitable citations can be found for this: there seems to be very little available, and mostly "mentions". (Seems a bit SoPpy too.) Equinox ◑ 15:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it appears to be web + based + operating + environment. I once defended ubiquitous + network + society and lost, although the term appears in hundreds of books and scientific papers. I don't think this is any less obvious. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Was gonna say more crap from Sae1962, but it's actually from SemperBlotto, haha. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

RFV-senses: "she", "they, them", "it", "I". Like several other senses in other entries, these claim to be senses of a modern English word, yet then restrict themselves via {{defdate}} to a period several centuries before modern English existed. Please either move the senses to ==Middle English== or, preferably, just fix the {{defdate}}s to indicate how long into the modern English period these senses continued and remove the RFV tags. (I hope that at some point our adders of obsolete words will figure out to stop adding words to English sections with defdate ranges that are exclusively pre-1500. It's confusing!) - -sche (discuss) 17:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Two senses: "welcome to Facebook" and "well that's funny". Equinox ◑ 12:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: adjective, relating to a market. Looks like attributive use of the nouns. Cannot imagine this being used as "more market", "very market" "the forces are market". Mglovesfun (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It depends on whether we count capitalization: [92] I would call it rare & obsolete (or "now dictionary-only?"). Not on Usenet Chuck Entz (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Also hyphenated: [93] Chuck Entz (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Cited as bashi-bazoukery and Bashi-Bazoukery. Astral (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Tagged {{delete}} by an anon who claims it doesn't exist. Any proof? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Can't we speedy it because it's a plural and we don't have the singular yet? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Haha, good point. I think that is our practice. (Whether it should be or not is a separate matter. De.Wikt has lots of inflected forms without lemmata, and I've found it helpful about as often as I've found it unhelpful.) - -sche (discuss) 22:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Now the singular exists, together with the components of the compound. This is indeed a most uncommon word, but it does appear here. However, the English entry for linendraper is still missing. --LA2 (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

August Strindbeg is a well-known author par excellence, but don't we need another quote? --Hekaheka (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we can use that page to cite klädeshandlarsocietet as well? —CodeCa t 03:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Question to LA2: are you sure that such guild ever existed under that name and that the author did not use the word "societet" in its other meaning "upper class, socialites"? If he had meant a guild, he might rather have used the word "gille". If I'm right, the modern Swedish equivalent for societeter in this case would be kretsar. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Side note: someone should add societet, as its plural societeter is already there. --Wiki Tiki 89 08:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The author here is Jan Myrdal, writing about August Strindberg. The text is about these societies or guilds protesting against competition from jewish immigrants, as one root for antisemitism in Sweden. I don't know what the actual guilds were named. I have added references to lärftskramhandlare (linendraper), which is a word that appears in dictionaries. The longer word (l-societet) is a far less common word, that normally hasn't appeared in dictionaries. So should it appear in Wiktionary? In English, the "linendrapers' guild" would just be a "sum of parts" and therefore not included. But in Swedish it is one compound word. I'm really not sure where to draw the line. --LA2 (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

This has been a common issue lately. Some users here think that a 'part' in a SOP term is always and only separated from surrounding text by delimiting characters like spaces, hyphens and such (in languages that use them). Others (including me) believe that this bases the concept of idiomaticity on orthography, rather than on the ability of speakers of the language to figure out the meaning of the word by its parts. —CodeCa t 21:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I was wrong, it does appear in the dictionary, with an extra -e- that most people would not use: lärftskramhandlaresocietet in Svenska Akademiens ordbok online. --LA2 (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

RFV-sense "A name for a parson." Is this used by anyone other than Joyce? If not, I'll tag it {{context|nonce|used only by James Joyce}}. - -sche (discuss) 21:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If the Joyce usage is the one on the Citations page, then it just seems like it is a slightly more figurative usage of definition 3 at bollocks (I really think bollocks and ballocks should be merged). --Wiki Tiki 89 09:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Duly converted to {{alternative form of}}. - -sche (discuss) 03:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: movable stepladder. This seems like it is probably the same as the Dutch word trap, but I've never heard this word being used in English. —CodeCa t 14:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"American Mechanical Dictionary" 1884 [94] Also in an 1826 dictionary [95]. Non-dictionary usages of "trap ladder" abound including [96] from 1832 etc. Appears to refer either to a foldable or moveable ladder, especially one leading to an attic. Collect (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "section" is supposed to accomplish, but clicking on the above link just took me to the top of the page. DCDuring TALK 16:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I know, but it works the other way around. We currently have two senses of trap for RFV, so to make the RFV link on the entry point to this discussion, I added a section link to distinguish the two. —CodeCa t 16:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I see. DCDuring TALK 21:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

