WORD BY LETTER : English CROSSWORD SOLVER and others things ...
Words starting with : 
Words ending  with : 
Ledger Nano S - The secure hardware wallet
Find a definition : 

definition of the word Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification

by the Wiktionnary

IC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> Wiktionary:Requests for verification - Wiktionary

Wiktionary:Requests for verification

Definition from Wiktionary, a free dictionary

Jump to: navigation, search
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

Verification and GENERAL DELETION nominations and discussion.

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

Deletion for policy problems; request listings, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Special page deletion requests, questions and discussions.

{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-cjkv}} - {{rfcc}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} - {{rfr}}

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

Requests for Verification is Wiktionary’s forum for verifying whether a definition meets our criteria for inclusion.

A request will remain for one month after nomination. It may be removed sooner if verification has been made—generally about a week afterwards will be given to allow any disputes about the verification itself to arise.


After that time:

  1. The {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} template will be removed.
  2. If insufficient evidence is found, it will be archived to the talk page of the entry in question with a note saying it failed RFV, for future reference in case new evidence emerges. Then the disputed sense will be removed or the disputed entry will be deleted with a note saying it failed RFV, whichever is applicable. (If it seems to be a protologism, it will be added to the list of protologisms.)
  3. The RFV discussion will then be archived.
  4. Terminology note: "rfvpassed" means sufficient verification was found to retain the entry; "rfvfailed" means insufficient evidence of the word in use was found, therefore it was removed.

How does one verify a sense?

  • Cite, on the article page, the word’s usage in a well-known work. Currently, well-known work has not been clearly defined, but good places to start from are: works that stand out in their field, works from famous authors, major motion pictures, and national television shows that have run for multiple seasons. Be aware that if a word is a nonce word that never entered widespread use, it should be marked as such.
  • Cite, on the article page, the word’s usage in a refereed academic journal.
  • Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.
    See: criteria for inclusion, format for citations, and standard entry layout.
  • Advise on this page that the citations have been placed on the article page.


  • RFV is generally for testing whether information can be safely deleted. Occasionally simple fact-checking questions are posted, particularly for non-English words: these queries are better suited for article talk pages or the Tea room.
  • Verification is accomplished by the gathering of information, not of votes. If the information is not gathered, a sysop will make a decision whether to transfer the disputed word to the requests for deletion page. WARNING. If no verification is provided, the word may be deleted from this page.

See also: Wiktionary:Lists of words needing attention

Oldest tagged RFVs

osmotic communication
nouvelle illustration
zip file
g note
reverse discrimination
non plus
patent medicine
loving cup
short sweetening
long sweetening
organo pleno


  • Sense 2: "an oppressor",
  • Sense 3: "an extortioner" Thryduulf 21:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The three senses were copied straight out of Webster 1913, FWIW.—msh210 21:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't find any uses of the term in those senses; in a year, neither has anyone else. Rfv-fail, despite Webster? — Beobach972 18:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
15 months seems enough to me, senses removed. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I know this is annoying, but ... cited. :-) I have followed the OED in merging the two senses, which don't seem to have been particularly distinct. -- Visviva 10:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this Anglicized, as described on wikipedia? If so it shouldn't have the ==English== heading Conrad.Irwin 23:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

See also Category:Books of the Poetic Edda. Conrad.Irwin 00:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This could possibly be attested in English, but it looks like it would be rare. I have changed it to an Old Norse entry, which can be linked to an English (anglicised) entry — Beobach972 15:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Verified.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Striking as verified. bd2412 T 01:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

rfv-sense: "A discreet reference to freemasonry." Usage example given: Are you on the level? (meaning: "Are you a freemason like myself?").

And I don't believe the freemasonry etymology either. DCDuring TALK 16:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I had always thought that there was a reference to Freemasonry in this expression. However, the reference given has this quote "The use of the terms "square" or "level" as metaphors for honesty and trustworthiness also can be found in the annals of Rome, Greece, Egypt and China. They were not invented by the freemasons." So there you go. Probably needs a usage note though (to stop a readdition). SemperBlotto 21:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't really take the Masons' word for it either, one way or the other. But my dictionaries suggest that "level" and "square" in the figurative meanings we have today certainly go back to Classical Latin. I am willing to be proven wrong about this term. DCDuring TALK 23:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I would rfv-fail this unless someone feels like the reference given is sufficient. However, I think this does have another sense beyond just 'honest', a general sense of 'a member of the same group' (not limited to freemasons). — Beobach972 18:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I would support the definition. It's been said to me a couple of times. I don't know if it originated with Freemasonry or not, but it's definitely a phrase associated with the movement. Ƿidsiþ 18:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hard to find clearly English citations, as opposed to transliterations.

Actually, I'm not sure how to distinguish the two.—msh210 20:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Definition is "a surname" - doesn't actually tell us anything. SemperBlotto 21:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Not sure what else you want. Surnames don't have definitions. They have etymologies, of course, and their lowercase versions sometimes have meanings, but the names themselves are, well, just names. No?—msh210 21:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
      • So, what is the verdict? I added it here, since it is linked with the words Venizelism and Venizelist and these words exist at the Oxford dictionary online. For a similar example see the entry for Lenin and Leninism and Leninist. Thank you in advance. A.Cython 01:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
We have names like Brown, Goethe, and eg AugustusAugustan. The name is found in enough books that I would think it would pass just like the above-mentioned Lenin. — Beobach972 18:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't entirely understand what the requirements are for surnames to be considered English at the moment, but I've taken a stab at Citations:Venizelos. The full citation format would be kind of dopey in this case, IMO (if anyone disagrees, please feel free to convert them). The Eleftherios sense also cited as a shorthand for the man in question. It could also be cited as a byword in period literature for a particularly aggressive politician, but I'm done. -- Visviva 15:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The verb sense - is it ever used without "about"/"around"? The example uses "boss". If it is always "boss about"/"boss around", then this should be stated in the sense, something like this: (followed by "about" or "around"). What then happens to the derived terms is questionable. — Paul G 09:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not look to me that it is always with "around" or "about". Verifying this does not address your issue, which seems more of an TR thing.
One sense of "boss" is like "head" or "chair" used as leadership verbs. In that sense it doesn't take "around". A qualifying phrase like "usually with around or about" would probably cover it, but additional senses also seem necessary. There is almost always a case to be made for additional senses for entries, in my limited experience. DCDuring TALK 10:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Cited, although I'm not sure the first example isn't part of a set phrase 'boss and spoil' (with perhaps a different meaning than 'lord over'). Rfv-passed? — Beobach972 18:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I just checked COCA for "[boss] * and [spoil]" (any form of "boss" wildcard word "and" any form of "spoil"). No hits in 385MM word corpus. DCDuring TALK 19:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I see a lot of noun uses, not matching this definition, but no verb uses. But I've only looked fairly cursorily.—msh210 20:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I only know this as a noun from ancient computing. It is what we now take for granted when using a PC - when we hit a key, the character is displayed on a screen so we can check that we hit the right one. SemperBlotto 10:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. The computer sense, as a verb:
    • 1993: Uyless D. Black, Computer networks: protocols, standards, and interfaces, caption of an image on page 99
      Data placed in async. format, transmitted, and echoplexed.
  2. The computer sense, possibly as a noun instead:
    • 1985: Martin D. Seyer, The IBM PC/XT: making the right connections, page 132
      The PC operator can then backspace and retype the character. The device that is to echo the characters should be optioned for echoplexing.
    • 1988: Martin D. Seyer, Complete guide to RS232 and parallel connections, page 212
      When a terminal is connected to a computer port supporting echoplexing, the terminal will not locally display the character until it is received from the line.
  3. The musical/echo sense, possibly as an adjective instead:
    • 2003: Peter Buckley, The rough guide to rock, page 1
      [...] like whales pirouetting to the tones of a string quartet in E, before Butcher's lush vocals swept in over Philip Glass motifs and an echoplexed bagpipe.
    • 2003: Rob Bowman, Soulsville, U.S.A.: The Story of Stax Records, page 257
      William "Wee Gee" Howard takes the lead vocal and Dennis Coffey plays the heavily echoplexed guitar, while Johnny Allen [...]

These aren't coherent enough (ie, they don't all apply to the same sense and they possibly don't all apply to the same POS) to rfv-pass yet. — Beobach972 18:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Law? Canada? Taxes? Ety? DCDuring TALK 02:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Now rfv-sense. DCDuring TALK 11:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
There is now an entry at surrogatum principle. Does "surrogatum" mean "surrogatum principle"? Are there quotes of someone writing, say, "under surrogatum, this would be treated as a dividend" ?

[Note: the below comments have been merged from a separate section.]

  • Verification: See the Wikipedia article Surrogatum, complete with citations and court cases. WritersCramp 18:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
There is already a section for discussing this entry above. Please place all comments there. --EncycloPetey 18:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC) no longer relevant. --EncycloPetey 23:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Clocked out. DCDuring TALK 10:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
But see Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#surrogatum_principle below. DCDuring TALK 11:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: noun, one who illegally copies or receives such copies of copyrighted material. Now, I've heard the verb sense, to be sure. But a noun sense? "Heidi hasn't bought a CD in years, she get's everything off the net. She's such a pirate." just sounds really odd to me. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that we will find attributive use of the noun in phrases like "a pirate CD-duplicating factory". DCDuring TALK 19:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I have split the sense into "making copies" sense (easy to cite) and "receiving pirated goods" sense (not as easy to cite), both with rfv tags. I have broadened the "making copies" sense to include all intellectual property (trademark, design, patent}. DCDuring TALK 19:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Cited "make illegal copies" sense. DCDuring TALK 20:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, the adjective sense. I've only ever heard a participle of the verb used in an adjectival sense. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I've inserted an rfv tag at the adjective, but perhaps it should be an rfd. It seems like attributive use of the noun. The only uses of "more pirate than" is in expressions like "more pirate than shipping agent". DCDuring TALK 19:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It sounds very odd to me as well, but google books:"software|music|movie pirate" gets a few hundred hits. There are a lot of nouns like this, that can't easily be used alone, but that follow specific patterns of meaning when they take attributive modifiers. A similar (but slightly different) case may be seen at [[waterfall]], where you can say "a waterfall of ____" but can't easily let "waterfall" stand alone unless you mean a literal cataract. I think such senses are worth including — certainly software pirate, music pirate, etc. don't all warrant separate inclusion — but it's probably a good idea to use usage notes and {{non-gloss definition}}s to clarify everything. —RuakhTALK 23:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a PoV push that has to do with saying that receiving a pirated copy makes you a pirate. I don't think that usage has caught on. It may be a crime but it isn't called piracy. DCDuring TALK 00:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I remember hearing the use of pirate in the 1960s to refer to a "pirate radio station," (Wikipedia entry) which might have been a radio station set-up offshore (of, e.g., the UK) that broadcast to the mainland. The use of "piracy" (and therefore "pirate") to refer to illegal copying of music, etc. may have followed from that. Though I think these uses of the words have been planted for the benefit of publishers — "piracy" sounds a lot sexier than "illegal copying" — I believe they have become common usage. — HowardBGolden 02:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (US) Someone living, or who was born, above the Mason-Dixon line. Seems overly specific, but I'm not sure.

That would be a southern US usage. The southern border of Pennsylvania was the Mason-Dixon line. Maryland and Delaware were slave states, though part of the the Union in the Civil War. The Mason-Dixon line is extended figuratively along the Ohio River. West Virginia, Missouri, and Kansas are "gray areas". Yankee is more common in the South than Yank, I think, for this meaning, which is declining, I think. DCDuring TALK 23:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And rfv-sense: (pejorative) Someone from the USA with bad manners while visiting another country. Doubtful. (Note that we already have the sense (elsewhere) Anyone from the United States.)—msh210 22:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we say "sometimes perjorative", and omit the behaviour abroad. This sounds like someone's personal prejudice, and certainly reads more into the word than exists in its general usage outside the USA. (Same for uncapitalised yank unless we find citations for specialised London usage.) Dbfirs 19:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
This is RfV. There is not much to discuss until the senses are cited. Can we find 3 uses in the sense mentioned? But it can't just be someone who is called a "Yank" and has bad manners. I'm still unclear as to how this is supposed to work. Would it be necessary to find usage where someone who is not actually from the US is called a "Yank" pejoratively ? DCDuring TALK 20:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
That "bad manners" part is a stereotype of Americans in general, and can apply to any slang referring to Americans. I think we should remove the sense; it's like adding "likely to go to war" or "likely to be fat" as definitions.--♠TBC♠ 19:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Rfv-sense. The defintion "Used to indicate temperature" seems to me not to be justified. It tags along with "Used to indicate age", "Used to indicate height", and "Used to indicate weather conditions", however, I don't think we can say, for instance, "It's 65 today" with the ease that we can say "it's warm today" or "he's 5'10" ". The example given, "It’s in the eighties outside, and next week it’s expected to be in the nineties!", also suggests that this definition isn't able to stand on its own. __meco 12:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems like it might be converted to an "rfd-redundant sense". The last five senses all seem to be instances of using "be" with a bare number (not exactly a noun or adjective) to indicate a count or measurement. The senses above (5 and 6, I think) that give non-gloss definitions of "be" as link a subject to an adjective or to a noun phrase. Is what is needed here {{non-gloss definition|Used to link a subject to a count or measurement}}? DCDuring TALK 17:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the three count/measurement definitions (age/height/weather) can be done away with that simply. They are idiomatic in a way that would be lost in the generalization which you suggest. You can say of a person that "she is 43" and everybody would know that the unit implied is years. If you did the same about an arbitrary tree or a car ("it is 15") you would most likely engender a confused stare. I don't think I fully grasp the implications and use of the non-gloss definition template, but I sense that it is perhaps part of the solution here. __meco 17:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that the specific meanings depend on context and not on inherent meanings carried by "be". "She is 98" could refer to weight, body temperature, or age. The value of the number and the context of the discussion usually limit the number of senses possible. Nor is it limited to people. A tree or a car could "be 10". Certainly my pet could be. I doubt that you would have much trouble with many native speakers with "The surface of the Sun is only 10,000, whereas the interior is 15 million." The common element is the linkage. Arguably the linkage to measurement differs from the other linkages defined at "be". DCDuring TALK 18:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: "I think that the specific meanings depend on context and not on inherent meanings carried by 'be'": Yes, I agree; however, I added those senses as a result of Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#he is n, where two editors (Rod and EP, though Rod sounded iffy) expressed a desire for them. The argument was basically that many other languages normally use other kinds of constructions for these meanings; not a great argument, since most of these senses apply to all or most English linking verbs (not just be), but there you have it. (Note: since three editors eventually expressed opposition to these senses — you, me, and msh210 — it might be worth RFD-ing them.) —RuakhTALK 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
We've had this conversation before, and IIRC we agreed that an appendix on English copulae, linked from the several words that function this way would go a long way towards solving the issue. --EncycloPetey 18:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
That seems like a good idea. It's a little hard on users to have five virtually redundant senses on top of ten others. The translation tables and such an appendix could carry the burden of precision while the entry itself could be a bit shorter. Maybe we can put off any RfDs until we have the appendix, which many of the more learned among us will team up to do in their copious free time. DCDuring TALK 19:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
google groups:"it's 65 today" gets two relevant hits, and google groups:"it's 65 outside" gets another six. You're right that it's not as common as age, height, etc.; I think the reason for that is that we tend to be less precise with weather than with personal statistics, and when we are being precise, we generally include units. —RuakhTALK 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

From RFD.—msh210 17:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the five cites (b.g.c. only). First two might be mentions. Others are better. Chic lit is the best place to look for cites. DCDuring TALK 20:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The definition "deep love" doesn't seem right. Some mentions put it between "like" and "love". Anyone with teen-aged girls to ask? DCDuring TALK 20:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Noun not yet cited. DCDuring TALK 20:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks cited to me. Last call... -- Visviva 15:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sum of parts? Pretty sure it's a noun. (Needs formatting, and a better definition) SemperBlotto 16:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Found numerous references of it, indicating that it is commonly used. If you count the second sense for jackrabbit, I guess it could be considered SoP, but I'm not sure. It does need to be cleaned up though.--TBC 21:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it's sum of parts; this is merely using jackrabbit attributively. --EncycloPetey 19:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Assuming this argument is correct, does this mean that jackrabbit can be an adjective? Pingku 14:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily; most English nouns can be used attributively, meaning that they can precede another noun (or in some cases an adjective) without becoming a full adjective. —RuakhTALK 15:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Given this, and what references I've found for jackrabbit start, the SoP argument seems compelling. How about a redirect to jackrabbit, which appears to deal with it?Pingku 13:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
But the sense in question is a verb, not a noun; I would have expected "jackrabbiting start." -- Visviva 02:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time seeing this as SOP for most speakers; I don't know that I've ever encountered "jackrabbit" as a verb in use, while I have read and heard "jackrabbit start" any number of times. This suggests to me that in most vocabularies (including my own) this is a set phrase, not a combination of jackrabbit+start. -- Visviva 02:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
It's certainly not from the verb. Why can't it be attributive use of the noun, not that that would preclude its inclusion as an entry? Is "jackrabbit" a common term in the UK? If not, that alone would argue for inclusion. DCDuring TALK 03:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The noun is currently defined as the animal only; I don't see how that could possibly be sum-of-parts. -- Visviva 05:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is not SoP. There is no figurative sense for the bare noun alone. Whether the noun or the verb is the origin, I wouldn't know how to resolve. I just thought that the attributive-use-of-a-noun pattern is so common as to barely require any thought as to etymology. The metaphor just seems obvious. The noun "jackrabbit" is much more common, I think, and seems a more natural source of derivation. I don't have any evidence one way or the other for the relative ages of "jackrabbit" as verb and "jackrabbit start", which might not be conclusive as to the PoS anyway. DCDuring TALK 10:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
DCDuring, I'm not UK but from Australia (where rabbits are an introduced pest). I did a search through NewsBank (Australian newspapers only) and found a whopping 74 hits for "jackrabbit". Many of these were references to the animal, to a particular band, or to "Jackrabbit Slim's" from "Pulp Fiction". Also several refs to the novel (and prison slang term) "Jackrabbit Parole". There was one reference to "jackrabbit starts", which was covering a US story. The colloquial references were mostly centred around speed, acceleration and shyness (the latter particularly as a reason for the other two). A "political jackrabbit" appears to be a politician who goes to lengths not to be accosted by reporters. Jackrabbit also appears to be a role in the game of rugby, perhaps a "utility back". Finally, I found this, from my home town:
"Botswana runner Tiyapo Maso was caught by a lead pack of 20 at the 25km, having enjoyed more than a hour of global fame with jackrabbit tactics over the Sydney Harbour Bridge and out to Centennial Park which could only have one conclusion -- pain. He finished 78th in 2:38.53." ("Marathon magic for Ethiopians Abera tames tough course", The Adelaide Advertiser - Monday, October 2, 2000, author: Paul Malone.)
Pingku 11:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
For the marathon story I would have thought the "hare" (from Aesop) a more slightly more apt metaphor. I don't think that every attestable metaphorical use of a noun must be included as a definition, though I have nothing against such efforts. In this case, the metaphor emphasises rapid acceleration, especially to make good an escape. Perhaps we should have some similar sense at jackrabbit. "Jackrabbit", especially because of its etymology, struck me as a likely part of Australian English as well as US English. Are imported jackrabbits the object of the famous rabbit fence? DCDuring TALK 12:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, "hare" would have been more apt, but sports reporting is not always logical. :) But then a jackrabbit is a hare. Several of the articles I found saw fit to remind people (i.e. Australians) of that. The rabbits in Australia were imported by nostalgic Englishmen, and the difference between rabbits and hares remains a bit of a mystery to many. :)
I should emphasise the number of hits I had. 74. That means I was able to do the quick "study" I presented, but also indicates that "jackrabbit" is not a commonly used term in Australia (though it will probably be understood). The sort of "study" I just did might be useful elsewhere (especially if done rigorously), but might take a lot more effort. :) Pingku 12:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to find the plural form of this so I could add {{en-noun}} when I found there are only 24 Google hits, most of them from wiktionary or similar sites and none indicating usage. Perhaps it is a misspelling. Pistachio 17:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a book hit, published 2003 before the wiktionary page, so at least it isn't completely made up. Nadando 21:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I've got some information, but not usage of that name. Another name like gwarri or guarri might be better. DCDuring TALK 22:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Do we know this is English? The book Nadando found is using African language examples, and the word boom is Dutch for "tree" (and presumably means the same in Afrikaans). This might be an Afrikaans word. --EncycloPetey 00:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, the book Nadando links to says it's English: "So it is that Khoisan languages, particularly Nama and Khoe, provide many loanwords in the English of South Africa, especially in the area of useful and medicinal plants. Here are some examples: [] guarriboom 'shrub whose fruit can be fermented for vinegar', [comes] from Khoe gwarri, also borrowed into Zulu umgwali; [] .[40]" The footnote 40 says "Examples [] from Silva 1997" which is "Penny Silva, 'The Lexis of South African English: Reflections of a Multilingual Society', in Edgar W. Schneider (ed.), Englishes around the World: Studies in Honour of Manfred Görlach (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1997), ii. 159–76". But Silva (who now is the "director" (?) of the OED, by the way) doesn't actually mention guarriboom at all (unless I'm missing it) in that article. She says, though, that "Khoikhoi [=Khoe] words in S[outh] A[frican] E[nglish] include [] the plant names [] guarri, [] ." I don't know whether she means that teh word was borrowed as is, or merely that that Khoikhoi word made it into SAE, possibly altered. She does mention that "[m]ost of the Khoikhoi borrowings now found in SAE were acquired via" Dutch and Xhosa — which might explain the boom.—msh210 19:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I e-mailed Ms. Silva for clarification, and she informs me that she "would say that in South African English guarri is more common than guarriboom (formed with Dutch/Afrikaans boom tree, as you suggest): I've attached the entry for GUARRI n., from the Dictionary of South African English on Historical Principles, OUP, Oxford (1996), as this gives you an idea of the range of compounds formed by the word: guarriboom is only one of them, as you'll see." So, to answer EP's original question, yes, it's English. That DSAEHP quotation she attached to the e-mail includes, as she says, other related words, but also includes variant spellings: "guarri, gwarrie /'gwari/ n. Also ghwarrie, guárri, guarrie, guarry, guerri(e), gwarri, gwary, kwarrie, quarri."—msh210 17:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Defined as "backward", I think (if this exists in English) it is more likely to be interpreted by an English speaker as "toward the rectum". --EncycloPetey 00:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Cited more or less in "backward" or "ass first" sense. Others senses possible but seem rare. DCDuring TALK 00:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
But not cited to mean "backward" in a general sense. All uses apply to direction with respect to a human body only, and seem to mean "in the direction of the ass". Also, all uses are adverbs; there are no citations for use as an adjective. --EncycloPetey 03:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Only backwards for something that has an ass end, I suppose. And that would be why I removed the adjective senses and amended the definition in line with the citations once they were in hand. Thanks for the close attention you have given these words, which both seem to meet CFI and are not in other dictionaries. Such words can help Wiktionary seem to offer more coverage than competing dictionaries, one hopes. I am sorry that the sense that you were seeking does not seem supported by the citations provided. It is a wiki so please feel free to make whatever emendments you feel are appropriate, including finding citations that support your intuitions. DCDuring TALK 04:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
But only if I find citations, and the literature I normally read is unlikely to be helpful ;) --EncycloPetey 04:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Nor what I read. I search b.g.c. to find cites for words that are a challenge to cite, as these two. Some are more edifying than others. A lot of vulgarities, invective, slang, and recently trendy stuff is in fiction, usually chic lit and tough-guy novels. I never would have gotten to these two except for RU's "not counted" list. DCDuring TALK 05:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps these may be related to assways, a term I'm somewhat familiar with. Here's an example sentence:
You're doing it assways.
(equivalent to something like "You're doing it all wrong".)
Maybe the (slightly derogatory) sense of backward meaning "old-fashioned" is also relevant.50 Xylophone Players talk 21:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As with assward, above. --EncycloPetey 00:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Cited more or less in "backward" or "ass first" sense. Others senses possible but seem rare. DCDuring TALK 00:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
But not cited to mean "backward" in a general sense. All uses apply to direction with respect to a human body only, and seem to mean "in the direction of the ass". --EncycloPetey 03:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: The key issue or problem, which if (re)solved, would make the current task easy to complete. The issue around which the whole problem revolves. Also: Literal sense seems SoP: The log which, if removed, would free up the whole logjam. DCDuring TALK 18:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Found some references for the second sense. "Electric utilities are the key log." TIME Magazine, "the "key log" of the economic jam was the public utility situation" TIME Magazine, "Vietnam Negotiations: The Key Log" New York Times, "The key log In the educational jam is the department" New York Times.--TBC 13:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Unable to get access to the NYTimes cites. Inserted Time cite, qv. DCDuring TALK 14:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
As for the first sense, keep as per keystone. Also, I believe it's a technical term in the logging industry (not sure about it, though).--TBC 13:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice to have even one real usage of the logging sense. DCDuring TALK 14:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sense2: A translation and echo of amen. Not sure I get this. Does it add anything beyond sense1? -- WikiPedant 17:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"so be it" would be an alternative sense for "amen", not the other way around. As such, delete this sense, and make "so be it" a separate sense on the "amen" entry (currently it's combined with the religious sense).--TBC 18:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what you're saying, TBC. Do you mean that amen also means "(indicating acceptance of a bad situation)"? I'm unfamiliar with that sense, though that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.—msh210 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me clarify; I' trying to say that sense1 for amen should be split into two. "End of prayers" is hardly synonymous with "so be it" (also, so be it does not necessarily always refer to accepting a bad situation).--TBC 06:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's a literal translation of אָמֵן (amen), but do think it means the same as amen does: it expresses a wish/prayer that something just stated occur. I imagine that that's the RFVed sense means. Did you mean this to be a request for verification of that, WikiPedant?—msh210 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, msh, that sense (expressing a wish/prayer that something just stated should happen) did not occur to me. It would be distinct from sense1. I wonder how well it can be attested. I ordinarily associate "so be it" with a situation which the speaker finds less than congenial but which he/she is prepared to accept (after swallowing hard). -- WikiPedant 20:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that what amen is? Our definition for amen is "so be it"! Perhaps both should be rewritten as "(expressing a wish/prayer that something just stated occur)" if it's citable. Or perhaps something else is meant by the "amen" sense of so be it and by the "so be it" sense of amen. Any ideas as to what else it could be?—msh210 20:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think I disagree on two counts. First of all, it's true that taken literally, "so be it" is a jussive use of the subjunctive and therefore expresses a desired state (just like "G-d's will be done", "be it resolved that [] ", etc.); but my experience matches WikiPedant's, that it always means "O.K., fine, whatever, I can take it." Second of all, in my experience "amen" indicates agreement with something just uttered — "This is the best country on Earth, and everyone who doesn't like it can get the Hell out." "Amen!" — and expresses a wish/prayer only in the special case that the thing just uttered was a wish/prayer — "I wish the people of this country would learn to live together in peace and harmony." "Amen!" (though in some religious circles there's a tendency to blur the distinction between what should be and what will be, such that "Someday everyone will live together peacefully." "Amen!" means both). —RuakhTALK 23:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the "echo of amen" sense given for so be it is evident from [1]. And it's definitely a sense distinct from the "I can take it" sense. But you're right: amen means agreement with a recent statement, not only expressing a wish for the future.—msh210 17:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't even understand what it meant, a "translation of amen" - amen is an English word anyway. Removed. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is French. The English is stagiary according to the OED. (Needs formatting properly) SemperBlotto 07:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the French, never heard of it in English. We usually say trainee or intern if it’s a noun, or probationary if an adjective. —Stephen 15:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems like the word is used quite some times in English too, probably just directly stolen from French. To give some examples, [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. --Eivind (t) 16:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the Council of the Inner Temple in advertising training posts with, for example, the European Commission, the United Nations,etc use the "french" spelling, without, however, italicising as they would for Latin or other foreign words. I was unable to find any recent use of "stagiary" in this sense, whilst all the post-graduates I spoke to recognised "staadj-ee-air" but not "stagg-ee-airy". —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 10:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