meaning alcohol or alcoholic beverage --Adding quotes (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Added by WF, RfVed by WF. I thought the simplest thing would be to just delete it. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought Bruno Mars (or whoever writes his songs) just used it as a clever metaphor rather than an idiom. Might be valid, I have no idea. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: A geometric figure that repeats itself under several levels of magnification, and that shows self-similarity on all scales.

What I want to see demonstrated is use of "fractal" by which Mandelbrot set is not a fractal, as it is not perfectly self-similar, per the challenged definition. There is another definition which remains unchallenged: "A geometric figure that appears irregular at all scales of length, e.g. a fern." This unchallenged definition is probably intended to be coextensive with "A geometric figure which has a Hausdorff dimension which is greater than its topological dimension", a definition that I have just removed bz reverting back, in order to enable challenging the definition with perfect self-similarity. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Do we really need an RFV for this? The accuracy is debatable but it's perfectly real isn't it? If it's deleted we'll need another definition to cover the English usage of 'fractal' anyway, so this RFV seems like a bad idea to me. Move to Talk:fractal, doesn't seem to be bad enough to merit WT:RFC. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Please look again. There are two definitions now. The one constrains "fractal" to figures that are perfectly self-similar. The other one includes figures that are perfectly self-similar, but also includes figures that are not, such as Mandelbrot set. I have sent the first definition to RFV. What evidence do you have that "fractal" is ever used in a way that excludes Mandelbrot set? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't. You've added the word 'perfectly', the entry itself says 'self-similar' not 'perfectly self-similar'. Are we RFVing the definition in the entry or your definition? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I admit that I read "self-similar" as "perfectly self-similar", and that I read "similar" as "differing only by scaling, rotation and translation", that is, in a mathematical way. If what the definition intends by "self-similar" is "approximately self-similar", it remains to clarify in what way is the second definition ("A geometric figure that appears irregular at all scales of length, e.g. a fern") intended to cover a different class of things from the first definition, that is, what are the examples of geometrical figures such that they satisfy definition 2 ("irregular at all scales") but not definition 1 ("showing self-similarity at all scales"). In any case, I still do not see that Mandelbrot set is "a geometric figure that repeats itself under several levels of magnification"; that is, I have hard time reading your "approximately" into the definition as it stands. What I want to see attested is that there are two uses of "fractal" that do not apply to the same class of geometric figures. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I would remove the "irregular" definition since there are many irregular shapes that would not be considered fractals. We could include the word irregular in the main single definition, since not all self-similar shapes are fractals. I don't think we should have two definitions. Dbfirs 16:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that the wrong sense has been RfVed. Self-similarity (not necessarily perfect (a word that is not in our definition)) at different scales is the most important part of a fractal, as far as I can tell. The OED defines this as "A mathematically conceived curve such that any small part of it, enlarged, has the same statistical character as the original." - statistical similarity, not perfect. The second definition (that I added many years ago) may, indeed be wrong (I'll investigate). SemperBlotto (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added some citations and split them between "self-similar" and "irregular" to the best of my ability. It isn't always obvious which sense is meant. Feel free to add more. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

p.s. The definition of fractal from mathworld is, in part, "A fractal is an object or quantity that displays self-similarity, in a somewhat technical sense, on all scales. The object need not exhibit exactly the same structure at all scales, but the same "type" of structures must appear on all scales. A plot of the quantity on a log-log graph versus scale then gives a straight line, whose slope is said to be the fractal dimension." - this is our sense #1. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I have now added rfv-sense to the second sense. For the purpose of existence of the term, "fractal" is doubtless sufficiently cited at Citations:fractal; thank you. For the purpose of showing there is more than one sense of "fractal", the quotations at Citations:fractal do not do the job for me. It is not clear how I should evaluate the quotations. Like, for the C.W. Ormel quotation from 2006, should I look up what "PCA/CCA fractal model" refers to? Without doing that, how am I to know what sense of "fractal" the quotation uses?