Verb sense: to have two members of the same team finish one and two in a competition. Supposedly went through RfV in 2006, but cites out of format, don't seem durably archived. Search didn't reveal any archived discussion of RfV process. Verb might be citable. DCDuring TALK 04:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

google news archive:quinellaed|quinellaing gets more than 133 hits; the sense seems to be “to win both first place and second place in (a competition)”, usually in clauses of the form “<competitor> and <competitor> quinnellaed <competition>”. It doesn't seem to be a given that the two competitors must be from the same team; and even aside from this, our current definition needs to be rephrased to correctly identify the subject. —RuakhTALK 11:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
That's something I didn't get. I thought at least that the horses would be from the same stable, the Olympians would both be from Africa, if not Kenya, etc. The problem with with subject derives from the sense of the "sides" being a little nebulous, but, to me, unmistakable. I wonder if a bettor can "quinella" a race, so that the "same side" is more open-ended than def. now shows. Though the noun usage is mostly about betting, the verb didn't seem to be. Most of the usage seemed to be from the Melbourne Age and a New Zealand newspaper that might be repeating the same stories. I didn't check bylines, but this might be the product of one writer. DCDuring TALK 11:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it does seem that the two winners have to be "same" somehow, just not the same team necessarily. The problem I meant about the subject is that our definition implies the subject should be some third party, since this sense of "have" is used to mark a non-participant as a topic ("yesterday I had a good friend get hurt in a car crash" means something like "yesterday a good friend of mine got hurt in a car crash, and you can imagine how that makes me feel"). So according to our definition, the subject could perhaps refer to the team/stable/continent/country, or to the bettor/audience/venue; but in fact, it seems usually to refer to the first-and-second-place winners themselves. —RuakhTALK 12:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I suppose you don't want to hear of trifected, which is what Kenya often does in the distance events. (Unless Ethiopia is also there ;-) (yes, there are a few random googles, but more are mis-forms of trisected)Robert Ullmann 12:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
RU: Do you have google alerts set to notify you when Kenya comes up in Wiktionary? DCDuring TALK 14:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The definition says that it is the name of a patented medicine. I'm not sure that would qualify under WT:CFI. This link provides a description of the medicine. -- A-cai 12:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's apparently a brand name of a liquid patent medicine produced in Guangzhou, which can be found in pretty much any Chinese herbalist's shop or Chinese supermarket with a traditional medicine section). It's so prevalent among the Chinese communities around the world I think it could appear here like Tylenol, Prozac, Rohypnol, Kleenex. 16:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
It is not a "patented medicine" - our definition of "patent medicine" is was wrong; it is a medicine that was originally proprietary, but is now generic so that anyone can make their own version, just like anyone can make aspirin, which was itself once a trademark. bd2412 T 09:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: 1. The Devil; 2. An evil spirit, a fiend. I can find no support for these in any on-line dictionary. DCDuring TALK 16:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that fallen is sometimes used as a shortened form of the term "fallen angel" (which would explain the first and second senses). I'll have to find some cites, however.--TBC 18:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Google Books turns up some relevant results (using the search term, "the fallen")--TBC 18:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Insert at least three of the best citations for each sense and we'll go from there. DCDuring TALK 18:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Trying to find a few usable ones, but most of the results use "fallen" (in the demon sense) in their titles. I should be able to manage to find three, however.--TBC 08:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hippietrail tagged this as an RfV over a year ago, based on the discrepancy between our definition and Wikipedia's. I did some research and found the following:

  • "Patent medicine is an English term which refers to the registration with the British Patent Office of a given compound as a medicine. In the United States it refers to those drugs which are sold without a prescription. Thus, in the United States, the term "patent medicine" is a misnomer since no patent is required." Robert H. Coombs, Lincoln J. Fry, Patricia G. Lewis, Socialization in Drug Abuse (1976), p. 10.
  • "The term "patent medicine" originated in England and referred to "patents of royal favor" that kings granted to their bootmakers, tailors, and medicine makers. By definition, true patent medicines revealed their ingredients on their labels as a condition of maintaining their patent on that formulation. The so-called "patent medicines" produced in America were actually proprietary drugs in which the unique shape and color of the bottles along with the label designs were protected by trademark. The actual ingredients within the bottles, however, were kept secret — a practice that only added to the medicine's mystique. "Patent medicine" became a misused term due to the lack of distinction between patented and unpatented medicines in ads and on store shelves." Charles R. Whitlock, Ben Chandler, Mediscams: Dangerous Medical Practices and Health Care Frauds, (2003), p. 39.
  • "Just a word as to the distinction made between proprietary medicines and "patent medicines." Strictly speaking, practically all nostrums on the market are proprietary medicines and but very few are true patent medicines. A patent medicine, in the legal sense of the word, is a medicine whose composition or method of making, or both, has been patented. Evidently, therefore, a patent medicine is not a secret preparation because its composition must appear in the patent specifications. Nearly every nostrum, instead of being patented, is given a fanciful name and that name is registered at Washington; the name thus becomes the property of the nostrum exploiter for all time. While the composition of the preparation, and the curative effects claimed for it, may be changed at the whim of its owner, his proprietorship in the name remains intact. As has been said, a true patent medicine is not a secret preparation; moreover, the product becomes public property at the end of seventeen years. As the term "patent medicine" has come to have a definite meaning to the public, this term is used in its colloquial sense throughout the book. That is to say, all nostrums advertised and sold direct to the public are referred to as "patent medicines"; those which are advertised directly only to physicians are spoken of as 'proprietaries.'" American Medical Association, Nostrums and Quackery (1921), p. 6.

So it seems that what we have here is a UK/U.S. usage divide, with the U.S. usage clearly divorced from ownership of an actual patent. bd2412 T 22:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  • According to the OED: "a proprietary medicine manufactured under patent and available without prescription". You're right that in the US it seems to have become a synonym for simply "non-prescription medicine". Is it ever used this way in the UK I wonder? I don't think I've ever heard it. Ƿidsiþ 09:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Although the OED has only the "official" meaning, the term is sometimes used in its wider sense in the UK (certainly in Northern England), but this is probably just "patent" in its wider sense of "In extended use: to which a person has a proprietary claim. Also: special for its purpose; ingenious, well-contrived" (OED). Dbfirs 09:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
In the US, there is no necessary connection between a drug being patented and being a prescription drug or being sold over the counter or being a "controlled substance". In the US patent medicine is dated (19th-early 20th century, I think), but referred to non-prescription medicines. DCDuring TALK 11:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese: RFV-sense for use to mean the swastika.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

To note: I don’t doubt that this term is used thus, but I challenge whether such usage is correct. I am no speaker of Portuguese, but it is intuitive to me that suástica would mean swastika whilst cruz gamada would mean crux gammata.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You think this is doubtful why? google books for citation or just look at w:pt:Suástica Robert Ullmann 13:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Or just pt:svástica Robert Ullmann 13:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The two symbols are (understandably) often confused; I just wonder whether the same distinction exists in Portuguese (if only academically).  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't recognise a distinction in English. A crux gammata IS a swastika, or at least so I've always thought. Two names for the same symbol. Ƿidsiþ 09:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems a bit complicated, and the issue is not limited to the Portuguese entry. Usage note in Wiktionary article on crux gammata says: "crux gammata is often mistaken for the swastika". Also, the article on swastika does not mention crux gammata as synonym, although it lists more than a dozen of them. The two (or one, if one prefers) symbols have a different history going back thousands of years. Swastika is said to be originally an old Hindu symbol representing the sun or universe, and crux gammata is made up of four Greek gammas, connecting it to divinity in some complex way. Both symbols can be drawn in a number of ways, and some of the ways look same to the eye. There would probably be no problem, if the Nazis had not chosen swastika to their symbol, making it a "bad" symbol and a taboo. I suggest two changes: 1) change the usage note under crux gammata to "crux gammata should not be mistaken for the Nazi swastika", and 2) add crux gammata to the synonyms of swastika. --Hekaheka 12:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn’t put too much faith in the usage note that says "crux gammata is often mistaken for the swastika". That note was put there by User:Doremítzwr. —Stephen 15:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think their histories are separate. The symbol was around before the Greeks; they just called it a gamma-cross because that's what it looked like to them. Ƿidsiþ 08:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The OED partially distinguishes them, in that for swastika it has both a Nazi sense (#2) and a neutral sense (#1), and only the neutral sense says “also called gammadion”. Insofar as gammadion = crux gammata, I think Hekaheka's suggested changes sound spot-on. —RuakhTALK 03:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

{{rfv-sense}} readded after it was removed without prior verification of the term.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Michaelis Moderno Dicionário Português-Inglês translates cruz gamada as swastika, fylfot. This can be considered one quotation. --Vahagn Petrosyan 08:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, not a quotation, but a reference. I’ve added it to the entry. One more like that will be enough to show that the swastika sense is standard. Of course, the sense still needs three quotations showing that usage in order to satisfy the CFI.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A reference has been provided and the {{rfv-sense}} was removed long ago. RfV-sense passed.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Genitive form: I think the correct genitive form is Neugeborenen, as in "Die Haut des Neugeborenen ist rosa." Mutante 08:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Neugeborenes can't be the genitive, only the nominative/accusative, and only in syntactic positions where the strong form is called for, since this noun is inflected like an adjective. Angr 08:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Recently resolved on rfc, but now there is a rfv issue, namely the two plurals.

My initial reaction on seeing them was to think that "proof of concepts" should be deleted, in the same way that "mother-in-laws" and "court-martials" are frowned upon. On further consideration, though, I think there is room for two plurals here, but with slightly different senses.

I would say that "proofs of concept" is the "simple" plural, as in In every software house I've worked in the past, I've had to provide proofs of concept of my work. This sentence emphasises the multiple proofs. I would reserve "proof of concepts" for the concept of proving multiple concepts; that is, "proof" is uncountable in this sense.

Hmmm. And what about "proofs of concepts"? "Proof of concepts" doesn't sound right, but let the citations speak! DCDuring TALK 12:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
All three exist in number, "proofs of concepts" having 100 raw b.g.c. hits, the others 5 or 6 times as many. So much for it only being uncountable. DCDuring TALK 12:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

So there is a more subtle point here: does "proof of concept" have countable and uncountable senses? In This document provides proof of concept, "proof of concept" is uncountable, whereas in This document is a proof of concept, it is countable (and therefore allows for These documents are proofs of concept). If "proof of concept" is uncountable only (as I have always understood it to be), then we have no plurals at all, but if it is countable only or countable as well, we need a usage note to distinguish between the two plurals, as, to my mind, they are not interchangeable. — Paul G 09:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"a proof of concepts" (indicating countability) gets 29 raw b.g.c. hits, some of which are clearly countable uses of some noun sense. Interestingly, as I look at these I find that my own notion of "concept" in this collocation can refer to either the integrated concept of something as a whole or the separable component concepts. I'm not sure that we will help any user very much by trying to explain this in the "proof of concept" entry. "Concept" has different meanings, possibly, but not necessarily worth distinguishing in a dictionary entry. (It would be like having a sense for "container" saying that it was an object that contained other containers because it could be used that way.) Proof has both countable and uncountable senses. "Proof of concept" seems to carry over all the combinations of senses and plural/uncountability of the components, while still meriting an entry because it is idiomatic. Is it worth having a long-winded usage note about the combination plurals, when the component terms could carry most of the water? I would consider using {{infl|en|noun}}. The usage note could direct the user to the component entries. DCDuring TALK 12:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Rfv-senses: pluralia tantum that which one chooses over something else and computing}user-specified settings of parameters in a computer program

I don't see how def is p.t. and why the second is listed as a plural, or why it is deemed a "computing-specific" sense. But I could be wrong. DCDuring TALK 18:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made this entry and cited it, but am unsure about two of the three citations. I could not find more. It may be that the citations should be used to support surrogatum in its disputed Canadian tax sense, which got pushed in June, without yielding acceptable citations. DCDuring TALK 11:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Also see Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#surrogatum above. DCDuring TALK 11:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep - check the Wikipedia article, there are plenty of citations and court cases in which surrogatum principle is used [13]. WritersCramp 01:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: Verb to drive away. "Cite" looks like it is of attributive use of noun. Contributor may have been confused by it appearing as "to profligate". Webster 1913 showed is as obsolete Latinism. Webster 1828 showed it as "not used." It certainly needs cites. DCDuring TALK 02:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Not citable (durable medai) except at usenet. en.wikt is only dictionary with the term. It is a valid term coined by perl maven Larry Wall. DCDuring TALK 23:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The Larry Wall paper is on google scholar, and reasonably widely mirrored - so should probably count as durable. There are four groups cites, which might make it technically includable, if they are independent. (I would claim they are not as three of them use whipupitude in the same breath and thus this should RFVfail).

Possibly should be butt-woman, I found a couple quotes using that variation.

  • 1898, Eden Phillpotts, Children of the Mists,
    Once butt-woman, or sextoness, of Chagford Church, the lady had dwelt alone, as Miss Mary Reed, for fifty-five years—not because opportunity to change her state was denied her, but owing to the fact that experience of life rendered her averse to all family responsibilities.

Anyone able to cite this fully, especially the unhyphenated version? - TheDaveRoss 00:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I added the entry - the unhyphenated version is as spelled on the memorial tablet in Emmanuel Church, Plymouth. I had never come across the word before. Regards Springnuts 06:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • A butt-woman can also be a woman who sells butts (flatfish). But in this instance it comes from the word butt meaning hassock; she cleans the church and helps the verger or pew-opener show people to their seats. SemperBlotto 07:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I created a cited entry at the main form, butt-woman and turned buttwoman into an alternative spelling entry. Three citations could probably be found for "buttwoman," but it's hard to track down because of the obscurity. It is certainly clear that that is an existing alternative spelling (and common enough in dictionaries, for what it's worth). Dominic·t 04:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Phrasal verbs are never hyphenated, but the verb senses might derive from the noun "write-off" (itself derived from the phrasal verb "to write off"). Can anyone confirm? If so, it might be worth adding a usage note pointing this out, to save possible future edit wars; if not, these would belong at write off.

I've already deleted "write off" as the supposed alternative spelling of the noun and "write-off" (which was given at write off as a supposed alternative spelling of the phrasal verb). — Paul G 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you as to preferred spellings and predominant practice, at least in print. Not 100% sure that hyphenated and solid-spelled forms are not sometimes used as verbs. "Write off" is sometimes used as a noun. Business jargon is at least as prone to questionable usage as ordinary English and there's no prescriptive authority nor any inclination to pay any attention to one. DCDuring TALK 15:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I would also agree with the entries as they are now. Although alternatives of this particular entry can be found, I would think of such items as "write off" = noun as misusages. -- ALGRIF talk 17:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There are a few book references that might cover the definition, but most mentions seem to be refering to somewhere else, or get away from the tri-city idea altogher.--Dmol 19:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As per ABC cities above.--Dmol 19:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A person who believes that the built environment affects behavior, in particular, the belief that social issues such as crime can be influenced by the built environment. I doubt that this sense is citable. DCDuring TALK 00:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing obvious on a quick Google. SemperBlotto 15:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Found one usage. There are many mentions in dialect dictionaries. Apparently a true verb. What is standard for such dialect items. DCDuring TALK 16:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that is reasonable. Dialect words won't get into print very often. SemperBlotto 21:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that I should insert dictionary notes to deter a needless subsequent RfV. DCDuring TALK 23:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The usage note at hostessship says, "The term appears unhyphenated in the unabridged second edition of Webster's Dictionary, yet is spelled hostess-ship in subsequent editions. This trend is also prevalent in headmistressship and goddessship, which, respectively, may be hyphenated."

  • English does not allow the same letter three times consecutively, and usually hyphenates to avoid this (compare cross-stitch), but I acknowledge that these closed-up forms might have currency.
  • American English more readily closes up words that are hyphenated in British English. If these terms are to be included, they need to be marked as "US" because they would be considered incorrect in British English.
  • The fact that Webster's amended "hostessship" to "hostess-ship" in later editions suggests that they recognised they had made an error.