Note that the first definition currently says "that repeats itself under several levels of magnification", which seems much stronger than the notion of self-similarity defined as having the "same statistical character". --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

What about having this single definition: "A geometric figure that shows self-similarity on all scales; technically, a geometric figure which has a Hausdorff dimension that is greater than its topological dimension."? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I liked your suggestion until I remembered that an ordinary parabola (and even a straight line) satisfies the first part. I agree that we ought to have a non-technical definition, but how do we word it so that it includes only those patterns that most people call fractals? We need to include some concept of irregularity to eliminate the trivial geometric figures. ("Fractus" did mean "broken" or "shattered" in Latin.) Dbfirs 14:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

@Dbfirs: what about this: "A geometric figure that shows self-similarity at all scales and that, unlike a line segment, shows an ever-expanding detail of shape at all scales; technically, a geometric figure which has a Hausdorff dimension that is greater than its topological dimension." --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Something like "that repeats itself under several levels of magnification" or "that is (exactly, approximately, or statistically) self-similar on all scales" seems to fit common usage of the term, though it may need to be reworded to be technically accurate. Merriam-Webster defines it as "any of various extremely irregular curves or shapes for which any suitably chosen part is similar in shape to a given larger or smaller part when magnified or reduced to the same size" (emphasis mine). Dictionary.com has "a geometrical or physical structure having an irregular or fragmented shape at all scales of measurement between a greatest and smallest scale such that certain mathematical or physical properties of the structure, as the perimeter of a curve or the flow rate in a porous medium, behave as if the dimensions of the structure (fractal dimensions) are greater than the spatial dimensions", which seems too technical (jargon-y) without necessarily satisfying all mathematicians. Since mathematical authorities themselves are said to disagree on the definition, perhaps we should have more than one definition? Alternatively, we could have a technical definition and then explain in a usage note what characteristics are associated with fractals in the popular imagination and/or differing mathematical definitions. Wikipedia has an entire section, w:Fractal#Characteristics, devoted to various definitions. - -sche (discuss) 17:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

@-sche: I think we should have more than one definition only if the definitions are not coextensive, that is, if there is at least one geometric figure that is a "fractal" per one of the definitions but not per the other definition. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the term is commonly used in math with a relatively narrow meaning, but sometimes also used with a broader meaning that includes all instances of the narrow meaning but also other cases which are not otherwise/often regarded as fractals. Wikipedia has examples. - -sche (discuss) 03:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

What are the examples--whether from Wikipedia or elsewhere--of things that are not fractals per "relatively narrow meaning" but are fractals per "broader meaning"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

From WP: "Mandelbrot […] illustrated his mathematical definition with striking computer-constructed visualizations. These images, such as of his canonical Mandelbrot set pictured in Figure 1, captured the popular imagination; many of them were based on recursion, leading to the popular meaning of the term "fractal"." However, Kenneth Falconer argues for a broad definition of "fractal", which would include things like this strange attractor. (Oddly, I found a use of "fractal" in that specific "attractor" sense in Chaos, Criminology, and Social Justice by Dragan Milovanovic, a non-mathematician: he writes of corporations which "produce a fractal basin of outcomes with any number of attractors".) - -sche (discuss) 16:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

RFV-sense "Anniversary; an anniversary day." I'd like to use it as a word of the day in December, but I don't think it's attested... - -sche (discuss) 05:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Likely similar to "Jahrestag" in some uses. Found [97] where it appears to refer to numbering days of the year. [98] appears to use the word in an "anniversary" sense. [99] appears to use it as a specific "anniversary" precisely analogous to "Jahrestag." Note that WK defines "Jahrestag" as "anniversary". Collect (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit too rare to be used as WOTD? DCDuring TALK 15:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

@Collect: The first of those quotations is of the mathetical sense ("a day in a year"), and the last one is of the specific "anniversary of a death" sense.

@DCDuring: some senses of [[yearday]] aren't rare (e.g. the mathematics one). However, I'll use a different word. - -sche (discuss) 18:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This is just an example of an unlikely Volapük word, meaning "female penguin" — I'd like to see if any cites can be found. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I checked and the first 100 Google results are all from dictionaries. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

"A biscuit broken up in bowl and hot coffee, sugar and milk added and stirred." Added by User:Soakcrust, suspiciously. Equinox ◑ 01:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I tried: compraehensive, comprxhensive, comprrehensive, comprsehensive, comprashensive, comprarhensive, comprœhensive, compræhenfive, compraehenfive, comprrehenfive, comprsehenfive, comprashenfive, comprarhenfive, comprxhenfive, compriehensive, comprjehensive, comprjehenfive, compriehenfive and none of them turned up any relevant results. --Æ&Œ (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It's an inconsistent spelling, as æ often replaces a, not e! Could be just a total error. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It could charitably be viewed as hypercorrection, as if many uses of "e" in modern spellings of Latin-derived words were improper alterations of "ae". Or it is intended as an intentional archaicism. The valid ones are fine, though it seems to me we've overemphasized them. This one seems quite unsupportable in English, though Lewis and Short does show compraehendo as an alternative spelling of comprehendo. DCDuring TALK 18:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

My mistake; English pre is from Latin prae. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Check Corpus inscriptionum latinarum please. 94.67.90.106 18:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It's real, but massively rare. This book lists it, with a citation to a certain inscription (as for which inscription, I'm too lazy to decipher their system, so I don't know). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It's rare but it does exist. A small but significant number of google books mention it and the book "Corpus inscriptionum latinarum" refers to the connection between the names (Thedusius-Teodusius). There is also the district of Naples, San Giovanni a Teduccio, with "Teduccio" coming from "Theodosius" (see [100] "Da Teodosius si fa derivare Teodusius, Teoducius e poi Teduccio") in a comparable way in modern Italian (note the different forms that the name can take, the pronunciation doesn't differ a lot). Btw, the feminine equivalent "Tedusia" is more widely used. 94.67.90.106 18:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

US slang: "a snappily dressed cool confidant Latino ladies man". It has a reference, which is actually a citation, and probably not a valid one. A quick Google Book search doesn't find this, but references either to Rico Suave the person or Rico Suave the song. I'm wondering if the source article is just wrong. If it's recent US slang I'd expect Usenet hits at the very least. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I could only find it as a song title - that's why I speedied it. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually it wasn't you! It was Metaknowledge, presumably he got there a few microseconds before you did. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
And I just speedied it again. Most definitely vandalism, I reverted the same person doing the same thing over at WIkipedia. Just because some vandals are slightly smarter than others doesn't mean that we should let their crap sit for a month. I'll be surprised if you find a single usable cite. By the way, Semper, do you just automatically assume that any speedying is done by you? Actually, if so you're probably more often right than wrong :) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
You should get an error message if you try and delete a page that doesn't exist. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you know what vandalism is if you think that "Rico Suave" is vandalism. Clearly you didn't read the reference, which gives the same definition as provided in the entry. The phrase "Rico Suave" has a number of origins, being slang in the US for a cool, confident Latino and ladies' man who dresses sharply clearly a reasonable dead tree source "The Australian". Clearly the term was defined, so how is that vandalism? -- 70.24.250.26 06:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

http://www.tmz.com/2008/07/18/cristiano-ronaldo-rico-suave/ Cristiano Ronaldo -- Rico Suave This uses "Rico Suave" as in the definition in the deleted entry.
On the subject of Rico Suave-types, be warned: They check out more parts here than an auto shop Los Angeles Times, 17 June 1993
Desjardins had been given the nickname "Rico" in Montreal because of the way he dressed and handled himself. He was like that mythical Latin character, Rico Suave Philadelphia Inquirer, 28 December 2003
Alex wasn't always met with open arms when he made it out to the 2nd level. "Rico Suave baby," Boone said, shaking his head. Hawkeye Insider, 11 January 2005
http://www.tv.com/shows/csi-miami/forums/i-hate-jonathan-togo-ryan-wolfe-5154-513278/ He even asked her out (made a bit of a mess of it but the guy ain't Eric "Rico Suave" Delko so whatever).
http://reviews.cnet.com/pc-games/leisure-suit-larry-s/4505-9696_7-30983749.html Those who want to be richer and smoother than Rico Suave will definitely find the style of play satisfying.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/21-jump-street-now/story?id=15928964#.UK3BrU3A8lU For the cast of the original Fox TV series, (like Rico Suave, er, Richard Grieco ) it was a chance to launch careers ...
In real life, Mitt's rico-suave Eastern governor, who happens to be a card- carrying member of a peculiar religion based somewhere out West Salt Lake Tribune, 10 February 2008
http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/movies/news/n86762.htm By banding together with a quirky team of characters (including Ansari playing a Rico Suave-esque slug) New York Post
We live together; we don't want to see each other twenty-four hours a day," Logan said. "Hey, Lopez, Syd has her eye on you; better look out, Rico Suave." Nick laughed at the Rico Suave reference to Lopez. "I think Rico here feels the same. [101] Matthew R. Zende, "Real Family: A Journey of 5 Friends Discovering Their Identities and the True Meaning of Family"
I immediately nicknamed him Rico Suave in my head. [102] Stefanie Wilder-Taylor, "I'm Kind of a Big Deal: And Other Delusions of Adequacy"
We call him Rico Suave - he's pretty smooth with the women. Maggie Shayne, "Killing Me Softly"
Hell naw my name ain't no damn Rico Suave [103] Kaiserrific, "Derrty Lil' Sex Secretz: Based on True Events"
"Seriously, Freckles, you're dressed to the nines and I could give Rico Suave a run for the money in my getup," he explained. [104] Melissa McClone, "It Started with a Crush... & Win, Lose...or Wed"
Just about the time I was really getting my groove on - Nice move, Rico Suave! - I stepped on Kay's foot and bumped into the poor guy behind me who was as lost as I was. [105] "How We Love: Discover Your Love Style, Enhance Your Marriage"