By the way, "respectively" is redundant here as "may be hyphenated" applies to both words. — Paul G 08:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am unaware of the rule. There is no authority to promulgate a binding rule. Wiktionary does not normally give much weight to rules, except with respect to context tags. I doubt if it is "error" correction as much as changes in prevailing usage or in information about such usage that the other dictionaries follow. DCDuring TALK 10:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Why are these items at RfV??? hostessship, because used in w:A Winter's Tale, would meet the well-known work rule. The others are cited. No argument challenging the citations has been made. DCDuring TALK 10:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, the First Folio spells it Hoſteſſeſhip; are you sure that the specific edition quoted in our entry constitutes a well-known work? (Also, I'm not sure the well-known work rule applies to misspellings, as this may be; but then, RFV isn't great at identifying misspellings.) —RuakhTALK 00:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I am aware of the question of editions in Shakespeare, which is why I got the First Folio reference into the notes. I have no idea what ought to constitute a well-known edition of a well-known work. That it was Samuel Johnson's I thought would help the claim. This is the first time that I've seen this issue come up. DCDuring TALK 01:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact remains that whatever edition it is, people will read it and can therefore decide to look up the word. At the very least, we should have some sort of "obsolete form of" entry. By the way, because this section isn't precisely titled "hostessship", the RFV link wasn't working, so I thought it was un-listed and removed the tag. Language Lover 01:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I've restored it, thanks for mentioning. —RuakhTALK 01:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't notice it was you that added that. I don't really know enough about the history of editions of Shakespeare. —RuakhTALK 01:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the First Folio is, more or less, the first "authorized" edition of the plays. Some of the older "Quarto" editions were "pirated". I think the quality of some is considered poor, but Shakespeare was dead by the time the First Folio was printed. In any event this was apparently the first publication of "The Winter's Tale". Presumably the later Folios (let alone the later editions) reflect both true corrections and adjustments to then-contemporary printing and spelling conventions. Because the issue here really is just spelling, we might have to wade into this in more detail than normal. Is the a true Shakespeare scholar in the house? DCDuring TALK 00:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with DCDuring, RFV is the wrong place for these. Let's compare freeest, which only passed as a misspelling, but that's perhaps because of the recency of the term. However, also compare various other attested terms that violate this so-called "rule" which no one has provided citations for: skulllike, bulllike, gillless, crosssection, etc (please don't RFD any of those until this discussion is over). Bear in mind the sheer number of words that break rules (slough can be pronounced three different ways, efficiencies breaks the "I before E except after C" rule twice, and barbaric pronounces the "bar" combination two different ways). To exclude clearly attested words because they break rules is completely absurd. Teh Rote 00:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The rule “‘i’ before ‘e’ except after ‘c’” is only for an [iː] sound; an exception is made for <ies>-terminal plurals of <y>-terminal nouns. Also, you must agree that skull-like, bull-like, gill-less, and cross-section are a lot more common that their unhyphenated forms. In language, I’d wager that any rule of broad application will have its exceptions, especially in one so widely spoken as English. Nevertheless, this does not bar such terms from being included (as long as they are attestable); however, it is only wise that it be noted when they “buck a trend” when some may term such bucking as “violating a rule”.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Rfv-sense - musical sense. Not in the OED. Not in Grove music online (not that I can find). SemperBlotto 15:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This'll be a pain to cite, but it's definitely real. All the normal solfege (sp?) syllables representing notes that are a full step below the next normal solfege syllable (viz do, re, fa, so, and la) have counterparts in -i that are just half a step above, i.e. sharps (viz di, ri, fi, si, and li). Similarly for flats: re, mi, so, la, and ti produce ra, me, se, le, and te. (di=ra, ri=me, fi=se, si=le, li=te.) The system isn't perfect, because in the letter-names, E♯ and F♭ and B♯ and C♭ do exist, they're just equivalent to F, E, C, and B, respectively, whereas the solfege system doesn't even have analogous names, at least for the sharps (I'm less sure about ?fe and ?de, but I've never heard them). Of course, with solfege these things are less necessary, because most people use a movable do, such that sharps and flats aren't as common as with the letter-names. —RuakhTALK 23:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Sp.: solfège (French) or solfeggio (Italian)  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
google books:do re mi fa so la ti di ri fi si li ra me se le te pulls up a lot of hits, many of them relevant; but I'm having trouble distinguishing mention from use. I'm not sure what the difference even is, for something like this. —RuakhTALK 23:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps xmag.png
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

I move we close this as passed. (I don't want to do it unseconded as is.)msh210 02:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't normally allow such article titles. But is this one pukka? SemperBlotto 07:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I had the same gut reaction as you, but this does seem to be a standard format phrase. It gets 658 b.g.c hits, although some of them are in the format "rear admiral, lower half,..." or rear admiral lower half instead. The parenthetical form seems the most common on a quick look. --EncycloPetey 16:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: this is the O-7 rank, formerly known as Commodore, being applied to non-line officers. - Amgine/talk 18:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Check this out: [14]. It's an official US Navy site. --Hekaheka 13:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

As above. SemperBlotto 07:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the O-8 rank, formerly rear admiral being applied also for non-line officers. - Amgine/talk 18:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Has passed RfD. It's sole current meaning is literal and does not seem to justify its inclusion, but there are no citations shown supporting any other meaning. DCDuring TALK 11:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Have we ever had a discussion about including proper names of world-famous landmarks? I don't recall one. --EncycloPetey 05:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Nor I, but I haven't been here long. The RfD discussion of this was quite brief and resulted in a it passing. This is the only one of a list of these brought to RfD which passsed RfD. I would assume that it would have to meet attributive use requirements under our current rules. DCDuring TALK 12:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Found in books.google.com: "Hoga, the Golden Gate Bridge of Sweden", "Pont du Gard — the Golden Gate Bridge of 19 BC", "jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge of political reality", others where the context is not clear. I don't think an attributive use requirement is healthy because in many cases we'd be trying to force a connotation that may not carry weight. Even if it's credible by our standards, three out of millions of citations doesn't make it noteworthy enough to mention. DAVilla 06:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I always thought the purpose of the attributive use criteria was just to provide evidence that an otherwise unincludable Proper noun was in significant usage in a non-encyclopedic sense. I can't think of wording for a sense that encompasses these usages. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Great Wall of China, Eiffel Tower, Grand Canyon, World Trade Center, Louvre; world famous landmarks are used both attributively and metaphorically all the time, in several ways, we should list the literal meanings and allow the reader to interpret the extended meanings themselves. I say this regardless of whatever the CFI currently has to say about them, if they aren't already allowed they should be. - TheDaveRoss 01:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps xmag.png
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
The big American dictionaries such as Random House have this and similar names. The fact that they keep getting deleted here convinces me that our criteria have not been thought through or are poorly worded. We should have the names and the criteria need be reworked. —Stephen 01:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I feel that those dictionaries are just trying to outdo the others by being more encyclopaedic. Perhaps what we really need is a combined Wikimedia search that will suggest Wikipedia results if the dictionary doesn't have them. (Actually, I think we have that already.) Equinox 01:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
When we say we don't want to be encyclopedic I always thought we meant in depth of content not in scope of content. There is certainly linguistic relevance to place names and landmarks and monuments, there are often translations, etymologies, irregularities in pluralization, regional namings -- the list goes on. We don't want to be encyclopedic in how we describe words (i.e. we want to define words not describe the object in question) but we shouldn't limit the scope of the words we will define simply for the fear that we might cover the same material that an encyclopedia might also cover. - TheDaveRoss 01:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The big American dictionaries are at least as scholarly and professional as the OED. They don’t try to "outdo" anyone by being encyclopedic. As long as we are controlled by this irrational, amateurish loathing of multi-word and other complex entries, we will remain a children’s grammar-school glossary. —Stephen 01:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow, want to sneer a bit more? I can tell you're enjoying it. Equinox 01:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Among the OneLook references that have this: Columbia Encyclopedia, Columbia Gazetteer of North America, Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, and Wikipedia. Among source dictionaries: Encarta and Random House. Cambridge, Oxford, Collins, MW, and AHD do not. If we fail to include it directly, the WMF family remains represented. Evidently not every dictionary feels compelled to have even major gazetteer entries. That we have a sister project that has such items would seem to relieve us of the burden of duplicating content.
What WP does not have is a full range of translations. Their etymologies are uneven. I suspect that they do not cover linguistically (toponymically) interesting, but otherwise non-notable places. They do have nicknames. They don't have lists of all the placenames suffixed in "-field" etc.
I can see a role for a WikiGazetteer project that addressed the peculiar needs of topnymy. I don't know that Wiktionary will be a good home for the effort, just as it has not proven a suitable home for the taxonomic hierarchy, for a thesaurus, or even for grammatical formulas (X one's Y off), all of which have linguistic justification, two of which have no plausible alternative home in the WMF family.
Golden Gate Bridge delenda est. DCDuring TALK 03:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Stephen G., but many dictionaries, especially American college dictionaries do try to outdo each other in the number of entries listed in the jacket marketing text, and in the prominent entries and buzzwords you can find while browsing in the bookstore, at the expense of more valuable lexicographical definitions. They insert non-dictionary encyclopedic entries for self-promotion, with questionable actual value for the customer. Landau 2001, Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography says so, in pretty much so many words. If you doubt it, I can hunt down some quotations.
But we don't add any value, or save any bookshelf space, by adding an inadequate copy of a Wikipedia entry instead of a link. Aping the print dictionaries' marketing strategies is a disservice to our “customers.” We also don't have any mandate to translate the name of every person, place and thing into other languages.
The entries we have should depend on their lexicographical identity—looks like Empire State Building arguably noses in, Golden Gate Bridge arguably doesn't— or their onomastic qualities, which we haven't even begun to address. Michael Z. 2009-06-06 15:58 z

Really? SemperBlotto 07:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Should be num-num-num. —Stephen 07:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
There's pleny of usage with this spelling. Almost half a million sites on Google web, almost 50,000 on images. --Dmol 08:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
It's an onomatopoeia that's surprisingly widespread (though alternatives "om nom nom" and "om nom" are equally as common). Some cites: "This should feed me for days. [Nom, nom, nom]" (San Francisco Chronicle), "Nom nom nom: Alligator Season Starts Today!" (Miami Times ), "Retro-gamer cupcakes OM NOM NOM NOM" (Boing Boing), "Nom nom nom: Indiana welcomes two new restaurants for students" (The Penn), "This Chain Chomp Cap Is Like "Arf! Arf! Om Nom Nom" (Kotaku)--TBC 21:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible to merge or link this with nom? Currently there are entries for nom and nom nom nom, and a mention of "om nom nom", but we have nothing for "nom nom" (which appears to be a short, somewhat unusual form of "nom nom nom"), or for further repetitions used to intensify the interjection ("om nom nom nom", "nom nom nom nom nom", etc.). I doubt we want a never-ending chain of entries for this. Which ones should we have, and how do we deal with the ones without separate entries? My instinct is to put them all under nom with redirects set up for "nom nom nom", "om nom nom", and "om nom nom nom", but I think that may not be the Wiktionary way. Dfeuer 02:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps xmag.png
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Redirect to nom: it's SoP, if you will: nom + nom + nom. The only phrase I can think of that's like this but that's not SoP is I say, I say, I say (and I'm not sure about that one).msh210 02:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps ha ha, ha ha ha, ho ho, ho ho ho? Equinox 03:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
What about the "om nom" version? Is that the same or separate? Dfeuer 05:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this legit? Does it have wide currency? Is it a noun phrase, or does it belong at "to roll down the windows"? (That is, would you say, "Rolling down the windows is his favourite move" or "He is always rolling down the windows"?) — Paul G 16:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. This entry is missing the usual sense of lowering car windows, which is idiomatic as most newer cars no longer have a handle to "roll" them down. --EncycloPetey 18:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
In terms of books, it seems to appear in three glossaries, but no actual usage [15] [16] [17]. Haven't delved into groups yet. Conrad.Irwin 18:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this really a noun, as the definition suggests? If so, is it actually "out of the window" ("out" being a slangy way of saying "out of")? A cursory glance at the first 10 Google hits out of 13,500 for "an out the window" gives this as an attributive noun phrase only, mostly (correctly) written as "out-the-window".

If it is not a noun, then I think this is really "go out of the window" and should be defined as "(of an opportunity) to be squandered" or something like that. — Paul G 16:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's (what we call) an adverb (as in "go out the window") and perhaps also an adjective ("another opportunity out the window!" —or is that just an elision of "(has) gone"? See [18]). Same for down the drain, which we currently list as a preposition and which is tagged with {{rfc}}.—msh210 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I often heard it when I was much younger. I heard it as both adjective (predicate) and adverb. In meaning it was mostly as MSH describes. "That [opportunity] is out the window" or "They had a chance to win the pennant, but now that's out the window" are examples. I can't quite get an attributive use scenario though. I'm not sure how many verbs besides "go" that it can modify as an adverb with the "idiomatic" meaning, which is just a figurative extension of the literal meaning. DCDuring TALK 18:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Still in relatively recent use. Lyrics from a 2001 Sugar Ray song: "All the things that we used to know have gone out the window." --EncycloPetey 21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it possible that YouTube (Citations:YouTube) will make the grade, what about the lowercase version? Conrad.Irwin 11:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I have enough citations for YouTube#Noun and YouTube#Verb, and am closing in on YouTubed#Adjective. I think everyone who can be sued spells it YouTube. Perhaps on groups, unless Google automatically "corrects" the spelling before displaying it ? DCDuring TALK 18:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that this probably deserves an entry, particularly for the thousands of times I've seen the phrase YouTube generation this year. Personally, as a middle-aged man, I only encountered YouTube this year but it is mentioned in various areas: politics, commerce, sociology...--Jackofclubs 10:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the lowercase version should probably be used as an alternative spelling or at the very least, redirect it back to the uppercase article as I'm sure it's still widely used even though I would probably use it with capitals (= "I'm just YouTubing", "I'm on YouTube", "Just YouTube it!" and so on). I think it's okay it's to be a bit loose with this, at least in the verbal sense, since it's not a very standard form of English grammar to use two capitals in a verb for instance. AndyPandy 20:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
YouTube is not a word, it is more or less slang. 09:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Slang words are still words. See WT:CFI for guidelines. Equinox 20:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't find hamster used as a verb anywhere.--Brett 00:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Groups is the best for finding terms like this in use. I found various senses for the word, but none seemed to be in use on multiple groups in adequate count. I could not find the sense in question, but I didn't do an exhaustive search. One can also find hamstering in bgc, which refers to some kind of civilian foraging to rural markets for produce, etc., especially during wartime and postwar scarcity in the UK, though this usage seems to have been Dutch and German as well. See hamstern. DCDuring TALK 14:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Confirm hamstern is used in German. Not even that rare. Mutante 12:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Same for Dutch: hamsteren Jcwf 13:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
And here I thought that to hamster was to accumulate stuff, much like a packrat def.2 ...
in German hamstern does mean to be like a packrat...--BigBadBen 20:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternative spelling of bags, a verb meaning "lay dibs". See dibs. Single citation is from Australia. DCDuring TALK 19:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't locate the 2006 Daily Telegraph citation on Google news or at either the UK or Australia newspaper sites. DCDuring TALK 20:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Several definitions were added and removed in its history. H. (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Headword does not match strange article title. SemperBlotto 21:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've found some cites that might warrant keeping this for its figurative meaning: something like "valiant futile frontal assault", synonymous with charge of the light brigade, but without as good a literary publicist. DCDuring TALK 00:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I entered this term because it is a catch phrase, a misconstrued rallying cry, a buzz word for optimists and pessimists alike, and a historic event still studied in military academies in many countries. Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas 14:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC) 03 Oct 2008. 9:10am CDT.
The historic event is encyclopedic and we have the WP link for that. The citations I found support the meanings that are on the citations page, IMO. It wouldn't surprise me if additional citations or reconstrual of the existing citations might support the senses you mention, but a dictionary entry cannot cover all the divergent interpretations of a historic event. DCDuring TALK 14:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

RFV etymology. On a hunch, I'd imagine that the etymology is just cook + book, and not from German. I was going to change it, but maybe RFV is a better place. --Jackofclubs 08:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly cook + book, but that's not a very common compound style in English. It wouldn't shock me if it was a calque of German Kochbuch. —RuakhTALK 16:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
MWOnline dates it at 1809, which, to me, makes the calque seem more plausible. Some dictionaries call it an Americanism, with "cookery book" the UK term. German popular cultural influence in the US was strong at that time. DCDuring TALK 17:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Was rfd'd without being listed - does anyone know what kind of cites we are looking for to show that this exists? Conrad.Irwin 00:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

  1. A person engaged in the business of selling books.
  2. A person who works in a bookshop/bookstore.

I'm not sure how the second sense differs from the first. Surely if you work in a bookshop, you are engaged in the business of selling books. — Paul G 06:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not all 1s are 2s. Not all 2s are necessarily 1s, either.

  1. A 1 could be a manager or owner of a bookstore. For example, The Riggios, who own much of Barnes and Noble in the US, are not often in any of their 800 stores, nor are many of the employees, many of whom might call their administrative or managerial duties "bookselling". One could be a non-store-based bookseller as well.
  2. Are 2s such as textbook buyers, coffee-shop functionaries and cash register operators booksellers? (There is a joke involving a guy complaining about his job cleaning up after the elephants, the punchline of which is "What? And quit show business?") DCDuring TALK 12:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree, partly. I know booksellers who operate their business out of their home, so there is no shop or store. The first definition covers those people. However, I cannot imagine anyone who "works in a bookshop/bookstore" who is not "engaged in the business of selling books" being called a "bookseller". I think the definitions should be merged as "A person engaged in the business of selling books, especially one who works in a bookshop/bookstore". Functionaries who purchase books are bookbuyers, and people who sell coffee only are not booksellers. --EncycloPetey 19:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't sense 1 include companies as well as people? E.g. "Barnes & Noble is a major US bookseller." Methinks that would make the second sense more distinct. -- Visviva 12:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(baseball) two on, two out, 2-2 count, 2-2 tie (or variant thereof). Never heard of it. Says its a noun. Can't tell without cites. DCDuring TALK 16:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

First three hits are mention in various baseball dictionaries, I couldn't find a use. Then again this is most likely a term which would be used by a radio or television announcer and would therefore be written down less frequently. The flip side of that is that baseball has been around for a while and most terms which have true currency there make their way to published writing eventually. Some non-durable quotes which may be useful:
  • It was deuces wild for Damon Sublett, who had been out of action since October 14. He played 2B and was 2-for-4, with 2 RBI and 2 runs scored. Sublett hit a 2 run go-ahead homerun in the 5th inning. (this one seems to be referring to the general prevalence of twos, not the situation) - link
  • Players on the Lewis Cass baseball team shake their hats with the scoreboard showing two balls, two strikes and two outs indicating the next pitch is a ‘roll of the dice’ Thursday in the Class 2A Cass Sectional final against Northfield. (photo title is "deuces wild" - link
  • Fukudome is up, with Deuces Wild, and a chance to do some damage for Tabata’s Cougars. Remember, it’s never a blowout in fantasy. (Sorry!) Okay, full count, runners on the corners… and… foul ball… and Ball 4! Alright, bases loaded for the ninth Cub to bat this inning, Micah Hoffpauir. (in this one it seems to only mean 2 outs, as there is clearly a 3 ball count) - link
  • On the radio, Vin Scully is weaving together a story about the old days, talking about how a Pittsburgh team once won a game because of a pillow fight in the stands, which may be the one tactic the Dodgers haven't tried. // "Deuces wild," Scully says. "Two balls, two strikes, two out." (this one is from the LA Times website, not sure if it was ever published) - link
In general I am not seeing a distinction between usage for the specific count and situations (not even baseball specific ones) where there are a bunch of twos. I would say generalize and keep or toss altogether. - TheDaveRoss 16:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

golden. Not in OneLook dictionaries (except Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 16:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

  • It's in the OED. Not marked as obsolete or anything. SemperBlotto 07:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (music) Spoken-word poetry accompanied by one or two musical instruments and performed as a unit. I'd like to know more about this from citations and/or usage examples. DCDuring TALK 21:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this a US protologism? To me, it just means to change gear (in a car) to a higher gear. SemperBlotto 15:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Real and fairly long-standing in US vernacular; perh orig AAVE. The stuff about Obama is complete BS AFAIK. -- Visviva 17:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
OK - needs formatting though, and probably an improved definition. SemperBlotto 17:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I have inserted two senses that I know: one baseball, one general. I know that I can get plenty of cites for the baseball sense, probably for the general one. I'm not sure of the relationship between the general one I added and the rfv'd one. DCDuring TALK 00:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (cricket) An arm signal given by the umpire in certain circumstances when the ball becomes dead (arms crossed and re-crossed below the waist).

Is it appropriate and accurate to assign this name to a signal from the umpire? Should this be done for all signals made by people in various identifiable circumstances? A policeman giving a stop sign, should that be a definition of stop? __meco 20:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that there would be much usage of "dead ball" to refer to the signal as opposed to what was signified. This contrasts with "wave", "salute", "thumbs up", "red light". We could have at least three senses: the state of the ball, the determination by the umpire that the ball was in that state, the indication that the ball was in that state. And perhaps in professional sports, the official record that the ball was in that state. But that way madness lies, for most entries. DCDuring TALK 20:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's a troublesome citation:
  • 2005, "Cricket for beginners", part IV, BBC News, Aug 26, 2005
    In one of Australia's recent innings, the umpire gave a dead ball as the ball hit ....
That would seem to refer to the signal rather than the signified. I think I will leave this to the philosophers. DCDuring TALK 21:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Rfv-sense for “inability to pronounce the letter R”.
This seems to be contrary to the other two senses.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all are right. See w:rhotacism. —Stephen 21:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Our information might have been copied thence, or, conversely, Wikipedia’s information might have been copied hence. None of that article’s references confirm this sense. IMO, Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable authority when that which it asserts is not referenced.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Here’s one:

  • 2005: Bernard Fogel, PhD, CCC-SLP, Exercising the Rhotacism in Absence of Pathology (ADVANCE)
    It is universally accepted that the rhotacism, a defective utterance of the /r/ sounds, is usually the last and most difficult American English consonant to correct functionally.
    I use two methods to help correct the rhotacism.

 (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

They are correct, referenced or not. A famous case of rhotacism, meaning the inability to pronounce r’s, is the comic character w:Elmer Fudd. It is very easy to find references if you need them...for example: http://books.google.com/books?q=inability+rhotacism&btnG=Search+Books —Stephen 21:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Verified (provisionally). They may have been correct, but the lack of references to reliable authorities meant that that wasn’t evident. It’s verification that matters — truth that cannot be shown to be truth just isn’t good enough.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The challenged sense now has four supporting citations. RfV passed.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: confectionary confectionery.
It’s marked as Australian, but it might just be non-standard.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's in Macquarie, tagged as obsolete. However, it's also in the OED in this sense, with no tags but with the most recent citation from 1844. I would need some evidence that it is really Australian, and not just globally obsolete; an initial b.g.c. search gives no such indication, although this sense is difficult to filter from the others. Definitely real, in any event; note many occurrences of "confectionaries and sweetmeats" and vice versa. -- Visviva 11:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I would think the context tag is wrong, that it is more general, certainly US. The OneLook dictionaries mostly include the sense, but not Oxford or Cambridge, so it might not be used in the UK. DCDuring TALK 11:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

looks like a word, of course, but where's the evidence?

Plenty of evidence. For example, Roget's Thesaurus. It’s a word like asinine, leonine, canine, porcine, feline, chevaline, and so on. —Stephen 03:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Here is a quote from an academic journal, contrasting anserine (duck-like) with cygnine (swan-like). --EncycloPetey 04:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 1901 — Elliott Coues, On the Classification of Water Birds, "Publications of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia": v. 53: 193-218, p216, footnote
    The genus Choristopus, Eyton, apparently Anserine rather than Cygnine, is said to possess this character []
Is it just me, or in your cite, does it seem to mean "being a swan" or "being of the swan family" rather than "swanlike"? I think it's just an adjective version of "swan", with all the different meanings that you'd expect ("of, pertaining to, being, or resembling a swan or swans"). Also, we seem to be missing a noun sense referring to some sort of Australian natural poison. (BTW, my impression from b.g.c., which our entry agrees with, is that "anserine" actually pertains to geese rather than to ducks.) —RuakhTALK 01:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Listed as an adjective, defined as an adverb, but illogically constructed. There are Google books hits, but I'm not sure that "in an utmost manner" explains anything. --EncycloPetey 00:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

  • One of a number from the same user. All bad, most have been cleaned up, some deleted - I would have deleted this one. SemperBlotto 07:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    I did, but it was re-entered. With Google Books hits, it seemed better to take it somewhere it could be improved. --EncycloPetey 16:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Many days have been passed, so the RFV should be removed at anytime. Steel Blade 15:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The originally challenged adjective sense has but one cite, not from a well-known work. The adverb PoS was added and cited by Visviva and is apparently good. The adjective sense now has an RfV-sense tag, but it is unlikely we can do better than Visviva at attesting it. DCDuring TALK 16:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: Latin pronoun, colloquial form of ego.