Seriously, you wave vandalism around waaay too loosely. -- 70.24.250.26 06:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't burrowed through all your references, but most of them don't work. Most of your cites either a) don't support the definition you gave, b) don't meet the requirements in WT:CFI, or c) don't actually cite this exact spelling. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The definition I gave I extracted from the Australian newspaper, so I don't see how that qualifies as vandalism (dead tree source provides a definition, so where is the vandalism?). Most of the sources I subsequently use the term, so don't give definitions.

Nice move, Rico Suave! ISBN 9781459227415 -- self referential, comparing the speaker's lack of grace to Rico Suave's putative grace

better look out, Rico Suave." Nick laughed at the Rico Suave reference to Lopez. ISBN 9781425976811 ; the character "Lopez" is referred to as a Rico Suave, using the term as defined in the Australian newspaper

We call him Rico Suave - he's pretty smooth with the women. ISBN 978-0778327936 ; the character is referred to as a Rico Suave, for the reason of fitting the definition as defined in the Australian newspaper

Hell naw my name ain't no damn Rico Suave ISBN 9781478235859 ; the character is denying he is a Rico Suave (as defined by the Australian newspaper) as his name is Rico, not his nickname.

"Seriously, Freckles, you're dressed to the nines and I could give Rico Suave a run for the money in my getup," he explained. ISBN 9781459227415 ; character is comparing himself to a Rico Suave.

In real life, Mitt's rico-suave Eastern governor [106] this dead-tree newspaper reformulated the noun in adjective form. It compares an early image of Mitt Romeny as a Rico Suave-esque character to real life.

richer and smoother than Rico Suave that uses the term just as defined in the Australian newspaper

like Rico Suave, er, Richard Grieco comparative of the actor Richard Grieco to the stereotype Rico Suave

(These are my analyses of the sources previously given)

Similar terms already on wiktionary are Don Juan, Casanova, Einstein, etc -- 70.24.250.26 05:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

From being Rico Suave I was now a dog-the Taco Bell chihuahua.
Philadelphia Daily Inquirer,
, 6 September 2003, pp.H1
- My analysis: The narrator is referring to himself as someone considered a Rico Suave to being a dog (another slang term) after a personal failure

Now Midler gets to discuss the allegations made by the Rico Suave of tabloid television during the first Barbara Walters special of the season
Austin American-Statesman, , 12 October 1991, pp.3
My analysis: The columnist is referring to reporter Geraldo Rivera as a Rico Suave

Durrel's the Rico Suave-type; women are the only thing on this guy's mind. But he's all flash, with no cash and no car.
Lawrence Journal-World, , Mike Floyd, 12 August 1996, pp.12D

Iglesias says with a laugh. "I'm not a Rico Suave type of guy. Women will ask 'Really? Are you serious?'
Conexión, , Rudy Arispe, 10 February 2005

The polished, poised, fashionable husband Katina sees now -- the one she teasingly calls "Rico Suave" and who cops to being a metrosexual (not that there's anything wrong with that) -- bears little resemblance to the diffident guy she fell for.
Sports Illustrated, , Michael Silver, 19 June 2007
The person being called Rico Suave is actually w:Jason Taylor (American football)
Uh, excuse you, sister dear, but we all know that, I, Rico Suave, need no invitation. Nothing is sacred to these ears.
[107], Dwayne S. Joseph, "Growing Pains", 2011-03-01, ISBN 9781601622464
- This character's name is Richard Rose
I think 'Rico-suave' type, dark skin, dark hair, smokey eyes, and somewhat of a man of mystery. But he also knows every move in the book. (Kelly)
Pablo G. Castañeda R., , 2005, pp.2, ISBN 9781412050807
He tried to turn on the Rico Suave charm
[108] "The King of Erotica 2: The Crown", 2008, ISBN 9780615153087
He thinks he is Rico Suave and you know him to be a Don Juan.
[109] Michelle Dupress, "Attract the Love You Want", 2010, pp.10, ISBN 9781609116446
The show follows Lawrence Jameson, a regular Rico Suave, and Freddy Benson, a small-time swindler who tugs at ladies' heart
Indianapolis Monthly, December 2007, pp.194, ISSN 0899-0328

That Rico Suave-ass nigga don't know how to keep a bitch like Miamor
[110] Asley & JaQuavis, "The Tale of Murda Mamas: The Cartel 2", 2009, ISBN 9781601622563
If you've been invited to a friend's birthday, and you show up only to find three couples, two stragglers, and Rico Suave hitting on the hot waitress, lower your expectations of meeting someone, and try to have a great time anyway.
[111] Reba Toney, "The Rating Game: The Foolproof Formula for Finding Your Perfect Soul Mate", 2009, pp.181 ISBN 9780312383985

-- 70.24.250.26 09:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(figuratively) A wrinkle in time that makes time travel possible. (Used by Madeleine L'Engle in her science-fiction novel, A Wrinkle in Time.)

I suspect it might be a universe-only term. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 18:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have the The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction? (I get credit, but no copy. Boo, hiss.) It has science fictional uses, though the definition will probably have to be broadened. Doctor Who 2: Tessaract uses tessaract, an alternate spelling, in some science-fictional way, if anyone has access to that work. The Avengers had a tesseract. I'll toss a couple more things on citations page, though I'm having trouble finding solid hits; it comes off as technobable most of the time.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll submit that there's enough citations on the citation page, but the definition is going to have to be generalized to fit them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

RFV passed as reworded, feel free to edit. DAVilla 17:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Prosfilaes and DAVilla. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 02:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Wonderfool: Asturian. Seems a little far-fetched. Note: in conjunct with {{LDL}}, only one citation is required. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Zero Google hits, um... Mglovesfun (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I would have speedied it as vague nonsense, but it was too time-consuming to check for usage because of line-wrap breaking of resourcefulness, and I don't like to speedy without checking. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems to exist - but what it means is a bit impenetrable. (many false hits are for re-sourcefulness). SemperBlotto (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

In its current form I would speedy it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Special:WhatLinksHere/sourceful, just delete it please. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

That sourceful as no links and is absent is immaterial to RfV. In any event, apparently sourceful has some meaning in Yoga, but I haven't found any valid hits for sourcefulness connected with Yoga. DCDuring TALK 15:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

RFV of the senses "Amish hillbilly" (see the citations page for one possible citation) and "sexual position". There's also a verb sense, something like "move quickly(?) / down a flight of stairs(?)", but I can't quite tell how to define it. - -sche (discuss) 18:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Cited the more general sense "hillbilly/culturally backwards person." Found two cites for the sex position sense. One is a mention, but it's still useful for confirming the meaning. Astral (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"Term used primarily in the homosexual community. Refers to a a heterosexual male who occasionally partakes in homosexual activity of either manual or oral nature. Does not refer to anal sex. Less common usage refers to a man or woman who will experience several male organs in succession via a glory hole wall or anonymous group engagement." I can't find anything about this; all search results appear to be the obvious thing, an amateur birdwatcher. Equinox ◑ 02:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

There should be a rule for these: dubious entries posted by occasional anon contributors may be undone by an admin without prejudice. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