It's in the OED entry for zenzic, but with only one quotation, which capitalizes it, writes it with a capital letter, defines it, and spells it differently (Zenzizenzike). —RuakhTALK 15:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I just added 3 citations from google books. Goldenrowley 05:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

RFV Passed. Goldenrowley 05:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a bit premature to count this as passed. One of those cites is for zenzizenzizenzic. The other two don't have the same part of speech, and I can't decipher the adjective cite. —RuakhTALK 20:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong but right now we're just trying to find 3 usages to pass: not three for each part of speech. With 392 hits on Google and 3 uses in Google books, generally the word is passing. The compound was my oversight: I did not notice it was part of a line-breaked longer word, when I added it. To replace that, there's a third cite at Google books but I can't get the snippet to work: Robert Burton, Philosophaster: Philosophaster - Page 41 by Robert Burton, Connie McQuillen, 1993. Goldenrowley 05:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it's three per sense, else how would {{rfv-sense}} work? —RuakhTALK 17:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Added by an anon contributor, the -e looks wrong for a feminine noun in Lithuanian. --EncycloPetey 21:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Also old rfv for English verb sense. See mote#Etymology 3. DCDuring TALK 19:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I see little evidence of use on this. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is little evidence but maybe in uses as well. —This comment was unsigned.

If it is not and has not been in use, it is not a word for Wiktionary. Why waste time on it? You are better off to find the usage first before you take the trouble to make a good entry. DCDuring TALK 23:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if this is a waste of time of doing so. You can decide whatever you feel about the word "superginormous". What do you mean by "If it is not and has not been in use, it is not a word for Wiktionary."? It was used.... please search for Google. :/ But ONLY you can decide, not me. —This comment was unsigned.

120 hits for a word on the entire web is basically nothing. In contrast there are 930,000 hits for "ginormous" and 106,000,000 for "big". Numerous misspellings and nonsense words get more than 120 hits. A longer word, "internationalism", gets 970,000.
You could find the citations at google books, google news, google scholar, or google groups. DCDuring TALK 11:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Cited, I think; there appear to be exactly three CFI-meeting uses (in our standard corpora, anyway), spanning just about exactly one year. -- Visviva 03:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Now its passing depends on whether we accept a cite of "super-ginormous" as relevant for "superginormous". I could go either way on that, I suppose, but haven't knowingly accepted alternative forms for attestation purposes in the past. DCDuring TALK 11:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. I think we all may and should leave its definitions the way it is and all it needs now is an alternative form of superginormous. —This comment was unsigned.

Each entry is to be cited separately. DCDuring TALK 12:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. —This comment was unsigned.

I don't think cites for an alternative form should count as cites for the main form. As it stands, I like the sound of the word, but it needs to be deleted- one cite is hyphenated, thus ruining everything IMHO. Teh Rote 13:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Whatever, I'm done here. Happy citing! BTW, there's a new cite for the hyphenated version. -- Visviva 13:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hyphenation of prefixes is a matter of personal taste, and as super-ginormous is the same word as superginormous quotes with or without the hyphen should be fine. If we are to keep this (which we probably should), it possibly wants marking as {{rare}}, {{informal}}, {{neologism}} or all of the above. Conrad.Irwin 21:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Based on the three citations: Should both entries appear? Should the one with one cite be a redirect to the one with two cites? Should there be a cite on the redirect page? DCDuring TALK 22:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Well it is only one word - just because someone decided it'd look neater hyphenated does not make it different - so if we keep one we should keep both. The standard "Wiktionary way" to do this is to use "{{alternative form of}}" or something similar. I reckon we should hard-redirect the Citations page though (if not the entries too</troll>). Conrad.Irwin 00:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Nuvola apps xmag.png
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Open question: Are alternative forms shown one word (needing three citations or either form) or two (needing three citations of each form)? If this isn't decided here, it will have to go to WT:BP. DCDuring TALK 15:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the hyphenated form as unattestable: it's been almost a year now. This leaves us with superginormous, one of whose three citations is hyphenated. I suppose we need a third unhyphenated one to close this. Equinox 12:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

bruised black and blue as a result of a beating. Actually would be a past and past participle of suggilate, which appeared in Webster's 1828. Not much use for any of the four forms. 1 News. 2 groups. One group hit might be a mention. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Several in Google Books. Equinox 22:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And while we're at it, can someone who really knows tell me in what position you'd be holding a rifle if you were holding it at the high port? I know it's a position of readiness, for example held while running at the double. Somewhere online it said 'at the high port' means to hold the rifle above one's head with both arms outstretched, but I'm thinking that might be a modern extension of the term applied to such a punishment or exercise. Oh, and our current entry for at the high port describes a rare slang sense stemming from the "readiness, quickness" of soldiers in this particular rifle position. We need to list the real rifle position, but I can't find it's description anywhere convincingly. -- Thisis0 03:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC) ':Edit: Ok, so I just found this Apparently, it does mean hold a rifle in the port position well over the head. Any other thoughts welcome. Any cites for the slang sense? -- Thisis0 03:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Needs a picture or two, once we're sure of what the sources mean. DCDuring TALK 11:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (business) Someone who is in charge of financial accounts, especially in businesses. I always that that definition given was of what was called an "accounts manager" in the UK, Oz, and NZ and an "accounting manager" in the US (and Canada?). I also thought that an "account manager" was a salesman. DCDuring TALK 23:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I claim no linguistic accuracy, but isn't an account manager somebody who manages one account (=single customer's interaction with your company) and so accounts manager would be somebody who manages several (and could probably equally be called account manager, because it's a bit unusual to pluralise the attributive adj)? I think I've heard both, but it's not the area I work in, so I can't be certain. OTOH you have customer liaison but not customers liaison, so I don't know how likely the accounts is; it just seems like something I've heard. Equinox 23:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Raw Google hits: account mgr 25M, accounts mgr 1M, accounting mgr 3M. Account manager is a person who is in charge of one or more named customers or of a specified segment of the market. Accounting refers to financial bookkeeping and accounting mgr is thus a different thing. The Rfv'ed definition seems to be of an accounting manager and should indeed be deleted here. A separate entry for "accounting manager" would in my opinion be pretty close to a SoP, and no more worth inclusion than e.g. sales manager or purchasing manager. --Hekaheka 04:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Based on bgc scanning "accounts manager" seems to also be used more-or-less synonymously with "account manager". I can refer to "my account manager" and refer to someone who has a title of either "account manager" or "accounts manager". Also an "account manager" could be in charge of directed the provision of goods and services to one or more customers and only have incidental selling responsibilities. There may be other possibilities. It does seem possible that the term is occasionally used as the RfV'd sense says, but I didn't collect the cites as I saw them. DCDuring TALK 11:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
From the US west coast I hear it all the time in business as account manager (not accounting). My understanding working for them is that they manage accounts (business clients). Goldenrowley 06:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Are we ready to reach the conclusion? Nobody has defended "account manager" as manager of financial accounts and thus the sense should be deleted, --Hekaheka 20:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If this is real, then it needs a definition rather than an example. SemperBlotto 21:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Lots of bgc citations for marketize/marketise (now added), mostly for process of converting toward a market economy, applied to Western public sector and to former socialist economies. I'll look more for the sense given. DCDuring TALK 22:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment on usage: I think in the USA we'd either use (commonly) marketing or (rarely) marketizing instead of this spelling. A version with "z" as an alternate spelling has two times as many hits at Google Books. Wouldn't it be more British to use the "s" version? If yes, I find it odd to see an example of two American products Sony and iPod used as an example for a British spelling? Goldenrowley 06:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
If we don't get cites for the noun (like plural form}, this will just be a participle anyway. At marketize we have the 2 senses I found in use. This should be a "soft redirect" to there or marketise. DCDuring TALK 11:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing obvious in Google book search. SemperBlotto 15:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple of entries have now been turned up, using the word in the right context. I don't know if they will be sufficient, but the article's talk page contains fuller discussion. Llykstw 16:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an OED consult would be in order. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 02:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not in the OED Online. (I don't think SemperBlotto would have RFV'd it if it were.) —RuakhTALK 23:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
SB'd mentioned that he'd looked it up there, but I forgot to strike my request. Thanks. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 23:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Three Google Books references are now listed on the discussion page, albeit some with a variant spelling 'brivit', plus the usual in-context uses 'in the wild'. Are we getting close to resolving this rfv? 15:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Protologism? There are some Google hits but very many of them seem to be errors for futuristic. Italian translation did not exist (removed). One hit for the French translation given. SemperBlotto 16:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Failed; deleted. Equinox 12:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Really used as an adverb in English? Perhaps it should be an interjection. Equinox 19:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd bet on interjection and not adverb. DCDuring TALK 20:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Closing. Somebody has changed the adverb to a usage note. Equinox 12:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There is currently no attestation of the Czech entry of stabil, and two native speakers--me and User:Karelklic--do not know the term. --Dan Polansky 12:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Czech-speaker User:Duncan MacCall is the one who wrote that stabil means landline phone. —Stephen 17:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The main discussion on the subject took place here. To sum it up: the word exists and it's used, though not quite as much as I had thought, but as I was only able to prove this by sourses which aren't durably archived, and thus failed to meet our CFI, I'm not opposed to its being deleted by anybody else (while strongly rejecting to do so myself). --Duncan 21:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

(intransitive) To deal with a situation in a diplomatic manner. Can this possibly be intransitive? What sort of sentence might it appear in? Equinox 16:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If we meet with Shakashvili, how will it play?
But the definition isn't quite right. More like How should it play? and that is impersonal or avalent. Robert Ullmann 19:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I think of the sense used in the cite as applicable in any context (diplomacy, business negotiation, politics, interpersonal relations, entertainment, advertising) where "audience" reaction (one person, many, or mass) matters. It is close to a sense of play out, but MW has go over as a synonym, which is better. (BTW, the entry seems to lack some senses.) DCDuring TALK 19:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Formerly: Transwiki:Chamaole

A Transwikied Chamorro word. --EncycloPetey 01:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I know this has been on the list for a while, but I'd give this the benefit of the doubt and just leave it in as a transwiki for now, because it is not likely we have anyone who speaks Chamorro that can cite in that language. Goldenrowley 02:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Adjective and verb are lowercase, right? --Connel MacKenzie 19:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I would remove the adjective altogether, since it's attributive use of the noun. --EncycloPetey 20:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Removed. Equinox 19:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The suable publishers tend to show it capitalised (Books, News, Scholar); Groups has more lower case. Other dictionaries also show it mostly capitalised as a noun, less consistently for verb. Both upper- and lower-case forms are attestable, I expect, even the upper case form of the noun by the tighter standards for trademarks. DCDuring TALK 21:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Dictionaries cannot be sued for putting a trademark as a word (look at the money Google wasted on this one!!) as long as they can show citations. Wikt has the CFI process for this. The ONLY thing a trademark holder can do is request the dictionary to place the word as trademarked, as part of the process of maintaining possession. But if the people are using the word as a common noun, verb etc. then hard luck. The only thing that trademark possession means is that, within the territory to which the trademark applies, no other trader can sell a similar product with the same name. Trademarks are, believe it or not, a consumer protection rather than a supplier protection. If it were not like that, then you would not be able to sell a second-hand Ford. ;-) So. To sum up. This entry should probably uppercase trademark, and lowercase noun, verb, etc. IMHO. -- ALGRIF talk 10:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Verb? Was it really, or just a poetic nonce somewhere? --Connel MacKenzie 13:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

b.g.c. suggests that vigo(u)red (vigo(u)rous, invigorated, having vigo(u)r) did exist, but I'm not finding too many uses as a real verb; and the uses that I do find don't seem to have this sense. (I'm really not sure what's up with them.) Still, it's in a few dictionaries — we got it from vigor in Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam, 1913 — so it probably warrants fuller examination. —RuakhTALK 16:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: To make grotesque. I couldn't find this sense for "anticking" or "anticked". DCDuring TALK 00:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

For me the first hit at google books:anticked is some edition of Antony and Cleopatra, Act II, Scene 7, line 119, with Anticked us glossed as “(1) Made dancers of us, (2) Made us grotesque.” The first hit at google books:anticked grotesque is another edition, same scene, line 147 (presumably there's some prose in the scene, so that different editions will have different line numbers?), which glosses Anticked as “transformed into antics (grotesque performers)”. (We do have that sense at [[antic#Noun]].) Unless we have a reason to doubt these glosses, I think this would fall under the "well-known work" ConFI. —RuakhTALK 02:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind having a dated sense, but I do mind having a dated gloss. "To make grotesque" is not a gloss that communicates to me. Nor does it seem the only or the most direct reading of the Shakespeare passage. All the other uses (not very many independent ones) suggested something like "make fools of" or intransitively "play the fool". Websters 1913 showed that sense as obsolete and cited Shakespeare (no specific citation). MWOnline shows no verb sense. I thought there might be some other citations or contexts that could make sense of the definition as written. Perhaps the OED can shed more light on this. DCDuring TALK 03:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Nope, no more light. The OED Online does have this sense (†1. trans. To make antic or grotesque. Obs.), but its only quotation is the same one from Shakespeare. My understanding is that the OED includes at least one quotation for each sense from each century where it's attested, so apparently this sense isn't attested outside the 17th century (at least so far as the OED is aware). —RuakhTALK 03:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion many months ago on what were essentially verification grounds. Moving here to close up there. bd2412 T 11:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thomas More's Utopia ("well-known work") for sense of "deprived" (adj.), arguably Middle English. Also possibly another etymology with same meaning: eye-dialect for "deprived", "'prived". I doubt the "spoilt" sense and the verb. DCDuring TALK 16:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't even have the verb - I went through the history of prive and there never was an English verb (from which allegedly prived is formed). --Duncan MacCall 18:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
If we let this run here for a month, giving a chance for something we've missed, we should be able to clean the entry up. I don't recollect what we do about entries like [['prived]]/[[prived]] < [[deprived]]. DCDuring TALK 19:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Definition is questioned.Goldenrowley 16:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Def seems close to right. Should be lower case. (I will move it.) Uppercase apparently only used in Australian place names. Not limited to Northern Territory in Oz, also WA. Lower case has other senses. DCDuring TALK 16:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Please inspect cites. 6 support use in Australia, 4 in place name. 2 support sense. One weakly contraindicates. DCDuring TALK 17:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Also see jumpup#References. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this French or English or both? Either way the entry needs to be fixed because its categorisation for both Latin derivations and nouns are French.--50 Xylophone Players talk 17:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

snout has a verb form listed, meaning to provide with a snout. Can we confirm? (Saw some entries at google books that might mean it has a sense for an animal to dig or nose with its snout, I was looking for snouting). RJFJR 03:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Could they possibly mean constructions like large-snouted, hairy-snouted? You can, in a way, read those as "provided with a snout of such a kind", but it doesn't imply a full verb with all the inflections. Equinox 13:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Here are some random data points, which I am too tired at the moment to do anything constructive with:
  • As a legit verb, "snout" can apparently refer to something done to hogs before slaughtering.
  • We should definitely also have the sense "to push or probe (as) with a snout", which accounts for at least 1 in 100 hits on b.g.c. (the other 99 being scannos for "shout").
  • The sense given is more problematic. I'm inclined to think that it exists, but the only cites I can find are for the past participle, and they're right on the line between verb and adjective: watchtowers snouted with machine guns, shoes snouted with a metal pike. This seems more like [participle]-with-[noun] than [adjective]-with-[noun] (cf. "red with blood"), but I'd like to see at least one clear-cut use.
  • "Snouting" also apparently has a sense in early cyclotron lingo, but again attestation seems to be participle-only and therefore dubious as a verb. -- Visviva 15:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
"Snouting" seems to be one of w:H. L. Mencken's favorite words. He uses it in a way to suggest three pig behaviors,: sniffing out, rooting, eating greedily:
  • 2006, H. L. Mencken, Malcolm Moos ed., On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe‎, page 323:
    • And the indefatigable Jim Farley, snouting endlessly for more and more jobs for those who vote right and have their hearts in the right place.
It would be wrong to list this under the infinitive verb as lemma, because it is not used in the infinitive. (Listing this way would be a hypercorrective back-formation.)
OED has other verb forms, but this one is a separate entry labelled ppl. a., meaning provided or furnished with a snout, or snout-shaped. Wiktionary:Entry_layout_explained/POS_headers allows a Participle header, but comments it “Used in some Russian, Lithuanian, and many Latin entries.”  Michael Z. 2009-04-11 22:02 z


Agreed - this was the type of iceberg most feared by the Titanic, as it was barely visible.—This comment was unsigned.

Yeah, I've also heard growler for a kind of iceberg before; verification is at [19], but I haven't time now to sort through those.—msh210 22:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I can personally attest to the sense "A roughly half gallon jug typically used to carry beer", as I have friends who brew beer professionally and sell growlers. This sense and the "iceberg" sense appear in Merriam-Webster's 3rd ed. --EncycloPetey 22:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
And the final, UK sense seems attestable [20], but, again, I haven't time now to do it.—msh210 23:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

How do the two senses of audacity differ? RJFJR 01:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The first is expressed with a negative connotation; the second is neutral to positive in its connotation. At least, that's how I read the two senses currently on the page. I'm not sure that both senses would be distinct if we had citations. I've not heard the word used in a particularly positive light. --EncycloPetey 01:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

example sentence: "The rheumatic was confined to her bed." Can we find citations? Would be a parallel to arthritic as a noun: "the arthritic was confined to her bed." RJFJR 00:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Jargon or real? DCDuring TALK 11:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The {{wjargon}} sense is not only inadmissible, but also redundant with the first sense, as far as I can tell. I've added two more senses. -- Visviva 07:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Which senses are you rfving? Wikis are very popular, WikiMedia have the biggest ones, sure, but sense 1 at least meets and surpasses CFI. For the others, I admit, I'd never use the word in that way. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
From the history, I can see that senses 2 and 3 were added shortly after the rfv. I have converted the RfV to 2 RfV-senses for sense 1 and sense 4. Sense 1 seems to have been cited. Sense 4 has not in nearly nine months, so I would say that it has failed. Neither sense 2 not 3 are cited and probably should be, but as part of a new RfV once this one is closed. DCDuring TALK 00:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

All the Google hits I could find seem like scannos of "a search". --Jackofclubs 13:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

  • You could probably argue for a Middle English header (although I hate that) – I've added a Wyclif cite. It appears a lot in his Bible, which is obviously quite a well-known work. Ƿidsiþ 13:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Could you please render the citation in proper(contemporary) English, I cannot understand it. Bogorm 13:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I think Bogorm's problem (which I share) is why separate Middle English entries and translations of (some?) Middle English citations are needed. Given all the spelling variations and inflected forms, we would harvest a lot of entries too. We might find more than 20 forms of terms related to serch. DCDuring TALK 16:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand you. Do you mean we should have entries for all spelling variants? If so, I agree. But this is the lemma form. Ƿidsiþ 18:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't sticking to the point. I was arguing for Middle English entries, which you had said above that you hate, using Bogorm's and my difficulties with understanding the Wyclif passage as support. More specifically to the point at hand, the cite is not of the term asearch#English. It seems instead to be of aserch#Middle English or aserche#Middle English or aserchen#Middle English. DCDuring TALK 19:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Well I think I already lost that argument ages ago. There are quite a few ME entries here. But the point is this: when do you draw the line. There are many early-modern texts which are just as hard to understand, and I would find it very weird ‘translating’ those. Also, there are very few words which only exist in Middle English, ie which did not survive into early modern and therefore I think it's more useful to collect this historical development under one =English= heading. (Although annoyingly, asearch isn't a good example because I don't think it did outlast ME!). Ƿidsiþ 14:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Current definitions for verb don't look like verbs to me. RJFJR 20:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume it's an error. As you suggest, forms like standoffed and standoffing would be absurd. I've removed some mistaken verbs of this kind in the past. Having said that, standoffing appears once in Google Books, and user:DCDuring stood up in support of standby as a verb, so I suppose you never know! Equinox 21:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree. I don't see any way to use this as a verb except to take it apart into "stand off". -- Pinkfud 21:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Not this one -yet - afaict. DCDuring TALK 03:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I have created stand off with correct definitions. This supposed verbal form of what is generally accepted as a noun is a no-no for me. It would need some pretty convincing cites to support the definitions given. I'm not searching, as I believe the search will be a futile waste of time. -- ALGRIF talk 14:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
We seriously need the nautical usage(s) for stand/stood/stands, stand off, stand into. The cruiser stood into the harbour. The harbour was blockaded by two British frigates standing off the coast. (and that is a verb of course ;-) Robert Ullmann 15:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Be my guest and add them. I had not thought about these, to be honest. Cheers. -- ALGRIF talk 16:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
If we want to be strictly descriptivist, I think it's clear that many speakers write the bare forms of many intransitive verb-particle idioms without any space or hyphen; for example, "please login" gets >50 MGhits (raw), even though "he logined|loginned" gets <60 (real) and "he loggedin" gets <20 (real). In the case at hand, google books:"designed to standoff" (for example) pulls up three distinct non-scanno verb uses. However, we're not strictly descriptivist; we do have some concept of "misconstruction" or "misspelling". So, how do we want to handle this? Is it a misspelling? (If so, I don't think it's common enough to be included.) —RuakhTALK 17:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The inflected forms are, um, rare. Is [[standoff]] just an alternative spelling of [[stand off]], with a note that it doesn't inflect? or categorised as a defective verb? It wouldn't be unreasonable to indicate it as non-standard too. DCDuring TALK 18:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

[From an earlier comment I made on the talk page.] Isn't this really covered by -dimensional? I think there is nothing special about the letter n here. Mathematicians can use any letter they want. I don't see (or like the idea of) corresponding entries for k-sided, n-sided, k-gon, n-gon (see -gon)... Equinox 20:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

n-dimensional is a valid term. The n refers to number and means any number. I’ve never heard of "k-dimensional", nor have I heard of n-sided or n-gon. Where did you see those terms? —Stephen 00:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
n does not "refer[] to 'number' and mean[] any number". If a mathematician wants to refer to some n-dimensional space for some n, then that's what he'll call it: "an n-dimensional space for some n". Not merely "an n-dimensional space", leaving the listener to understand that that means that n is any number. (Same, incidentally for n-gon, n-torus, n-sphere, n-hedron, n space, etc. An exception is p-adic number, and there may be more exceptions, but that's the general rule.) This entry is, per nom, covered by the entry -dimensional and should redirect thereto, or be deleted. But this really belongs at RFD rather than here, I think.—msh210 17:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
That's somewhat true, but check out google books:"n-dimensional". Still, I think this is SOP: n in general is used this way. —RuakhTALK 22:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree unanimously with Stephen and must even admit that n can mean solely number, there is no other possibility. n-gon sounds more than facetious. Please, keep the entry. Bogorm 18:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't call n-gon facetious. It turns up with regularity in geometry textbooks, even at the grade school level, at least in the US. It is used in the discussion of polygon general properties to mean "any polygon with n sides" (and therefore n angles as well). For example, the sum of the interior angles for any convex n-gon is 180 x (n - 2). The use of the term n-gon in this situation saves the author a step in explaining that n stands for the number of sides/angles. --EncycloPetey 23:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The point was that Stephen has never heard of n-gon and neither have I, because the habitual letter is k(I am a citizen of the EU). I am forsooth flabbergasted to be apprised of the deviation described by you and taken up with in the USA. Bogorm 17:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I am similarly shocked that n-gon is not standard in the UK (but am not completely surprised, given some other significant notational differences I've seen). The term n-gon makes more sense to me intuitively, since we use N for the set of natural numbers, and thus the value of n must be one of those numbers (excluding n < 3 for Euclidean geometry). Doesn't standard set theory notation use the capital letter for the set, and the corresponding lower case letter for the elements of that set? The variable k isn't used much in the US, at least in the pre-collegiate math texts. I think I've only even seen it used in proofs by mathematical induction. --EncycloPetey 20:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, n-gon is not uncommon in the UK. Whether or not it is "standard" depends on whom you ask! Dbfirs 17:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at Wiktionary:Tea room#-dimensional which includes the question as to whether [[-dimensional]] deserves to be an entry, as it does not appear to me to be a suffix, though the entry bears that PoS header. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
This should be in WT:RFD, not here. N-gon is a definite keep, likewise k-gon if that's what used in the EU, and n-dimensional is no more sum-of-parts than three-dimensional. N-sided looks more like a modifier construction though. DAVilla 19:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Allowing both k and n doesn't escape the issue that any letter can be used. (More real examples from Books: "which divides P into a q-gon"; "also belong to a p-gon".) three-dimensional may be notable because it is so common; I don't think the rationale for keeping it can be purely that none of these are sums of parts, because something like seven-hundred-and-six-dimensional would be shot down by anyone. Separately: I don't understand how -sided and -dimensional differ in their construction; could you explain what you mean about only one involving a modifier? Equinox 19:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Not entriely sure. Why do we have three-dimensional and four-dimensional after all, and not three-sided or four-sided? Maybe it's that the number of dimensions paints a really different picture in our minds, whereas the number of sides is simple counting.
I'm curious, are p and q prime? If so then a p-gon and an n-gon are not the same thing. In higher-level geometry, each regular polygon is a special creature. Primarily, they can't all be constructed. 16:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
This is yet another jargon term within my own field. In geophysics, we can and do find buried structures by magnetic, gravitational and seismic surveys. Now, if we find what looks like an ancient lava flow, it's important to know whether the shape is tabular, lenticular, or irregular. Short of digging it up, the best way to do that is with a series of so-called n-dimensional calculations done on the data. The "n" that yields results closest to the data is taken to represent the most probable shape. I'd say this should be kept. -- Pinkfud 19:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Rfv-sense of the sense "easily" - I can't think of any context where it would fit, but... \Mike 19:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This is from Lexin Swedish-English dictionary (http://lexin.nada.kth.se/cgi-bin/swe-eng): Elden slocknar gärna när veden är sur "a fire goes out easily if the wood is wet". Though, this sense doesn't seem so distant from "willingly". Kettler 14:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Mmkay, but "easily" is a vastly broader term where most of the subsenses do not correspond to this word. \Mike 16:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense. Needs cites of attributive use referring to the person. Least controversial is as an adjective. See Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Washington. (No RfD at entry) DCDuring TALK 19:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

cited in attributive use. DCDuring TALK 20:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Would "Washingtonian" used in reference to G. Washington be considered attributive? E.g.:
  • 2005, John W. Matviko, The American President in Popular Culture, p. 4:
    By appearing in uniform, Jackson was able to convey his strong character through these images. Jackson had seized on one element of the Washingtonian myth and clung to it.
bd2412 T 05:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
No. That's a different derivative word. Attributive use would include items like "Washington administration", "Washington Monument", "Washington Turnpike", etc. where Washington's surname is used itself as if it were an adjective, to describe something associated with him, his philosophy, or in his honor. --EncycloPetey 06:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I've added Washington's Birthday as an entry, which should settle this discussion, as it is clearly used attributively here. --Jackofclubs 08:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I do not see how a regularly created genitive is the same as an attributive use of a noun. --Duncan 15:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't. Possessive use is not the same as attributive use. --EncycloPetey 18:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "tough". Maybe I'm just tired, but I really get the connection between this pair of words. \Mike 23:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

RfV for the historical–nautical sense; it may also need sense-spliting.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I can verify these uses, but the only sources I have for the net/lines/hooks is Smyth's The Sailor's Word Book (1867). Will split and clean up senses. - Amgine/talk 04:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved from rfd for cites of attributive use per WT:CFI#Names of specific entities. DCDuring TALK 12:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a surname.451 bearers in England and Wales.--Makaokalani 14:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Not in the entry. Evidence? What about other 3 senses? DCDuring TALK 15:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for removing the rfv - I mistook it for the rfd mentioned in the talk page. I have no opinion about earls,they are no use for me anyway, but when a word is an attested surname, it's sensible to add a place name definition, to avoid confusion, and to show which one derives from which. I'm just putting surnames into categories. Place names are creeping in, there should be some limit to them. --Makaokalani 15:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
What you say seems sensible to me for such entries, although one could argue for placing the place name in an Etymology section, as we sometimes do for unattestable brand names.
Though I think that many proper noun entries are too duplicative of WP articles, I am really interested in achieving alignment between WT:CFI and our practice. At present I see the supplanting of CFI by votes on individual entries. If we have a policy of including surnames, is our evidence standard the same as for other entries (thereby favoring the names of authors!!!)? I could see the merit in distinct evidence standards for various classes of Proper nouns, but I would like it discussed and voted on. DCDuring TALK 17:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is probably right, but the Wikipedia article only mentions one sense. Some cites would help anyway. H. (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. As someone formally trained in bryology, I have never heard "gemmule" used, nor can I find it in the standard bryology reference works I've checked thus far. Bryologists use the term gemma, and these are already very tiny. There is no use for a diminutive when the object is only one cell or a few cells to begin with. How much smaller could it be? --EncycloPetey 20:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

RuakhTALK 23:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Try searching Groups for the exact phrase "FMI contact". Equinox 23:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A 19th Century source says that depotates (ambulance attendants) served with Hannibal's army (3rd Century), so presumably the term originates in Latin? I would like more sourcing for this sense. There is a second sense that sometimes is rendered despotate; is depotate an alternate spelling? --Una Smith 15:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion shows that the first sense of an "ambulance attendant" is probably a typo/error for Latin deportantes, which is substantive use of a plural participle form. --EncycloPetey 18:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Another TBot pseudo-Neo-Latin entry--this one for Kazakhstan. In the 1662 Blaeu Atlas, the region is labelled "Kasakki Tartari" (Khazakh Tartars). This is the only information I have, since the term would have to be relatively recent in Latin. --EncycloPetey 19:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Latin Wikipedia says w:Casachia is good. —Stephen 03:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Based on what? There aren't any citations there. The fact that there is an article on the Latin Wikipedia titled w:la:Casachia is not sufficient support to meet CFI. --EncycloPetey 22:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

annodate in English? RJFJR 03:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

misspelling of flamberg, flamberge, I think. DCDuring TALK 15:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Rfv-sense - across the Alps (flagged but not listed)

This looks good to me. We need to say that it is from a Northern viewpoint - so has an opposite sense to that of cisalpine and transalpine. SemperBlotto 22:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "lacking confidence, conviction or determination"

This appears to be a case of thesaurus creep. The sense most simply is "lacking confidence", with the additional nouns adding no nuanced meaning or expansion. (The lack of conviction, in fact, is not necessarily an element of unsureness - ask any soldier if xe is unsure xe should be a soldier, as opposed to having a conviction xe should be a soldier.) - Amgine/talk 02:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, should be trimmed. (This seems more like an rfd-sense, but no matter.) -- Visviva 02:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Requesting verification for "manikin" sense. Does that sense ever occur with this spelling? -- Visviva 09:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Encarta: Dictionary

The quotation cited is from 1431, which is before the circa-1470 Middle-English–Early-Modern-English boundary, making it invalid as a citation of an English word.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not just change the L2 header to Middle English, even if there is usage in something printed post-1500? There are probably many English "obsolete spelling" entries that would probably benefit from such a change, even if they are all in Roman characters. DCDuring TALK 17:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
If we have citations both præ- and post-1470, then we need two sections: English and Middle English. Of course, the Middle English section would list the definition simply as “the” and not as “Obsolete spelling of the”.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Go nuts! DCDuring TALK 20:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Done. I'm assuming that this assuages your complain Doremítzwr. If not, please feel free to reinstate rfv, as I have removed it. If so, could you strike this thread? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
It does about the misplaced citation; however, I’m curious as to whether þe saw any use in (post-Middle) English. (I imagine it probably did, considering the fact that our citation is from Middle English’s twilight decades…)  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The English section now has three citations; are they sufficient to verify this word’s (extremely restricted) use in English?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 04:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I dunno. I see why you're asking. The groups cite seems mention-y. The 1901 cover title use seems like graphics. I'd sooner stipulate that it was still in use after 1500 than have those as precedents. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 23:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-senses (X2):

  1. To aggressively move in front of another vehicle.
  2. To be upset.
I've only heard 1 as cut off and 2 as broken up. DCDuring TALK 19:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The second sense about being upset, I have heard many times. Is it a UK expression.--Dmol 00:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Both of these senses seem OK to me (in the UK). SemperBlotto 08:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The vehicle sense is good, but the "upset" one is subtly wrong. To cut up is not to be upset; to be cut up is. ("She was cut up about it", not "She cut up about it"). Equinox 09:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, I missed that. Not sure how to word the definition in that case.--Dmol 09:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The vehicle sense is common in UK, at least. Sense 2 is possibly an adjective? I can't think of any active voice use of the verb cut up with this meaning. -- ALGRIF talk 15:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Collins has it as an adjective, BTW. -- ALGRIF talk 13:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Are we saying that the vehicle sense is "in widespread use" in the UK only, then? DCDuring TALK 00:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps xmag.png
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Strong keep for #1, cut off isn't even a synonym of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an RfV. Votes don't matter. The two senses would need citations. It appears that sense 2 is just wrong. The word is an adjective, which now appears in the entry, properly tagged. We need for UK speakers to declare sense 1 "in widespread use" in the UK or to find citations. Isn't there a UK speaker who can find such a UK idiom? DCDuring TALK 10:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense - verb. Nothing obvious in Google books for "reparationing" or "reparationed" that isn't a spelling mistake or OCR error. SemperBlotto 15:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I see two real hits for reparationing and one for reparationed, but I'm not sure what they all mean. The -ed one clearly means "to force to pay reparations":
  • 2001, J.N. Stroyar, The Children’s War (novel), Simon and Schuster, ISBN 9780743419284, page 191,
    “Money,” Wolf-Dietrich stated categorically. “Look what happened to us in the First World War. Shit, if they had won, we’d have been reparationed back into serfdom. []
and the -ing ones both take regions as their objects, so might mean the same thing, but I don't have enough context to be sure.
RuakhTALK 19:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The sense defined as "(pejorative) Islamic fanaticism, fundamentalist or fundamentalism". What does that have to with fascism politically, and what reputable sources, if any, have used it this way? (I'd question the other senses too, as SOP, but that's another matter.) Equinox 16:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

We're descriptivist; our quotations don't have to be from "reputable sources". If we ignore our entry's failure to distinguish "fascist" from "fascism", it otherwise seems to be accurate; the American Right Wing really does use these terms this way. (At least, I think so. The Right Wing might only use "Islamofascist". google news:"Islamic fascist" gets two hits at the moment, and both are potentially ambiguous.) —RuakhTALK 19:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with facsist or fascism. It is used by the U.S. "Right" because it is a dirty word, which doesn't need to be understood, it is just intended as a slur. (Although is especially effective as a deflection of noting that the present administration of the "Right" does have fascist characteristics.) Many (perhaps most) pejoratives are not literal. But I haven't heard or seen this form, just "Islamofascist". Robert Ullmann 03:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
75 Books' hits [21], mostly contributive, AFAICT ambiguous about whether the speaker meant our sense 2, 3 or 4. I wonder if senses 3 and 4 might be merged, but the greatest fault I found about sense 4 is that it defines fascist (a person I believe) as fanaticism and fundamentalism - only fundamentalist doesn't seem out of place there IMO, the others should be at Islamic fascism, if anywhere (269 Books' hits [22]). And finally - it shouldn't have too much to do with real fascism, like our sense 1 does, for that would just be asking for deletion as a SoP, wouldn't it? --Duncan 09:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't have a problem, with the definition as it stands. WritersCramp 23:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Sources: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] —This unsigned comment was added by WritersCramp (talkcontribs).
However, if you do a google web search you get Results 1 - 100 of about 24,100 for "Islamic fascist". (0.48 seconds) WritersCramp 23:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Is is really heavy sleeping or just slumber and is there really snoring involved?

The following quote speaks more for slumbering:

The squire sloomed

and slept in his chair; and finally, after a cup of tea, went to bed.[1]

There also seem to be meanings in Scottish like wilting of flowers etc.

In Dutch the word is an adjective meaning sluggish, particularly in the sense of dumb-witted. Jcwf 21:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Notes:
  1. ^ Barr, Amelia Edith Huddleston, 1831-1919 "The Squire of Sandal-Side A Pastoral Romance"

According to the online Dictionary of the Scots Language ([28]) the Scots meaning suggests light sleeping: A dreamy or sleepy state, a reverie, day-dream, a light sleep, slumber, “an unsettled sleep” for noun and To sleep lightly, doze, slumber fitfully for verb. --Duncan 12:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Used as a conjunction in running English text. 06:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

By geeks? Most people would say "or both" because it is simpler and shorter. Dbfirs 22:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
clocked out, but headword needs a noun sense. Would translations apply to the noun sense? DCDuring TALK 19:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Only occasion in which I might imagine using "inclusive or" (or its Finnish equivalent, rather) as conjunction is when reading out a logical formula in the same way as one reads out a mathematical formula (I think we have entries of the expressions used in reading out mathematical formulae). It may be hard to find a permanently archived quotation of this baby, though. Whether it merits an entry, I leave to others to decide. --Hekaheka 04:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
One way to handle this would be to write a usage note similar to that in the entry exclusive or. --Hekaheka 05:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
That seems right. I've added the noun. It is really the PoS that bothers me. I can imagine that in some geekspeak dialect this might be understood even in speech, but, in the absence of evidence, the conjunction should be deleted. DCDuring TALK 12:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Only published use seems to be written by google. Conrad.Irwin 12:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A previous RFV verified the usage of the phrase. This one is a separate issue: whether it's sum of parts. The talk page suggests that this is just one construct using write and test (because we also see there "The tests will be written"), so I think that the South African sense should merely appear under write. Equinox 12:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Where are the citations from the previous RfV? Three of the four links are dead. None seem to have been to attestable sources. Was the previous RfV properly closed?
There are at least two distinct sensess:
  1. To make a test; to design examination questions or test cases.
  2. To take a test;
I don't doubt that at least the "take a test" sense is in use, though not much in the US. We don't have the appropriate wording at write for these, IMO. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 13:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's SoP imo. It's a question for RFD afaIct. (Incidentally, I know the phrase as meaning "take a test" from older UK books, not from SAfr ones. Can anyone confirm that this, perhaps dated, UK usage?)—msh210 17:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

RfV-sense for “[a] secret essence or remedy; an elixir”. Etymologically plural, but the sense is a countable singular and the inflexion line calls this noun uncountable. Is this mistaken — in terms of the word’s grammatical, if not its semantic, function?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
This seems identical to the second sense of the singular form arcanum. Is this word properly a plurale tantum, whereas its singular uses are {{non-standard}}?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Rfv-sense 3. Another name for the Southern Mountain Cranberry. I doubt it very much! -- ALGRIF talk 18:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It’s listed in the Dictionary of American Regional English, so it looks like it exists. I find the other two sense more quæstionable, personally. If they do exist, are all the senses related, or do they need to be split by etymology?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The "stupid person" sense is easily attested as slang [29], but I can't say what its etymology might be, or whether the senses might be etymologically related. --EncycloPetey 21:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
All the farmers where I used to live in Cumbria used to call a dingleberry a dingleberry, or a winnet, and a spade a spade, or a shovel. -- ALGRIF talk 11:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang, page 55, says that the slang senses derive from the cranberry sense; I would imagine that the "stupid person" sense derives from the fecal sense. The ODMS also says that "dingleberries" can refer to the female breasts, but their citation for this looks a bit sketchy. I'd be very surprised if that could meet CFI. -- Visviva 06:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately the references in the DARE are mentions, not uses, so I don't think that's sufficient (though it is definitely worthy of note). The Range Plant Manual of 1937 may contain a use, but snippet view is not cooperating.[30] This may need to be relegated to "Etymology" if we can't get some more satisfactory attestation. -- Visviva 06:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good old "LOL". I bet you're all delighted to see this come up. I am questioning the "lots of love" expansion, which I've seen on several dubious Web sites that list acronyms (and probably copy each other, which might even be how we got it), but I have never seen it used. Can anyone find even one good citation of LOL in this way? Equinox 21:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There's the oft-repeated story (an urban myth?) of how it was mis-used in an e-mail to a widow, but this is an example of mis-use. Dbfirs 19:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
If you know people from the older generations then you'll see that it used to be used for "lots of love" a little. A couple of years ago, my mum was in her forties and a little technologically challenged; for months she thought that my sister was being very affectionate ending all her text messages with "lots of love." I know personal experience isn't citable but at least I can assure you that it is definitely a legitimate sense of the word. D4g0thur 17:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

English interjection. Not in any major dictionary I can get hold of. Usenet has a mass of baffling usages. Equinox 09:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I note the creation of the English section was an edit done on 26 May 2007, the first and only done by the editor involved. Pingku 12:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Guh?! Clearly widespread use. OK, maybe not, but I know I've heard this plenty of times. A b.g.c. search is unencouraging... maybe there's a competing spelling? -- Visviva 04:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Does google groups:"guh it's" help?—msh210 19:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I've only ever heard it from the character Amy Wong on the TV show Futurama. According to her Wikipedia article:
She uses Martian slang, which is simply American slang with altered consonants, such as "Guh" (duh) or "Shman" (man).
Her IMDB quotes page includes examples that aired in 1999 but were set in the year 3000, so it spans 1001 years, and obviously slang in the year 3000 has to be independent of a turn-of-the-third-millennium TV show, no matter how wonderful the show was, so I think it meets CFI. ;-)
RuakhTALK 00:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Ruakh, but it might be a tad premature to include etymology from the year 3000. - Pingku 15:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
My guess is that guh is the letter G (hard pronunciation) and by extension (a la rap) any of a small set of words beginning with a hard G. For the interjection, this might be 'God'. There is also the rap lyric "We a guh somewhere" (Ziggy Marley), where it appears to mean 'going'. - Pingku 15:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed.
This word does indeed exist in Welsh with the translation root. (However, it is correctly spelt without the acute accent. In Welsh, the stress is normally on the penult; if it is on any other syllable, an acute accent denotes the irregular stress — as, for example, in carafán (caravan) and casáu (to hate).)
I’ve not come across the adjectival sense of manly before; however, the word’s form makes perfect sense (as the combination of: gŵr (man”, “husband) + -aidd (-like”, “-ly”, “-ish)). Perhaps the acute accent is used to differentiate the adjective from its nominal homograph; however, I have only ever seen the circumflex and grave accent used for this purpose, and never the diæresis or acute accent.
 (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

One more thing to note: If this adjective does indeed exist (sans acute accent), then our entry for gwraidd will need to be split by pronunciation, with the monosyllable gwraidd (root) pronounced as /ɡwraið/ and the disyllable gwraidd (manly) pronounced as /ˈɡu.raið/.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've responded on Talk:gẃraidd with the results of an enlightening Google search. &mdashhippietrail 02:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
So it is used to avoid homography
As enlightening as that excerpt is, it is still but a mention, and we need use. The only usage I could find anywhere on the internet was a thirteenth-century pœem (spelling modernised). Is this adjective obsolete?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
It's in the Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru p. 1698, in this exact spelling with the acute accent on the w. The dictionary itself gives several quotes showing use of the term, but none from later than the 18th century, and none using this exact spelling. However, that doesn't necessarily mean it's obsolete, as the dictionary usually only provides quotes for words up to about the 18th or 19th century. Angr 21:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Plural form of prefix.
Not so; praefixus is not a third-declension Latin noun.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The etymology doesn't matter; the form is used.
  • 1981: Reiner Luckenbach, Beilsteins Handbuch der organischen Chemie‎ (English edition), page 1571
    The names used in the index...are different from the systematic nomenclature used in the text only insofar as Substitution and Degree-of-Unsaturation Prefices are placed after the name (inverted), and all configurational prefices and symbols...are omitted.
I get over 600 b.g.c. hits doing an advanced search for "prefices" but excluding "prefixes": [31]. --EncycloPetey 07:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I grant you that it exists; however, it is hypercorrect.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's hypercorrect, just formed by analogy with indices. It does carry a bit of snootiness, but I wouldn't call it hypercorrect. To be hypercorrect, it would have to have some degree of correctness to begin with. :P --EncycloPetey 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
So it’s non-standard?
-ex-ices is a correct pluralising pattern for a fair number of words from the Latin third declension; however, it is misapplied in the case of prefixprefices, which renders the usage hypercorrect.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have missed my final punctuation (:P). --EncycloPetey 07:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn’t; my first sentence was intended as a joke, too. Urgh! Too tired methinks…  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Given that the (mis-)use is common, do we tag it "common misspelling of prefixes" or "proscribed", or just put a usage note to point out that it is not "correct Latin"? (And do we allow fices as the plural of fix? :P) Dbfirs 21:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    We can only call it "proscribed" if we find published style guides that disfavor that spelling. We don't have to worry about additional spead beyond the words prefix, suffix, affix, and the like, just as mouse -> mice has not spread to spouse -> spice (?) or grouse -> grice (?). --EncycloPetey 21:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, I cannot find any style guide that mentions this, but I am surprised at how frequently this spelling occurs, even on academic websites and documents. The only alternative plural in the OED is "praefixa" (different spelling, and from E. BREREWOOD Enq. Lang. & Relig. in 1613). Perhaps we should just put a usage note so that our readers do not think that the "alternative" plural has equal weight. Dbfirs 09:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Doremitzwr, I think the problem is due to the absence of both words (suffix and præfix) as nouns in Latin, they are simply nonexistent as nouns, but only as participia perfecti passivi of the respective verbs. Someone from the modern grammaticists has decided to botch up this noun from the Latin participle and thus caused the mess with us ascertaining unsuccessfully whether the noun belongs to the first or third declension... The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
According to the OED, praefixvm (whence præfix and, more directly, præfixum) does exist in (post-Classical) Latin. Præfix belongs to neither the first nor the third declension; it is a second-declension neuter noun with its case ending removed. Wherefore, its legitimate plural is præfixes; conversely, if one retains the case ending, using præfixum, then the legitimate plural is præfixa. *Præfices is incorrect (specifically, hypercorrect) in any circumstance; it ought to be avoided except if one wishes to convey jocular pædantry (as with thusly &c.).  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 08:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