A Jèrriais would-be word; appears unattested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Books results are scannos, or "hip hopologist". DTLHS (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's this one. It seems to be a real word, but rather specialized- and thus very rare online. There are hits for hopology, and a few non-durable web uses for the word itself, but I'm not finding enough for CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Just found the real reason it's so rare: the correct term is hoplology, which does have cites. Looks like it needs to be moved, and an entry created for hoplology (see w:Hoplology). Chuck Entz (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Meh, moved to RFD as a rare misspelling. Wiktionary is not a list of all possible errors. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say keep. The misspelling gets enough hits on Google, and many people are unlikely to realize it's a misspelling due to the correct form's rarity/non-inclusion in spellcheckers. Hence keeping "hopologist" as a misspelling entry might be helpful. Astral (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"Discreet and Confidential Color". In what field is this term used? What does it mean? Google Web search only seems to show spammy duplicates of our entry. Equinox ◑ 18:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

"Laughing quite loudly".

I only found one occurrence of this, but I had to filter a bit to remove random alphanumeric garbage, so I might have missed something. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I found two cites on Google Groups. If neither of them are the cite you found, that would make three cites. Astral (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"Obsolete spelling of harbour"

Etymologically implausible. All I seem to find are references to w:Market Harborough. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That pretty much sums it up. - -sche (discuss) 08:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Said to be a "Common misspelling of neighbour", but there are very few hits, and I suspect most of them are typos or other types of simple mistakes. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Christcentric

I know that these are real words, but I don't think they actually mean what the definitions say they do. Every non-ambiguous cite I can find seems to say that they mean "centering on Christ", not "centering on Christianity". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you make of these:

""Church" is too much a Christcentric concept to be projected onto other religions without distortion"

"The Western cultural and cosmological model is Christcentric and personal, the Eastern is both anthropocentric and more impersonal."

"When Timothy says "liberal" or "conservative" he means theological liberalism and conservativism, Conservative being Christcentric."

? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The first one works, the second one not so much (Christ is being juxtaposed with humans, or else the sentence doesn't make quite as much sense), the third one probably. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

See Christocentric. Equinox ◑ 22:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Turkish. Supposedly meaning to cough. -- Curious (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

RFV-sense. The other definition ("to have big breasts") was RFVed and passed—and it's the definition the French Wiktionary has; it doesn't have this definition ("to always have something to say"). - -sche (discuss) 21:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless there's a bad gap in my knowledge, it's real but very literal. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes this 1850 quote: "L'Angleterre n'a pas de conversation, parce qu'on n'y parle ni des autres ni de soi. Y parle-t-on du moins de la politique, de la religion, des choses de l'esprit'? Guère plus." Clearly it doesn't mean "England doesn't have big breasts". Mglovesfun (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "to return extra salvage to another location". It's not from Webster 1913, nor can I find it in other dictionaries. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Protologism? I can see it only in the one cite given. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"A feature where three different tectonic plates meet in a single point." Absolutely nothing in Google Books for the search +triumverent +geology. Equinox ◑ 12:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

All I could find in Books or Groups were misspellings of triumvirate. There's no plausible Latin etymology (for the -verent part, there are only terms for fear and truth), and there's already a well-established term for the phenomenon: w:Triple junction. I don't buy this one at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

One citation below the minimum requirement. --Æ&Œ (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

diff. This is the same user that keeps adding unattested Gothic words and ignores all requests to stop. —CodeCa t 13:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Google Books and Google Groups don't have it, and Perseus' online version of Liddell & Scott doesn't have it either. I notice that the Ancient Greek Wikipedia incubator uses it here and there (e.g. [112]), which may be where this person got it from. I wonder if there's a Gothic Wikipedia incubator... Chuck Entz (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a non-incubator Gothic Wikipedia. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 15:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a dictionary-only word to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Delete DCDuring TALK 08:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Really? Not in the OED. The "Meric index" (surname?) exists, as does -meric. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it exists except in meric index "an indicator of flatness of the proximal femur diaphysis". It is used in primatology and archaeology apparently as a possible indicator of the health of the specimen in life. I can't tell if it is eponymous, but it is not often used with a capital M in running text. It might be short for platymeric index, diagnostic of platymeria.

It is definitely derived ultimately from μηρία (meria, "thigh bones"). DCDuring TALK 00:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

German, Rfv-sense 2: "bier". I have never heard of this sense and can't find it in any dictionary. Longtrend (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

And it's been here since March 2007[113] DCDuring TALK 23:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Also the German Wiktionary only mentions the "beer" sense. Their article on "Bier" is very elaborate and it would look likely that if there was another sense, it would be mentioned. The disputed sense was originally added by an anon (whose only contribution this is) in the form of definition: "A stand on which a corpse or coffin is placed". Less than two hours later Semper changed it to the current wording and obviously nobody has touched it therefater. Let's ask Semper whether he thinks he erred. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Semper probably just formatted it.