English: Ingrown toenail. Scores, if not hundreds, of mentions. Haven't found an English use. Might be room for Latin entry, used in taxons. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 18:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sense 2: an exclamation point (supposedly UK usage). Any citations apart from the single one given? Usage in an actual printing context would be particularly convincing. Equinox 18:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, it looks like this entry should be merged into Christer. —RuakhTALK 21:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt this can be attested in attributive use, but it deserves a shot. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 19:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The is a common noun, so it should not require attributive use; regular citations will do. It's a common style of ale, brewed by many breweries, at least on the West coast of the US. --EncycloPetey 04:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's just an ordinary noun phrase. Several varieties, brewed by several different companies, in the UK. Not as popular as it was though. SemperBlotto 08:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
But wouldn't it be India pale ale? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 23:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not principally a "common noun" or "ordinary noun phrase" in the UK, where IPA is a particular brand. You can easily go into a pub in the UK and Ha! I double-checked this and I'm wrong. Apparently, several brands offer an IPA. Around here, there's some particular green-and-gold brand, though, and I assumed that must be the trade mark that no other UK brand could use. You live and learn. Update: oh yeah, I think DCDuring is right that "pale ale" doesn't deserve capitalisation for a generic term. Equinox 01:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
You’re probably thinking of Greene King.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
It might be attestable in title case, but almost all occurrences that I've found with that spelling are references to specific products. I have made and cited an entry at India pale ale. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 02:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it at all noteworthy that the Wikipedia page for India pale ale redirects to the article at India Pale Ale? Irrespective of that, I agree with DCDuring that our main entry ought to be at India pale ale, with India Pale Ale existing as an alternative-spelling entry directed thereto.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Setting one or the other as an alternative spelling sounds like a good idea. --EncycloPetey 03:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: fringes on a blanket. This should be an alternative spelling of valance, right? Valance does not have this specific meaning, afaict. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 02:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Either that or a misspelling. --EncycloPetey 04:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Some dictionaries have it as alternative. I'm wondering whether there is some regional difference. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 15:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Or a confusion between the almost identical spellings and perhaps pronunciations. An etymology for valance might help. Pingku 17:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "To forget the words, to lose your way in a speech."—msh210 19:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this sense be at dry up, where it's missing? --Duncan 21:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Added the sense to dry up, left it, so far, rfv-ed, at dry. --Duncan 01:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Assume so. I don't see how it could be dry. Equinox 00:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it might be specific to the acting profession - any thespians out there? Dbfirs 09:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There have been some doubts expressed about this word's validity, both on the talk page and on Wiktionary:Feedback, so I figured it should go through the standard verification process. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If it fails, we have to fix the translation table s.v. faggot.—msh210 22:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
If used in Romanian (more likely Moldovan), it is a borrowing from Russian гомик, a standard pejorative term for than sense. —Stephen 13:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Not as popular as Mountain Dew. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 16:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Etymon for moxie. The OED gives one uppercase cite sort of in this sense, dated 1890. (see it here) -- Visviva 10:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The etymology of Moxie itself would be nice. But we don't have any American Indian translations of wintergreen (if the WP speculation is good enough for us), let alone one appropriate for Maine. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 10:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, the OED reserves judgment and refers the reader to the DARE, and for once the DARE entry is conveniently available. I note with some amusement that the DARE's earliest cites for moxie/Moxie qua wintergreen considerably post-date the first production of Moxie ... perhaps the berry was actually named after the drink. ;-) -- Visviva 11:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No attributive usage for this name given. --Bequw¢τ 08:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The existence of Plutarchian (and Xenophanic) is highly suggestive. -- Visviva 09:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm increasingly of the opinion that certain authors, whose works are widely known and who are frequently referred to by a portion of their full name without ever giving the full name, merit an entry for the short form of their name. I think particularly of writers like Aeschylus, Plato, Tacitus, Livy, Chaucer, Erasmus, Shakespeare, Dickens, and the like. The short form is often used as a shorthand for the corpus of their works, or for one particularly well-known work. Consider: "I was reading Tacitus last night," would be understood to mean that you were reading a book by Publius Cornelius Tacitus, most likely his Historiae, even without giving his full name. Simply having an entry for Tacitus that said "given name of classical Latin derivation" and "a lunar impact crater" would not be in the least enlightening. --EncycloPetey 02:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Just found this interesting quote (b.g.c.):
  • 2001: Jessica Martin, Walton's Live's, chapter 2, page 34
    Part of the intention in this chapter is to ask whether to call a biographer a 'Plutarch' is to pull a name of a popular classical biographer at random out of a hat of appropriate but imprecise possible compliments, or whether it confers a particular kind of commendation on Walton's practice.
So, apparently there is a tradition of calling a biographer a "Plutarch". Martin actually cites a 17th century discussion of this issue from Dryden. --EncycloPetey 02:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No attributive use given for the person. --Bequw¢τ 08:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wha’?! Why RfV this one? He’s a famous præ-Socratic!  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Because being an Ancient Greek doesn't get you a free pass from meeting WT:CFI. This one would make it as a name word. I'm sure that WP has a page for all the famous Xenophaneses. DCDuring TALK 00:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
This is the English transliteration of a Greek, given name. We include names. I will try to tweak the def a bit, to make it more in line with a dictionary. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I've added three cites that I think reflect occasional use of this as a byword for a Xenophanic thinker. Where are we on bywords? Can this now be split into a separate sense a la Robespierre? -- Visviva 07:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
After the addition of the cites the use of the given name as a byword is incontestable and thereby the article becomes justified. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I do think that we should split the two senses. The "religious thinker" sense is obviously cited at this point...although I am a little uncertain as to what its POS would be, so I'll let someone else make that split. It seems the sense referring to the specific historical entity has been removed, so I wonder if we still need three cites for the given name sense. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I restored the more explicit reference to the pre-Socratic, since no one will get “the Colophonian poet, philosopher and religious critic” who doesn’t already know who the eponymous Xenophanes is (and will therefore not need to look up his name hereon). In re splitting: the one and only Xenophanes (Wikipedia has an article on only one “Xenophanes” — no others are notable, it seems) is a proper noun, whereas the “religious thinker” sense derives from that eponym, and is a common noun (irrespective of its initial majuscule).  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"atr.use"'dget aMEGA-RASBRY4MOST USE-LES PROP[concept if ulike],EVA--user-BLINDppl!--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 16:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Perfectly good entry. One day we'll get CFI changed to "all words in all languages". SemperBlotto 16:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
But doing so may just make en.wikt a shorter WP.
As to the citation standard that has been introduced: if we permit any citation of the form "[det] [X Y] of Z", where [X Y] constitute a proper noun, then Marilyn Monroe, Jerry Rice, Derek Jeter, Michael Jackson, Judge Crater, Charles Manson, etc. will soon be in here. This would be a powerful precedent indeed. DCDuring TALK 01:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
If properly cited and explained, I think these should be welcome here. How many people now understand what Uncle Vanya means when he says "I could have been a Schopenhauer"? How many will understand it in another century? Or when some relict bit of literary criticism declares so-and-so to be "the Addison of his day"? But as with brand names, the standard should be aggressively enforced, and proper names without such citation -- that is, those that are not shown to refer to anything but their normal referent -- should be removed. -- Visviva 03:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand the value of it, but that value in one traditionally captured by encyclopedias. I think that accepting there quotes requires a reinterpretation of the attestation rules that have been deemed to apply to proper names. In effect it is a material easing of our standards. Is this justified as "attributive use" in a broader sense of attributive than we have been using? Has the consensus on how we cite Proper nouns changed over the last year or did I misunderstand the consensus? This might be a very reasonable place to redraw the line for inclusion. But how does this apply to proper names that are attestable in this way only in another language? Does it have any effect of the citation of fictional characters? I suppose we aren't doing all that great a job of getting folks to improve the quality of entries anyway, so we may as well just increase quantity. DCDuring TALK 14:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Rfv-sense: "A distinct group of objects or things"

The sense is absent in Webster 1913, Century 1911, and Merriam-Webster online. I can't remember the word in this sense. --Dan Polansky 13:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It might make sense if restricted to biology/genetics. See [32] DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 15:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
It works as a specific instance of difference, distinct from the phenomenon of difference. I've added an example sentence. --EncycloPetey 01:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably not capitalized, if it is citable. --EncycloPetey 02:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a dance competition? <confused> - Amgine/talk 02:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Moved to the lower-case spelling and found one book citation. Need two more. Equinox 14:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (English) "Used in forming analogous pluralia tantum, such as paraphernalia and Mammalia."

Two problems with this: (1) Mammalia is a Translingual word from Latin, not an English-original word, (2) the suffix added in paraphernalia seems to be -alia. Are there actually any English words formed from this putative English suffix, that do not fit one of the other two senses given? --EncycloPetey 07:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Difficult. Perhaps automobilia (car collectibles), imponderabilia (inexplicable things)? If the suffix here is -lia or -ilia then perhaps we need another entry for that. Equinox 19:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Administrativia is common on Usenet, I think. I've always understood it to be uncountable rather than plurale, but maybe I'm wrong.—msh210 20:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I would consider it plural, like news (which I think ought to have the entry changed to say as such). These examples, if they meet CFI, all sound like they justify the suffix, and would serve as good replacement examples in the entry. --EncycloPetey 05:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I notice that many of these entries would actually fall under -bilia. I can only explain this as a reference to memorabilia. 21:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

One user pointed sense 4 out as "unreferenced and unlikely". Instead of dismissing that entirely, especially as I'm unaware of that sense myself, I figure RFV would be a good idea. If it's verifiable, we should be able to get citations for it. Even if that happens, though, it should probably be an {{alternative spelling of}}. —Leftmostcat 11:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly a separate etymology, as now shown. It is very tedious to cite. Are there any dictionaries or glossaries that include the spelling? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 12:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I've given up on trying to verify the challenged sense. I found three other legal senses. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 15:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
this should do nicely. The apostilles referred to are defined by the 1961 Hague Convention, so google on apostle 1961 Hague convention will get you lots of hits. The first books hit is Black's, which should be plenty good enough for us. (;-) Robert Ullmann 16:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a related story: Cambridge_Apostles. --Hekaheka 03:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sleep? Never heard of it. —Stephen 02:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Robley Dunglison's Medical Lexicon] has the entry "CHASSIE (F.), Lema, Lippa, Glama, Glemē, Gra'mia, Lemos'itas, Sebum palpebra'lē; the gum of the eye, (Prov.) Gound or Gownde, from chasser, 'to drive out.' A sebaceous humour, secreted mainly by the follicles of Meibomius, which sometimes glues the eyelids together." and the entries "GOWNDE OF THE EYE, Chassie." and "GOUND OF THE EYE, Chassie.".—msh210 23:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: does "deflation" mean reduction of the money supply or does it mean only a reduction in the general level of prices, possibly/probably/always caused by a reduction of the money supply. (Same question applies to all kinds of flations in-, re-, disin-, hyperin-.) clear citations needed, even if tendentious. DCDuring TALK 01:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The disputed definition is "A contraction in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods." Use of the term 'relative to' seems to imply a ratio, leaving open the possibility that the money/credit supply is increasing, but the availability of goods is increasing faster. (It is not clear, to me anyway, that this would necessarily lead to a reduction in prices.) Perhaps the def should be reworded to clarify exactly what is being calculated. Pingku 11:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: insurance sense. (This might actually be an issue for RFD, I'm not sure.) —RuakhTALK 15:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sense 9 has the entirely vague quality of seeming wrong to me. I've searched for citations for it but have found nothing. It's entirely possible I'm not searching for the right things, though. It's indicated as being in the Merriam-Webster by one user but this doesn't necessarily mean it's attestable. I wonder if Merriam-Webster is simply being non-discerning with the sense "broken down", used in my experience as a past participle. E.g., The erring soldier was broken down to private for his insubordination.Leftmostcat 15:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't found any example or dictionary entry of this form for Scottish Gaelic - seems like an Irish form only. (Created by anon together with the Irish form.) --Duncan 19:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

First, keep in mind that I'm maybe only gd-0.5. Certainly not good enough to put it on my Babel. I did a quick bit of googling (for "tha saoirse") and came up with this reference and a couple hits from the GAIDHLIG-B mailing list. I don't know if they're correct. But it may be possible to come up with some better cites using similar searches. It's possible that it's simply happening by analogy with Irish, as the dictionaries are listing saorsa as the correct gd form. Hopefully that helps at least a bit. —Leftmostcat 20:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I can find one iffy b.g.c. hit; the other returns from the search were typos/scannos for scalped. --EncycloPetey 21:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The Bulgarian section must either be hoax or tagged as obsolete (if any sources are found). In the first case one must get rid of the section, in the second - tag it. In a voluminous dictionary it is shown that the Bulgarian word for marten is бялка and куна is not listed at all. Bogorm 11:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The fist has been removed by the contributor. Can we verify the second? There seems to be no dictionary of modern Bulgarian which lists this word (see above, the term is бялка). Bogorm 12:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It's listed in Vasmer's dictionary as a Bulgarian cognate, so it must exist, if not in standard language than in dialects, older texts or somewhere.. --Ivan Štambuk 16:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

gap between goals and achievements of political parties. Is this still in use? Where? Should it be RfDed? —This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talkcontribs) 10:21, 19 January 2009.

Not seeing much of this spelling. Bomb site is of course much more common.—msh210 20:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but that's just because I Googled bombsite. Googling +bombsite yields lotsa hits, I see now; can I cancel my request for verification without bothering to cite?—msh210 19:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why not. Closing. Equinox 00:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Reopening: sense 2 - Is there a figuraitve use? The example given for the figuraitve sense says "like a bombsite", which does not suggest that the second defintion is valid. --EncycloPetey 20:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The person who created the entry notes: "It was noted as a buzzword of 2008 by NYTimes." Has it been around long enough to meet CFI? --EncycloPetey 04:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't find durably archived hits from before last August; but, it was used in the British Journal of Midwifery, in an article title no less, back in September. Assuming that said is a refereed academic journal (and it does seem to be), then I believe this does meet CFI. —RuakhTALK 02:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

citations, regional? Multiple senses seem to overlap. The "adverb" and "adjective" would be indistinguishable from "-ish" in speech, so we need print citations. Is there a citable missing noun (="shit")? DCDuring TALK 12:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

New citation of this word usage:

Using -ish in a non-standard way as in "Good(ish) News from Procter & Gamble: No Ad Cutback Here"[33]

—This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 07:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC).

I can not find evidence in b.g.c. (fiction} [423 raw hits for "ish"] for the purported adjective and interjection. Most hits are eye dialect for "is" (ish#Etymology 1), the proper nickname "Ish", and the ubiquitous adverbial development of the suffix ish#Adverb, but for which I have found only 2 cites in standalone use. I'd be inclined to keep the adverb and mention the potential broader use in usage notes. DCDuring TALK 12:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Any evidence for this used as a verb? --EncycloPetey 05:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is silly. "A Team" means the 1st squad of a special forces unit or ODA (see description of ODA]) or (e.g.) a sports club. The whole point of the television series (w:A-Team) was that the members were anything but the "A Team". (I always enjoyed the show, where they would always succeed mostly by accident, at which point the leader would intone "I love it when a plan comes together!"; and the expenditure of many thousands of rounds of automatic fire, with no one ever getting hit ;-)
Might be a noun entry, but I doubt the verb from the TV series' concept has any use. Robert Ullmann 08:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Verb, sense 7 (just added by an anon.): To link (as one might do with a key or legend). -- WikiPedant 18:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Added 1 cite for now.—msh210 00:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Most Google hits seem to be either for "now ever" or typos for "however". A few real hits, but all for the same work? SemperBlotto 12:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

RfV tag since June 2007. Not cited during 9 months in RfV. We have long had nonplus. I have added non-plus which is abundantly attestable. I have not found English for the inflected forms of non plus. I have not determined an easy effective way to separate English non plus from Latin and French. DCDuring TALK 20:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

An anon. recently restored this page to a full entry. I was about to revert him, but I’m not sure whether I should. Protologism kinda looks like it could satisfy the CFI, unless there are some independence issues in re Wiktionary that I’m not considering. What do others think?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Google protologism|protologisms (BooksGroupsScholarNews Archive): No b.g.c. or news-archive hits. Two Scholar hits, but it's not clear to me whether either was in a refereed academic journal, or even durably archived somewhere. Several Google Groups hits, but all are problematic — either mentions, or non-Usenet, or directly quoting from Wiktionary or Wikipedia, or using it in a list, or by our very own Language Lover (talkcontribs). (I guess the one by Language Lover isn't actually problematic, but there's something weird about quoting our own contributors' Usenet posts. I'd really rather not do it without good reason.) —RuakhTALK 00:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to keep it, with the existing warning. An occasional visitor in Wiktionary's discussion pages might want to check what is meant with it. --Hekaheka 01:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
If it doesn't pass the letter and spirit of CFI, then it doesn't belong in the dictionary. If we invent our own words, and then break our own rules to publish them, then we shouldn't be in this business. Move it to Wiktionary:protologism if you really want to keep it. Michael Z. 2009-04-03 02:10 z
Found what I believe is a durable quote from the April 2007 issue of Prospect. (At least it is in the online version of that British magazine.) I'd say that one likely isn't problematic. No mention whatsoever about Wiki-anything in the article. — Carolina wren discussió 04:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Only one citation so far is any good. The Devil does not convey meaning, and Annabelle du Fouet is mention not use. DAVilla 06:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The 2003 use by The Devil does indeed convey meaning, in the same way that the following dialogue conveys meaning:
>I often eat apples.
That’s very healthy of you.
The above dialogue only conveys the meaning that apples are a foodstuff and that it is a healthy thing to eat them regularly; it says nothing about apples being a type of fruit, that they are about the size of a tennis ball, that they can vary in colour (usually greenish to reddish), but that doesn’t mean that the use of apple in that sentence isn’t intended to convey those qualities. If we expected the full meaning of a term to be explicit in a quotation for it to count, we wouldn’t have any entries for terms expressing complex concepts.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
In the case of apple we could get many citations in support of any attribute of a good definition. In the case of a rare word, we can perhaps get three citations in support of its existence and we can infer what it might mean. The current definition is clearly an overfitting of a definition.
The definition ("The desire to act like or be treated as an adolescent.") has at least three attributes: "desire to act like" (vs. behavior alone) or "desire to be treated as" (vs. enjoying the behavior in itself) and "adolescent". One could easily argue that the "adolescent" element is contained in the stem. I don't think that -ism or -ile are specific enough to make clear what this means simply from the morphology. Three citations would be just enough to specify one of the two definitions. The citations don't seem specific enough to allow one to determine either meaning to be correct.
There is no such term in, for example, the 1012 pages of entries in the APA Dictionary of Psychology (2006) (nor "teenism"). Perhaps it would be possible to make some inferences from the meanings of puerilism and infantilism or the meaning of adolescentile. DCDuring TALK 21:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you’ve just made all the arguments on both sides. Sentential context of use isn’t the only important context. Appeals to etymology, the patterns of meanings of related words, and the prefatory definitions of the authors themselves are all vital for correct definitions.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: conjunction. Not in OneLook dictionaries. OED? Use in law? DCDuring TALK 13:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I would gloss it as "as it were". It is in the OED as an adverb ("now rare"), which seems about right. On the other hand, many of the OED's cites are either in italics or quotes. The cites that I came across on my own were also mostly in italics (thus presumably intended as quasi#Latin): [34] [35]. On the other hand, this one isn't: [36] (on the third hand, I can quite tell what the guy is on about). For now I'd go with probably real, probably an adverb rather than a conjunction, but needs a bit more looking-into. -- Visviva 07:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure how we would expect to attest the meaning of an emoticon, but the second sense here, added, by an anon, seems off to me. Dmcdevit·t 23:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The "parsing" of the symbols is different in this case: for the cheering smiley, we are supposed to see two raised arms either side of a head, but for lol we are supposed to see the slashes as tilted lower-case letters, l+o+l. I think I might have seen this, but can't imagine being able to cite it. Equinox 23:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed. —RuakhTALK 02:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

9 b.g.c. hits, all of which seem to define the term immediately (and often humorously). --EncycloPetey 01:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The term is indeed intended humorously, and sources do tend to define it when they use it; but neither humor nor defined-ness is a criterion for exclusion. —RuakhTALK 07:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
See WT:CFI#Conveying meaning. If all supporting quotations are mentions, rather than use of the word, then we don't have support for this as a word in English use. --EncycloPetey 06:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Right, but that's not what you said. You said that they "seem to define the term immediately", which WT:CFI explicitly says is not a problem. —RuakhTALK 13:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
More important than being immediately defined, the term rarely appears to be actually used. DAVilla 07:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed used in all VMS (VAX) and OpenVMS (VAX, Alpha, Itanium) Operating Systems as a timing parameter set in the SYSGEN parameter list. It is not only humerous —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 18:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC).

The citation is fine as an example, but is it not a mere mention? I would have thought that something only being used immediately next to its definition is virtually proof of it being a protologism. I recall being beaten about the head and shoulders concerning such. That the definition is put in the mouth of a character does not make it any the less true that it does not have meaning independent of its definition in the specific usage. DCDuring TALK 20:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (Of a problem etc) Difficult to solve. - never seen it personally, no evidence in my usual suspects references. - Amgine/talk 23:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Two "ruthless problems" in Google Books: "The antitax phenomenon is an increasingly ruthless problem for schools"; "it appeared to him that the still more ruthless problem of £ sd awaited". On second thoughts, it might not mean "difficult to solve" here, but "unforgiving" (as though the problem has been anthropomorphised and made "ruthless" in the normal sense). Equinox 00:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I think your second thought is right. The two problems described as ruthless seem not only difficult but impossible to solve and thus "without pity or compassion; cruel, pitiless". Delete sense. --Hekaheka 00:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sense 2, supposed computing slang. Equinox 01:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Tag as figurative, perhaps. --Connel MacKenzie 00:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
But only if we can find at least one reasonable citation on Books or Groups. Equinox 00:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

in resolute it is said: "resolute (comparative resoluter, superlative resolutest)" and those entries are there.

However I have not found anywhere that this case is an exception of the rule: "more resolute" and "most resolute"—This comment was unsigned.

I agree these forms are rare, and the inflection lines on resolute should list the more common forms (only or more prominently). But resoluter does exist: see "I'm the little 'Heart's Ease'!". And so does resolutest: see Paradise Regained.—msh210 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: The essence or attributes of things pertaining to commerce or trade; the quality with which commerce is undertaken; and, the inherent association with trying to make a profit from commerce or trade.