Like Longtrend, I've never heard of this. The Duden, too, only has the "beer" sense; and the German word for it is "Bahre". The anon was probably thinking of the English word "bier" and only mistakenly added the sense to the German entry. - -sche (discuss) 18:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a plausible explanation. Weird how nobody noticed such an obvious mistake on a rather frequent word's page for such a long time! (Myself included.) Longtrend (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Turkish. Supposedly meaning organ. -- Curious (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

At this language purism forum [114], people are discussing: "So, what could we use instead of the word organ?" There, our IP user suggests "kılgan" [115], because in Old Turkish, kılgan means [something that] does/makes a lot; he's suggesting kılgan based on the idea that organs work continuously, and based on the etymology of the word organ, originating from Old Greek *ἔργειν (ergein, "to work").

Then, our IP user just spreads his newly invented kılgan, at different places on the internet: [116], [117], [118], [119], claiming that it means organ.

(Can't find anything else, other Google results show other Turkic languages and Old Turkish.) -- Curious (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Prove that all of them was written by me or shut up. --85.102.181.45 20:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Based on the edit pattern of these users, I have no doubt that all of them is you. In fact, besides these ones, I've found some "other users" on the internet who also follow your edit pattern, all with the same goal of spreading your words. If the community wants me to, I can give more details.

On topic, about kılgan, you entered a nonsense word, and it will be deleted soon. -- Curious (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit pattern? Wiktionary has many users that use the same patterns, so do you think that all of them is the same person? The forum "türkçesivarken" has many users that use this kind of words. See the "Ortak Türkçe Çalışmaları" section. When you search İngilizce -Türkçe sözlük [[120]] on Google, ingilizce.g3n.in is on the top of Google, so anyone may find it and see these words and then use them. They are purist or not. Is this a criterion for publishing words on the dictionaries? Can you say "we can not put the word '...' on the dictionary, because it is used by communists"? (I am not so good at speaking English, i tried to tell my thoughts as i could.) --85.102.181.45 06:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. We need evidence of use in printed material, on Google Books, or on Usenet. Specifically, three quotes which use the word are required. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: verb: To tell someone a story of dubious authenticity. Not in any of the likely OneLook sources. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps they meant cobble together a story, which is well attested but doesn't belong at cobble. Equinox ◑ 19:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess cobble together necessarily implies the likely falsity of the story, but that does not seem part of the inherent meaning. Just as a cobbled-together computer program is likely to be buggy and failure-prone. DCDuring TALK 22:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

"Either half of a two-part tutorial". In Google Books I'm only seeing this as an adjective, and even a Google Web search yields nothing for "semitutorials". Equinox ◑ 19:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

WT:BRAND -- Liliana • 20:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

[edit] ave.

Tagged [121] but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 22:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Claims to be an adverb, but I can't think of how it would be used, and the usex provided seems ungrammatical to me. - -sche (discuss) 23:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

See WT:TR#latest. In the usex it is short for at the latest. I have heard it a few times. I have no expectation that it would be attestable in print. DCDuring TALK 05:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It was on the wanted list... but I don't actually see evidence of use. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

RFV-sense "(paganism) The language and terminology used by followers of Heathenry." As with the other "paganism" senses RFVed earlier: is this attested as a separate meaning? - -sche (discuss) 19:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

RFV-sense "A water spirit of either sex". - -sche (discuss) 20:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yiddish: wiki. I think it's a protologism pulled off Yiddish Wikipedia. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If there's a word for it, this is it. So we just need to verify that it's used. --Wiki Tiki 89 20:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I looked. I couldn't find a single cite. Regular Google searches only seem to turn up various hits on various WMF and non-WMF wikis, and a blog or two. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If unattested, this should also be removed from the trans table at [[v]]. - -sche (discuss) 20:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You mean at [[Mjollnir]]? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Crtl+v fail, lol... - -sche (discuss) 20:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

A coalmine case. Probably citable, but citing it effectively closes the RfD of house-proud. DCDuring TALK 22:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Sunday, December 2, 2012

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