Huh? DCDuring TALK 00:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The first version of the entry had:
This is defined in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (published by the Oxford University Press) as "commercial quality or nature". It also defines "commercial" as "of or relating to commerce or trade" and alternatively as "viewed as a matter of profit and loss"
So "commerciality" refers to: the essence or attributes of things pertaining to commerce or trade; the quality with which commerce is undertaken; and, the inherent association with trying to make a profit from commerce or trade.
What we have in the first paragraph is "commercial quality or nature" and a couple of definitions of commercial, all from SOED. The second paragraph is interpretation, apparently based on the supposition that dictionary entries are consistent. Pingku 17:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation.
I defined and cited a fairly obvious basic sense that definitely represents more than half of the Books usage. There may be a US legal sense related to the "commerciality" doctrine(s). There seems to be at least one sense that has to do with intellectual'/artists' revulsion at the consequences of someone's trying to make money commercially. DCDuring TALK 18:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Clocked out (6 months) DCDuring TALK 01:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense 1 -- isn't this just great + Satan? Even our one citation doesn't capitalise the "great" so I don't think it's the same thing. I suppose this should have been an rfd really. Ƿidsiþ 15:58, 8 February 2009 (UTc)

Maybe we should put the quote on the citations page for this so it doesn't get lost (or at great Satan) and delete the sense on wrong capitalisation grounds. DCDuring TALK 17:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "War game." -- Visviva 02:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

War game is a common type of military exercise. In smaller versions, different companies of a battalion are assigned to one of two imaginary sides and they battle each other using fake ammo. In larger versions, entire nations are involved. NATO war games include participants of all the NATO nations. The USSR was involved in war games as a cover for the invasion of Czechoslovakia after the Prague Spring. Very normal practice. —Stephen 05:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, military exercise -- in a sense which appears to have a consensus for deletion as sum of parts -- is a hypernym of war game. The question is whether there is a sense in which it is a synonym of "war game", i.e. where a person referring to a "military exercise" would be understood not as referring not merely to any old "military" "exercise" (e.g. noncombat training maneuvers) but specifically to a war game. Tricky to cite, but if it's real we should have it. -- Visviva 05:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's sum-of-parts. In a military context, a soldier might say to another “we're participating in an exercise next week". But outside of that, the qualifier military is necessary, otherwise the listener may think of jogging, jumping jacks, and burpees (I can't believe that's a red link—creating entry!).
Regarding synonymy, I think many or most civilians wouldn't see a distinction between war games and military exercisesMichael Z. 2009-03-05 21:53 z

I doubt that actual usage of this purported idiom conforms to sense offered. Not in OnLook references, except WP. DCDuring TALK 04:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: 3 senses. 2 seem UK and probably included in broader definitions just added (which could bear more improvement). One broader sense is included in one of the new senses, but but awkwardly. DCDuring TALK 12:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Senses 3, 4 & 5 would all be generally understood in the UK, but are they not all just particular uses of sense 2? Do we need to include every nuance of meaning? Dbfirs 15:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The two Southern US senses. Sounds a bit like baby talk to me. -- WikiPedant 05:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ma, pa, mama, papa, mommy, daddy, yeah (Welsh), nah (Welsh), pee-pee, poo-poo, do-do, no-no, so-so, go-go, oh-oh, uh-uh, la-de-da, do-re-me-fa-so-la-ti-do, bong, bam, oops, Danny, Fanny, Lanny, Granny. These sound like baby talk, yet they are widely used and (most of them) understood throughout the English-speaking world. My maternal grandmother and family used foo-foo in both senses (although mainly in the context of food), and I heard the expression/word "foo-foo" in school classrooms (Roanoke VA) and in other situations. The use of foo-foo is expressive, understandable, and logical, particularly in context. I'll try to track down written examples. Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas 14:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
This entry needs work. The unchallenged sense, though a real alternative spellings, seems to belong at fufu. The second usage example is perhaps a metaphorical use of the first, with the purported extra meaning coming from the adjective. Under another etymology there may be an adjective that means something like "poufy" that might be what the third sense is getting at. DCDuring TALK 15:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for citing fufu. Fufu (accented second vowel per Wiktionary) is the key, it seems. I believe we're dealing with several African languages that have a word with a sence that touches on fufu (accented 2nd vowel) and/or foo-foo. Use of the word in US South probably comes from African-American English. I've seen (earliest ca. 1987) in various ethnic-food stores (Austin, Houston, San Antonio, Rio Grande Valley) at least three different labels of boxed "Foo Foo" containing banana flour, yam [name], corn [maize] flour, and mixtures with these and wheat flour, tapioca [manioc/yuca], sugar, etc. Once I heard my maternal grandmother refer to a hastily made sweetened egg-white cake icing as "foo-foo", and later my mother warned me about using the word because some people might be insulted. I didn't use the word much thereafter, but it struck me wherever I heard it -- used disparagingly likely as not. Next time I see the stuff on a grocery shelf I'll copy the label as a citation. Would you tell me the best way to submit the word to be researched/commented on by Wiktionary folks? Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas 17:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
What we're doing now is likely to lead to something as soon as someone familiar with, interested in, or conscientious about it notices. I can find numerous travelogues and cookbooks that refer to italicised fufu, evidently treating it as an African word. The entry doesn't seem too far off the usage, but the last one seems the toughest to cite. It also seems to be part of Jamiacan English/creole. The poufy sense was unambiguous in only one cite. DCDuring TALK 17:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Sense 2. to be responsible for destroying or putting (people, aircraft, etc.) out of action. - Was someone getting confused with "be accountable" I wonder? -- ALGRIF talk 15:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this is like "Wills accounted for 3 of the Dodgers' 5 runs in the game." or "Toxic fumes accounted for more of the deaths than either the impact or burns." Perhaps the senses are: "deemed to be the cause of" and "causing", rather than what is in the entry. DCDuring TALK 17:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it just needs tidying up, then? -- ALGRIF talk 17:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Missing senses, too. DCDuring TALK 17:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Cited IMHO. DCDuring TALK 16:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sent hither from RFD, where it was kept on condition it's attested.—msh210 23:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Only one Googlebooks entry that I could find, and it is already cited in the article. Could not find any definitions in any other online dictionary. This looks to me like it could be a neologism, or protologism. I cannot verfy this entry at this time. Razorflame 06:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I added that book one and forgot to mention it here. There's plenty more on Usenet, though, if anyone is inclined to wade through it. Equinox 17:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Now cited.—msh210 22:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't feel comfortable passing it with pseduonyms like "VoRtEx" and "Mentski", although in all honesty those are better quotations than the other Usenet cite, which is intentionally illiterate. DAVilla 19:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In the sense that "anything" can be sexual, I suppose one might make this allusion. But it isn't the meaning of the word in any fundamental sense. --Connel MacKenzie 00:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: Two of the defining English terms are non-idiomatic and contradict the third. Does this mean head to toe (completely)? Does it mean "upside-down"? Does it mean "alternatingly head up and head down"? I don't have suitable resources. DCDuring TALK 18:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

  • To me it means er, what I would call in English ‘top to tail’, ie when two people are next to each other but each a different way up. Like if you sleep in a friend's bed, you might sleep tête-bêche so that your head is next to their feet and vice-versa. I think it's also used as a synonym for ‘sixty-nine’, the sexual position. Ƿidsiþ 19:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, apparently it also means sixty-nine position. —Stephen 20:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
So, the only sense of three I suggested would be "alternatingly head up and head down"? I saw some usage that seemed to refer to a way of packing suitably shaped items in a box. I don't think we can exclusively rely on idioms and slang English definitions! DCDuring TALK 21:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't speak French so can't comment on its literal meaning, but I have always heard that the English philatalic meaning came from the French meaning "head to toe".--Dmol 22:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
That's what our English entry shows. But we don't have any sense at head to toe other than "completely" because that is the only idiomatic sense. I don't think idioms don't make good glosses. DCDuring TALK 23:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I've found an image that illustrates one of the French senses. DCDuring TALK 23:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
French Wiktionary says of fr:tête-bêche: adverb, "said of two people (or by extension, two objects) that are laid out in the opposite direction from one another, the feet of one being even with the head of the other." —Stephen 21:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems a little long, but no one was taken with my "alternatingly" sense. DCDuring TALK 22:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The final sense = to cause something to descend to the ground; especially to cause a tree to descend to the ground by cutting it down.
It seems to me that an earlier editor had it right when he/she added this embedded comment after this defn:

<!-- this example of the tree appears to be a confusion with the verb to [[fell]], and taints the definition-->

-- WikiPedant 05:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

MW3 includes fell as the definition of transitive "fall". Etymologically there might be a confusion or something else, but it seems real. It might be nice to determine usage context, but tedious to do so. DCDuring TALK 12:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
It's in the OED also, but the "tree" sense is given separately, tagged as dialectal and specific to US, AU and NZ. Shakespeare used the general sense in Richard III: "To morrow in the Battaile, thinke on me, / And fall thy edgelesse Sword, dispaire and dye". [37] -- Visviva 17:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Same in Chambers: "archaic and US". Equinox 21:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I used to hear "I fell it" meaning "I dropped it" in Liverpool (UK), but I'm not sure whether this was Scouse dialect or just over-generalisation of "It fell". Dbfirs 15:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There are currenly three definitions for assault rifle,

  1. A rifle or carbine that is capable of selective fire, has a detachable magazine, and fires an intermediate-power cartridge.
  2. (colloquial) A semi-automatic firearm that resembles a military weapon.
  3. (colloquial) An assault weapon as outlined in various legislations in the US.

An earlier definition covered this better with

  1. Any of a group of military rifles that fires a shortened rifle caliber round from a high capacity magazine.

To this was added a usage note with ...

  • There is no widespread official definition of assault rifle, and the meaning varies among different jurisdictions. However, according to the US Federal legislation, any semi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon if it has a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following: a pistol grip, a folding or telescoping stock, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or a grenade launcher.

We need to simplify these three defs. I can't see why all of them can't go back to one. I think the 2nd one is wrong, as no one would consider a .22 gun an assault rifle just because it looks like one. (there is such a model). Nor should we have the third one, as it is redundant, and matches the first two. It's also POV where none is called for.

What can we do here to settle this, as it has been going back and forward for a while. I definitly disagree with the claim that an assault rifle needs to be selective fire, as it does not. (Wikipedia claims this also, but that's not gospel) .--Dmol 03:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Point of order: this seems like an RFD discussion.
Having separate definitions based on individual countries' legal codes is not viable; some words could end up with a separate definition for every English-speaking country. The usage note is fine IMO, but that's as far as it should go. Re-merge per nom. -- Visviva 04:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how this is so much a matter of debate. The only way to definitively settle on a definition is to require attested usage (normal Wikt standards) for each specific attribute in the definition. We are a descriptive dictionary of usage with specific standards for inclusion. We do not have official technical definitions. An official technical definition, even from a durably archived source, has no value whatsoever for attestation, being a mere mention.
Other dictionaries make do with a single, fairly vague definition. My quick review of usage at COCA shows that the vagueness accurately reflects current American usage. Much of the usage is of the form "[model name] assault rifle". Perhaps one could infer a more specific definition from the features of the leading models mentioned.
If disputants insist on a specific definition, let them produce some valid citations.
IOW, RfV any sense that doesn't seem likely to be attestable. If there turns out be enough attestable usage, fine. If we have ten attested definitions, fine. If we end up with an appendix containing 3,000 attested (or unattested?) legal definitions of assault rifles, so be it. I doubt we will find anyone to do the work to support even three valid senses. DCDuring TALK 04:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I will respectfully accept the exclusion of my definitions until i can attest them (not that i'm that resourceful). My only dispute now is the usage note. I had thought assault weapon was the term used in various US locations for bans on certain combinations of features. If not, i can believe it. I suggest that in the first mention of assault weapon here, weapon be italicized. --Leif Runenritzer 05:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Originally added by Wonderfool/Dangherous back in 2006; no citations, I can't seem to find any. There's a Wikipedia article (added by an IP address), but that's no proof of the reality of the term. (really, User:JesseW not logged in) 07:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems real (also hammocked, thus scheduled): [38] (apparently from a book), [39], [40], [41] Equinox 15:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Any takers? Noun? Caps? (Needs formatting) SemperBlotto 08:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Only used in dictionaries? The JSTOR google hit is actually a review by one Peter Behnstedt published in Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 117, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1997), pp. 598-599. He reviews The Arabic Contributions to the English Language: An Historical Dictionary, compiled by Garland Cannon with the collaboration of Alan S. Kaye, 1994.
He gripes:
The inclusion of Arabic names of towns, people and tribes is only justified if they are used as nouns, like Mecca, mocha, and fez. But why Karbala/Kerbala (p. 225)? Hashemite (p. 207), Himyarite (p. 209), Karmatian (p. 225), Maronite (p. 246) can be included, but Azzazame/Azzazimah (p. 145), Baggara (p. 147), Beni Abbas (p. 152), Kababish (p. 222), Rualla, Ruashid (p. 285), Shammar (p. 300), Shukria (p. 304), Hasan and Husain (p. 207) are simply names. If they are included, why not Ali and the Aulad Ali?
Seems like an argument for caps and "Proper noun", if it (and Azzazimah) is to be included at all. Pingku 11:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense - nitrous oxide. SemperBlotto 17:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Google Books with subject:fiction gives no hits for the sense.—msh210 18:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Added one Usenet citation. Equinox 21:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Tagged but not listed. Wikipedia article does not exist. SemperBlotto 09:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, megaannum is preferred. I recommend moving this and entering the single A spelling as a redirect. Also, I'm not convinced by the plural form as given, but I'm not sure enough to say it is outright incorrect. -- ALGRIF talk 16:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Redirects are rare at Wiktionary. The usual procedure would be to mark it as an "alternative spelling" or "common misspelling" (as the case may be) of megaannum. Angr 20:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that this is English. Japanese is rōmaji. Requesting verification. Bendono 08:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

  • It's in the OED - that's good enough for me. The Japanese entry is listed as a misspelling already. SemperBlotto 08:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
You'll need to cite it on the entry then. And listing it as a misspelling does not entitle it to having an entry. Bendono 08:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the citation. I think that it is just sloppy writing, but my opinion is unimportant and it will suffice. I have opened a formal RFD for the Japanese misspelling. Regards, Bendono 09:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"fluster". Only one mention in this sense. We seem to not have the sense of flap meaning tizzy, uproar. DCDuring TALK 20:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I would support two senses, but don't they belong under the noun flap, or at least reduced to the more general phrase in a flap? You can also put into a tizzy or create an uproar, but none of these phrases is that special. Michael Z. 2009-03-02 20:43 z
A quiet decease for this in 30 days, not a fracas. DCDuring TALK 20:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I would support in a flap -- ALGRIF talk 10:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Prtotlogism? If OK needs to have etymology removed from the definition. SemperBlotto 19:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a nonce from that one work. Some usages on Google Groups are errors for resolution. Equinox 00:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As all the quotations have quote marks around this expression, and it is using the upside-down-exclamation-mark thing, Isn't it is just a quote from Spanish rather than an English term in it's own right? Conrad.Irwin 00:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I question the capitalisation of ay at the very least. I doubt the punctuation should be present as well. Equinox 00:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it’s just a quote from Spanish. —Stephen 01:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
As well as Bart Simpson's catch phrase (along with eat my shorts). —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 01:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC).

Failed RfV in this spelling. Moved to ay caramba. DCDuring TALK 17:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Unstruck my strike.
Clocked out
  1. This seems to be Spanish because of the punctuation.
  2. Don't we exclude non-essential capitalization and punctuation from headwords?
  3. The first quotation was of Spanish dialog quoted. The other two links are dead and I cannot find the quotes on bgc.
  4. caramba is already an entry.
  5. "ay caramba", in English, would seem likely to fail CFI because ay (in this sense) and caramba are or should be senses, though it might be a set phrase.
  6. In Spanish, "ay caramba" would be even more likely to fail CFI.
DCDuring TALK 18:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Goody-goody; lacking in spirit or personality." In what sort of sentence would good mean this? Equinox 19:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As in "she was such a good girl". A derogatory use of the word "good". Goldenrowley 00:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I don't find that very convincing on its own. Do you think you could find a real usage that makes the same point? Equinox 00:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe in “such a ‘good’ girl,” but not “such a good girl”. Anything can mean its opposite when spoken facetiously, but I don't think that's really a sense of the word in isolation. I'd like to see some real examples, too. Michael Z. 2009-03-06 03:44 z
We often contrast good girl with nice girl. A nice girl is girl with a strong moral center, while a good girl lacks self-respect and a moral code and thus is easy to bed. Boys want to date a good girl, but marry a nice girl. —Stephen 19:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't recognise that distinction at all, I'm afraid. Ƿidsiþ 16:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It ought to be as easy to attest as AAVE bad (very good) if in use, though I'm not familiar with it except as Michael suggests. DCDuring TALK 17:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so “good girl” means one thing among college boys at the bar, and another from a dad to his two-year-old. But still, I suspect this applies to almost any adjective with positive or negative connotation (“bad girl” – does bad#Etymology 2 warrant a separate etymology?). Do we have any guidelines on how to handle ironic usage of words? If the former sense is common enough that it can be attested, then it should be attested, and perhaps clarified with a context label or usage note for foreign-language learners. Michael Z. 2009-03-11 06:03 z
The good thing about RfV is that, after a decent interval, no less than 4 weeks, an entry or sense that nobody takes the trouble to cite is deleted without the need for further discussion. I personally rarely (but sometimes) find it desirable, let alone necessary, to include ironic use.
It is also very tedious to cite such usage, sometimes requiring looking at hundreds of snippets to find clear ironic use. The problem is severe with unusual senses of common polysemic words like this one. DCDuring TALK 15:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't verify a English definition. It seems to come from Urban Dictionary. The word is used in a few obscure Middle English references. Goldenrowley 00:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Any takers? SemperBlotto 19:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you like it now? --Hekaheka 17:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, OK (usage notes may just be encyclopedic) SemperBlotto 17:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I had some doubts about the usage notes too, but I thought it necessary to explain that there's not only one, but many different temperature coefficients. --Hekaheka 19:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Removed rfv tag as there seem to be no objections to the corrected version. --Hekaheka 18:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: to defeat (presumably without killing). Seems dubious. -- Visviva 11:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Colloquial usage in UK. (Many Google hits in British newspapers etc. - especially sports) Dbfirs 09:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense. To look surreptitiously. Not by my lights. Other senses needed. DCDuring TALK 17:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Not surreptitiously, but searching or with difficulty. Edited accordingly. --Hekaheka 18:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The second computing verb sense: not extracting from a disc, but copying back onto it. Equinox 20:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A nice Books result, but not enough context for me to see what it means. Someone with more brains or with access to more context may be needed. Any other hits? Likely tosh as defined, but who knows.—msh210 17:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition seems wrong. The Books use MSH found seems to be a translation from w:Tertullian elsewhere translated as contribulate. It must be a translation of the past participle of contribulo (afflict much), that is "much afflicted". Many of the cites are Latin or Italian, of a humorous complication of "contribute", or scannos. DCDuring TALK 19:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The definition actually looks like discombobulated. Author's confusion? Equinox 23:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how WT:CFI#Names of specific entities could be met. DCDuring TALK 02:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, but same criteria should be applied to all archipelagoes (the archipelagoes having the word Islands in their name, and currently in Wiktionary, are listed below) and scores of individual islands that I found too cumbersome to seek at the moment. I left out Faroe Islands, because they are an autonomous area, Cayman Islands because the term has attributive use in money-laundring world as well as Solomon Islands and Marshall Islands because they are countries as well. I say, once again that our policy for place-names is not formulated in a useful way. --Hekaheka 13:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Many of the above are primary divisions of a country (especially if dependencies are considered primary divisions, which I think they should be), so would pass under Atitarev's proposed criteria. The Aleutians, however, are not. (Not that this is directly relevant to RFV, since the proposed criteria have not yet been voted on, let alone enacted.) -- Visviva 16:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
By Atitarev's proposed criteria we would not have this entry but would have at least Aleutians East Borough, Alaska, aka Aleutians East Borough, East Borough, and, possibly, Aleutians West Census Area, Alaska.
I guess I had a different reading. But in any case, the "primary divisions of a country" criterion has gotten a fair bit of support in the past --- in the sense that people are especially reluctant to delete anything that meets it -- but it would protect only Alaska and Juneau in this part of the world (and maybe Anchorage if we're being generous). -- Visviva 16:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I had read Atitarev's criteria as including all subdivisions but his words would "[A]llow regional centres - capitals of states, provinces, counties, shires, regions, prefectures, oblasts, etc.) regardless of their size", but apparently not allow the entities they were centres of. This criterion would allow The City of New York and may allow Bronx. Of course, "etc." leaves a lot of room for inclusion, many jurisdiction being the seat (if that is what "centre" means) of their own governments. Alternatively, we might exclude jurisdictions whose seat is not a "capital" and have other criteria to allow places like Anchorage.
(I don't know how this would treat districts such as those for schools, sewage, water supply, fire protection, etc)
  1. Does "primary" allow a given point to be in more than one place? If nations are "primary", then are we allowing secondary "states" and "provinces", and the "centres" of all other administrative units and regions?
  2. By what explicit criteria or policies is Anchorage to be included?
  3. Is it the official name of each allowed place that is the main entry, State of Alaska, the vernacular name Alaska, or both? City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska (apparently actual official name, though I'm not 100% sure about "Alaska")? Should we use US Census names? DCDuring TALK 18:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I expect we can say useful things about Aleutian (though that entry is not terribly inspiring at present). It seems unlikely that there would be anything useful for a dictionary to say about the phrase Aleutian Islands. But this being RFV, I guess we'll see. -- Visviva 16:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to keep this and all other geographical entities which are important enough to have established translations in major languages. I added a few examples. --Hekaheka 20:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary_talk:Criteria for inclusion#Names of specific entities contains discussion of the issue. Should matters not related to this RfV be there or at a BP discussion? DCDuring TALK 19:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense. debt rescheduling. Plausible, but never heard of it. DCDuring TALK 03:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Protologism? (Deletion of Wikipedia article is being voted on) SemperBlotto 13:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Collocation can be found over 100 years, but our entry has too many definitions (5) each of which would need to be cited. I'd bet on most uses in Books or Scholar defining the term, possibly idiosyncratically. Uses in News might reflect a broader, less precise meaning. A problem is that, a priori, the referent of corporate could be "corporations", "organised groups" (fascism), "government", even "the citizenry". It seems SoP to me anyway. I'm inclined to leave it to someone else to clean up (merging definitions) and cite. DCDuring TALK 16:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for speedy deletion, but seems real, though possibly with the wrong definition (might mean "mouth" in fact: hard to tell). See google books:"into his|her gub" e.g.—msh210 00:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's "mouth": "in my gub" OR "open my gub" OR "my gub shut".—msh210 00:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Given that all the viewable cites appear to be from Scottish authors, perhaps {{Scottish English}} would be an appropriate marker? Carolina wren 00:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've flouted convention and modified the RFVed definition while the RFV was in progress, thereby effectively failing it, and I apologize. (I will not revert, since I think I'm right that it will fail. But:) For the purpose of this discussion, and in order to keep it open (unfailed), let me state that the sense for which verification was requested is "a slang expression for 'stomach'". I have not found any clear cites for that to date. (The sense of "mouth" has not been RFVed.)—msh210 22:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on the cites this looks like the Scots version of English gob, which is certainly common in England, where I've never heard gub. We should probably link between them, and it's probably safe to copy the etymology from gob to gub. --Qef 18:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Formerly: Transwiki:Cheaster

The source is Urban dictionary. Protologism ? It would be nice to sort it out by Easter. Goldenrowley 02:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a protologism, been around for a few years at least. [43] All uses seem very mention-y, though. -- Visviva 16:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
You're right it seems legitimate so I moved it to mainspaces for Easter. Goldenrowley 21:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Striking. Equinox 00:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense "Concerning the value of an asset." I wouldn't know how to tell whether a quote supported this sense. That is, I don't know what this means, unless it is just wrong. DCDuring TALK 14:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have just removed it; it seems like whoever added this sense must have been confused about "notional value" or some similar phrase. But I suppose it's possible that someone somewhere has used "notional" in this way. -- Visviva 15:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I have less confidence in my knowledge. Actual usage has outstripped even the business/finance glossaries which, at best, seem to have definitions solely for the notional value sense. It also seems to be abused to minimise bad news by referring to unrealised losses on "mark-to-model" accounting as "notional". DCDuring TALK 16:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"A non-negative dependent variable that is roughly continuous over strictly positive values that takes on the value zero with some regularity." Books shows only quotes from various editions of one author. Scholar quotes not visible enough to me. DCDuring TALK 22:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC):

Quite probably SoP: corner solution + response. DCDuring TALK 23:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Originally RfVd in 2007 but never listed.

The current content appears mistaken, at least from fr:tante and the edit summaries. "My uncle" is UK slang for pawnbroker or fence. The sense now is aunt, as of today.

'matante' is an informal regional use (Quebec), e.g. 'auntie'. 'ma tante' would be a SOP 'my aunt'. - Amgine/talk 01:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don’t understand what you mean by "The sense now is aunt". This phrase (or chez ma tante), besides the SoP sense of "my aunt", also means w:Mont de Piété, a sort of Franciscan pawnbroker. —Stephen 20:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"A wafer cone designed for ice cream manufactured by Askey’s." If it's a brand name, I assume it should be capitalised (and perhaps not in Wiktionary). If it's a generic term, it shouldn't mention the manufacturer. I've had plenty of "ninety-nine flake" ice-creams since I was a kid, but I'm not sure about this. Equinox 03:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (finance) The process of analyzing hundreds of factors to reach a financial decision, such as when to buy or sell common stock. I'm not familiar with anything in finance called "quantitative analysis" that is not SoP. DCDuring TALK 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Price of stock at option strike price. I'd like to see it in actual use, not mention, in this sense. DCDuring TALK 00:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: Not bearing interest. Possibly a dated sense. DCDuring TALK 00:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems plausible, but Web hits suggest that "scrum" and "loose scrum" might actually be synonymous?

RuakhTALK 15:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand them as being separate terms. A "scrum" is an organised, tight pack, usually put together by the referee. A "loose scrum" occurs during play when the ball becomes free, and is pretty much as per the definition given, being open and not tight. It is part of the sport's terminology. -- ALGRIF talk 16:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Wait, but your explanation doesn't seem to match our definition, either. Our definition says that a "loose scrum" is a kind of scrum, but your explanation suggests that "loose scrum" and "scrum" are mutually exclusive? —RuakhTALK 17:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of rugger, but I used to play it at school, and as I understand it, the terms are mutually exclusive. (Perhaps with a small, grey, overlap) We need the input of an amateur expert. -- ALGRIF talk 19:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
'Pedia give us the following: "Originally there was no distinction between an awarded or "set" scrum (today officially called simply "scrummage") and a "loose" scrum (today officially called a ruck). The side awarded a scrimmage simply had one player put the ball on the ground and let go of it; there was no requirement of a tunnel, although players were required to be onside, i.e. not ahead of the ball. The most common way for a scrimmage/scrummage to be so awarded (there being no referee to actually award one, but as the rules specified) would be the occurrence of a stalemate between the player with the ball (who would declare "held") and opponents holding him (who would call, "Have it down"). A scrummage could also occur as a ruck today, in which opposing players simply close around a ball already on the ground." See also ruck. -- ALGRIF talk 15:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Tagged 20 Feb by Maro, but not entered here. Query is "Chinese" or "chinese". As far as I can see it is with a small "c" especially as it does not actually refer to the country. I find most references in lower case also. It's a bit tricky to see, however, because of all the quotes about "Chinese" snooker players, tournaments, etc. -- ALGRIF talk 16:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

def. is balderdash, IMHO. Please show me wrong. DCDuring TALK 17:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Seen quite a few uses of it as a SoP of economic (sense 1) vehicle (sense 5), which the current definition could be taken as a hyponym of, though I am doubtful of the restriction to just that subset of meaning. However most usage seems to be of economic(sense 2) vehicle (sense 1). Might be worth keeping as an entry to show how the various senses usually interact. Carolina wren 18:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"To be in the process of learning a new ability". Equinox 20:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I could “ramp up my skills” in a particular field, but to me this looks like an application of sense 1, with the more specific meaning only provided by the appended object skills in this example. Michael Z. 2009-03-16 21:30 z
I partially agree with Michael. I've added a sense and examples, transitive and intransitive, that refer to start-up or a project, which might fit the RfVed sense better. Take a look, please. DCDuring TALK 22:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"To develop a conception in mind". I don't think the example sentence is plausible and I think the intended sense is sense 1 (as one would "form an image": shape it). See User_talk:EivindJ#form_new_sense Equinox 21:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I just couldn't possibly see how you give an opinion "visible structure", when you "form an opinion" or "form an idea". When it comes to the example sentence: you're probably right ... my bad. Someone who can do better? --Eivind (t) 21:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
MWOnline has 9/12 senses/subsenses for this verb, 3 for intransitive, 6/9 for transitive. Encarta has 8. We have 4 total. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense. Five senses that seem to me included in two real senses. DCDuring TALK 00:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

At least two of these senses are clearly widespread use, RFV passed. Did you mean to RFD? DAVilla 05:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I see this has been moved to RFD: WT:RFD#cooperation. Equinox 15:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
You should look more closely. Unstruck until remaining senses resolved. 10:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

[ digger Etymology for sense meaning Australian soldier. ]

Etymology is given as - Derived from Australian Colonial goldfields terminology. The term represents the mateship of common interests and activities where most of the population were gold miners, and almost everybody was a mate, a "digger", with a common cause against the troopers, the traps, the mining licence inspectors.

This does not show how the term came to be used as an informal term for an Australian soldier, nor does it match any other definition given. I also took out the "See also cobber" from this etymology, as cobber does not match any digger definition. The closest I can think of is that both are sometimes used as a term of endearment among friends, but this is a tenuous link and is not part of either the definitions or the etymology.--Dmol 00:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

See User_talk:Dmol#digger. Equinox 00:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC) (I have copied it below, may as well keep it on the same page)--Dmol 05:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

From Chambers 2005: "digg'er n a person or animal that digs; a miner, esp a gold-miner; an Australian or New Zealand soldier; an informal Australian term of address; a machine for digging." This suggests that the stuff you removed was correct. Equinox ◑ 00:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

But the term cobber does not mean any of the terms listed at digger and this is why i removed it. I have just added rfv-sense to the etymology, as nothing in it explains the origin of the term meaning an Aussie soldier. The quote you show means we are missing a definition (has now been added), which I alluded to in the listing of RFV, but does not explain the soldier meaning.--Dmol 05:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)--Dmol 00:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I always assumed that "Digger/digger" came from Word War I due to the trench warfare which ensured years of trench digging for many young men of the period. I am also pretty sure "digger" applied equally to New Zealanders. It is certainly dated now and you're most likely to hear it in period drama cinema or on Anzac day to refer to old age war veterans.
  • "Digger/digger" can equally be used as a term of address, but "cobber" I have only ever heard as a term of address or perhaps a synonym of "mate". As in "G'day cobber" for the former, and "He's out playing with his cobbers." for the latter. I can't help with the etymology of "cobber" but both "digger" and "cobber" are definitely synonyms for "mate" with their own nuances, and both dated. — hippietrail 08:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I've added an extra sense, meaning an informal nickname for a friend. It matches the quote given above by Equinox, and i have marked it dated. BTW, the soldier sense is not dated, and is commonly used today. It is heard regularly on the news in Australia.--Dmol 07:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sense 4 (blue, with e.g. dismal are the eyes of the wolf). Not in the OED or Random House, unless this is supposed to mean "blue" in the sense of "woeful" or "depressed" (in which case it is probably already implicit in one of the other defns). -- WikiPedant 23:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Failed. Equinox 00:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This passed RfV before the current WT:CFI#Fictional universes policy. I just removed two citations that did not pass the policy's requirement (one was in-universe, one was introduced as a Star Trek quote in the text before its use). Of the remaining citations, the South Park one doesn't seem to have anything to do with the sense being cited. I haven't seen the video, but the transcript makes it seem just like an attempt to represent a scream in writing, not this specific word. This needs further verification. Dominic·t 10:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If someone has access to the script of Team America: World Police, I think you'll find Qapla' used there. Angr 11:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this it? [44] I couldn't find that word in it. Equinox 22:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but missing the ending apostrophe. bd2412 T 23:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I presume that the Team America web transcript doesn't qualify as an attestation of the spelling Qapla!, but it does serve as evidence for us of the spoken attestation in the movie. Michael Z. 2009-03-25 00:11 z
Good point. I don't think anyone doubts the spelling, given the language is artificial, so what we really want are instances where the term is used. Being spoken would be superior in some ways, no? DAVilla 23:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Why on Earth would you remove citations? Just because they don't meet the CFI requirement does not mean the quotation can't be listed on the page. 10:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, good point. We can be clear that a given quotation does not meet the CFI citation requirement; but if illustrative (and an in-universe quotation, particularly the first use, is good) they should stay. Likewise, CFI-meeting citations that don't help illustrate the term can or should be relegated to the Citations: page. There is seldom any reason to delete them entirely, unless weeding out heaps of them. Robert Ullmann 12:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense, and I wasn't thinking about it when I removed it. (But if we want an in-universe citation a more illustrative and certainly an earlier use could be found.) Dominic·t 12:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The two quotations that remain seem to indicate different use. One is a proclamation of success, the other is wishing success. Either way the single word "success" doesn't really cover it as a definition. DAVilla 23:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Not convinced - if I shout "Success!" before the match, I am wishing success; if I do so afterward, I am proclaiming it. Either way, it's the same word, and I'm not sure the nuance would justify a separate sense. bd2412 T 18:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone really shout "Success!" before it happened? Equinox 18:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
“To success!” “Wishing you success!” “To our success!” Michael Z. 2009-03-27 20:10 z
Only if they're native speakers of Klingon. ;-) —RuakhTALK 20:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "Liberal Party". A member thereof, yes, but not the collective. DCDuring TALK 08:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Weak keep. We have Labour and Labor for the UK and Australian parties. The only thing is that the term "The Liberals" is often used instead of just Liberal. Difficult to cite with so much of the adjectival form about.--Dmol 10:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Remove, I think. True, in the UK "Labour" is sometimes used to mean "the Labour Party" (as in "Labour is holding its convention this week"). But in Canada (and I think also in the UK), nobody uses "Liberal" interchangeably with "the Liberal Party" (e.g., nobody would say "Liberal is holding its convention this week"). In the case of the Liberal Party, the usual informal short form is "the Liberals". True, people will say "I voted Liberal", but I suspect this usage is elliptical for "I voted for the Liberal candidate". -- WikiPedant 04:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hence the request for verification. 10:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
'The Liberal opinion is...' is a reasonable construction here in Canada, refering to the expressed opinion of the Liberal Party of Canada. However, that's an adjectival use of a proper noun. - Amgine/talk 14:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Or it really is an adjective, meaning "of or pertaining to the Liberal party, platform, policy, or viewpoint". But that still does not establish that there's a corresponding noun "Liberal" equivalent to "Liberal party". (BTW, as w:Rick Mercer pointed out last week, so far this year the Canadian Liberal party appears incapable of expressing any opinions ;-) .) -- WikiPedant 03:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sense 3 seems dubiously close to a protologism. Any thoughts? This, that and the other 10:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange, I thought this had already passed RFV, but I don't see any history even of discussion. DAVilla 23:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
defenestrate's related sense passed RfV, though now that I look all of its citations actually use "defenestration." Dominic·t 12:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the def is wrong. It seems to be quite unattestable, and for example Chicago: City on the Make (Algren, Terkel, Schmittgens, Savage) defines the same word as "an African American". Equinox 17:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Interjection expressing exasperation". Not idiomatic in English. Translation of Hungarian? DCDuring TALK 20:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Surely it's "(I'm telling you) for the last time": a threat that more concrete action will be taken if the behaviour persists. Equinox 20:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting for the last time as the appropriate idiomatic translation of először? It seems to (literally) mean first time" per this dictionary. DCDuring TALK 23:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know one word of Hungarian. I was looking at the provided English definition; I suppose that doesn't match what I said, but it felt rather close: they both express frustration that is the result of a repeated circumstance. Equinox 23:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Noun (2): “A chain of restaurants specializing in burritos and tacos owned by the McDonald's Corporation.” Mis-capitalization aside, can we just strike this without going through verification as not meeting CFI? Michael Z. 2009-03-26 22:37 z

Yes, it’s nonsense. Cleaned up. —Stephen 02:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Nonsense? Then how do you explain w:Chipotle Mexican Grill? 20:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Including this in a dictionary is nonsense. Michael Z. 2009-03-28 21:58 z
"Nonsense" means that it's totally bogus, whereas this definition is fairly accurate in contrast, or anyway not too far off the mark. Moreover the term could potentially be included under the brand name criteria. I don't think the chain is part of the English lexicon myself, and I've somewhat confirmed that by looking through a few Google Book hits, all of which give it away as a Mexican food restaurant. If that's the case then it wouldn't pass the criteria, which were written rather tightly specifically to keep terms like this out. Nonetheless, it deserved more than the cursory glance it was afforded. 07:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(banking) The numerical designation assigned to each account for the purpose of segregating status of stock by broad purposes or intended use. Definition seems bogus. Real definition likely to be SoP "A code for an account". DCDuring TALK 00:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The intimation (correct) is that account codes are structured and contain information used to classify accounts. This seems like encyclopaedic, rather than dictionary, information. Maybe a usage note - is this enough to justify an entry though? Pingku 16:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Alternate spelling of sulphorhodamine, or misspelling? It's much rarer. Equinox 21:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If we accept the authoritativeness of the naming authorities, we could ignore our own lack of standards or misspellings vs. alternative spellings and the inclusion of uncommon misspellings. IUPAC has on-line resources here. We might want a distinctive tag like (IUPAC): for terms checked or conformance and use "non-standard" or "non-IUPAC" for others. Maybe we could have a special {{rfIUPAC}} for chemical terms, though {{attention|chemistry}} may suffice and might be better or such entries than rfv. DCDuring TALK 19:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Added by an anon, this is supposed to be some sort of corporate jargon. Seems suspect to me. Dominic·t 13:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The first 2 are just sum of parts to me. Why is the final example one word? Should we verify monkey boy or monkeyboy? Goldenrowley 05:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The second sense isn't sum of parts to me, but it may be specific to a single movie. I believe all usages of the second sense trace back to a quotation in the film The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension, specifically: "Laugh while you can, monkey boy". As such, it might be supportable with sufficient citations from a variety of science fiction sources not connected to nor quoting the film. --EncycloPetey 05:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Much loved by "weird word" lists. Can't see any usage though. Ƿidsiþ 13:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

At least the Greek origin seems to be correct. It’s a question of transliteration. On the Greek Wikipedia under el:w:Κίρκη: Η Κίρκη ζούσε στο νησί στο οποίο ήταν βασίλισσα, την Αιαία... (Circe lived on the island of Aiaia, where she became a queen...).
Not in the OED (checked today) ... The w:English words with uncommon properties list says: For the purposes of this article, any word which has appeared in a recognised general English dictionary published in the 20th century or later is considered a candidate. That is not the case - the only dictionary this seems to appear in is allwords.com ... but they pull their contents off from here. Regretfully, looks like a candidate for deletion. -Iakub 15:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
also appears in 'A smaller classical dictionary of biography, mythology, and geography' By Sir William Smith. On Google Books on pg15 01:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This particular phrase, while reasonably common in architectural engineering and construction, appears to remain a sum of parts. - Amgine/talk 14:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If it’s a common phrase in engineering and construction, keep. Is it a system that relieves hydrostatic pressure, or is it a system that relieves pressure in something via hydrostatic means? Very technical. —Stephen 22:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sense 2: Any of ship, real or fictional, named USS Constitution. The Constitution is moored in Charlestown.

Obviously, this would refer to a particular Constitution, not any one. Anyway, which, if any, Constitutions meet CFI? Michael Z. 2009-03-30 15:03 z

This raises a larger question of whether we ought to have names of vessels, particularly those that happen to be named after common nouns as opposed to proper nouns (e.g. Enterprise, which we have, and Endeavor and Monitor, which we don't). I propose that the test for inclusion of a ship by name ought to be the same as that of any other famous single object, as in the Empire State Building or Eiffel Tower. bd2412 T 23:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking of. No need to propose it, as it is the current policy in effect. This clearly falls under WT:CFI#Names_of_specific_entitiesMichael Z. 2009-03-31 05:54 z
Which unfortunately makes this particular case muddier, since the fictional Star Trek usage is a class of vessels, not a particular one. My sister informs me that the Enterprise in the original show was a "Constitution class vessel", so the term is used attributively. On the other hand, this is a sense specific to just one fictional universe. --EncycloPetey 05:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
In that case, we should use the CFI for in-universe fictional terms for the fictional sense. bd2412 T 01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Equinox 22:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

While it appears to be used solely with respect to Firefox 3, it is mentioned in online reviews of Firefox 3 by the mainstream press, and thus is likely in print as well for those sites such as PCMagazine's that correspond to a print publication. Doubtful it'll ever get used beyond this narrow field of use though, but who knows? Possibly troublesome to get three durable cites, but I'm fairly certain it meets CFI, tho barely. — Carolina wren discussió 02:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Possibly cited. Please take a look, let me know what you think. (BTW, as Carolina wren says, it appears to be used solely with respect to Firefox 3. So, I don't know how I feel about this; if it were a Microsoft-ism, I'd be clamoring for its deletion …) —RuakhTALK 02:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Two of the citations are very poor because the word appears in quotation marks, suggesting that they need to define it: this is bordering on mention rather than usage. The third looks okay, but is very recent (don't we need to span a year?). As you suggest, there are always plenty of Microsoft buzzwords (I believe the new Internet Explorer 8 has a few) that might be comparable, and comparably "unkeepable". I feel we should move the citations to that special page and ditch the entry until (and unless — which may not happen) it really catches on. Web buzzwords are two a penny. Equinox 04:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: needing to span a year: yeah, that's why I added the very recent cite. The term is only about a year old, so it doesn't span a year unless it reaches the present. :-)   —RuakhTALK 11:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind quotation marks so much. Even though a term is awkwardly set aside as such, it can be a structural part of the sentence. However, the citation
a feature called "frecency"
in particular is very weak indeed. DAVilla 07:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, good point. :-/   —RuakhTALK 22:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
O.K., I've added a new cite (from late May). Please take a look. —RuakhTALK 17:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's probably real, but we are going to have trouble attesting it. Equinox 23:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Not great definitions (the most common uses of the name is for one ship or another, not for the name of anything, and possibly not for a series of anything), comprising several starships, a space shuttle, and eight US Navy ships.

WT:CFI#Names of specific entities applies, requiring attributive use. I'll betcha at least one will remain if someone applies themself to this. Michael Z. 2009-03-31 06:03 z

  • And remember that citations for Star Trek senses must not be in-universe. bd2412 T 14:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Adjectival sense. rfv tag was added by User:Elkaar who forgot to add a section here. -- WikiPedant 19:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

delete Does not look like an adjective to me. The word "flag" only has this meaning (Of or pertaining to an admiral, commodore, or general officer) in combination with the word "officer", and we already have flag officer. Worse, it would be misleading, since there are flag captains as well. --Hekaheka 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
There's also flag rank, flag bridge, flag lieutenant, and flag plot at least, and googling those will yields sufficiently many citations. This is either an adjective or an attributive noun, but seems certainly to have the meaning specified ("of or pertaining to an admiral, commodore, or general officer"), or one like it.​—msh210 19:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a strong suspicion that one can be a flag officer and not be on a ship in the contemporary navy as well as in Gilbert and Sullivan's navy, so the nautical definition of flag#Noun may not cover all uses of this.
But I also don't see this as being an adjective, as it doesn't seem to be gradable or comparable and can't appear as a predicate, AFAICT.
I would think that an actual designated military position, like flag lieutenant, would have a rationale for inclusion parallel to the legal/regulatory one for ground beef. DCDuring TALK 20:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Re gradability et al., fine, but then we're missing the noun sense, and this should be moved. Re "actual designated military position": I don't know that flag lieutenant is the official title: AFAIK it's just a job description. I could well be wrong, but w:flag lieutenant makes it seem like I'm not.​—msh210 20:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
But the WP is for w:Aide-de-camp. One of the great things about working for the government is that your job description is almost always the subject of regulation (and therefore due process of law) and sometimes actual legislation. Ergo, #ground beef. Also, I'm not sure that there is a good way to write the nautical definition of flag so that it would adequately enable one to infer that a flag lieutenant was a personal assistant to an admiral (or captain?). All words and all that. But if it can be done, the possibly obsolete UK regs defining the position of "Flag Lieutenant" might be a thin basis for a "legal idiom". So long as we can't be seen as giving privileged treatment to academic linguists over military officers, we should be OK. DCDuring TALK 21:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps there is a law defining flag lieutenant in some country, but I can't find it at [45], [46], or [47].​—msh210 22:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
It appears to be at best dated as something official in the US (WWI). It appears as an appointment in the UK in the 19th century. We can leave it to a nautical antiquarian to enter and cite. About the other English-speaking navies, who knows? DCDuring TALK 23:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I'm going to delete it. 02:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

All three senses- there was an earlier rfv to sense 3 that did not lead anywhere. Very rare as a surname, I found 6 bearers through Ancestry.com, might be misspellings of Merton, etc. City in Europe?? Can somebody find a reliable definition for this word in any sense, in any language? --Makaokalani 14:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What about deleting the whole entry? A rare word with three suspicious-looking and unverified definitions. It can be re-entered if somebody finds a valid definition.--Makaokalani 16:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Going on with the monologue: I'll remove all definitions except the surname. If we mean to include all surnames recorded for three families (without certainty of the language statement) we won't be short of words, but rfd is too much trouble. Alasdair added one more definition as a form of Marion but gave no evidence when asked.--Makaokalani 12:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable? - but not in the OED. SemperBlotto 19:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sense 3 should be likely be kept, but at Diaglott, not at this spelling or capitalization, the others I'm largely skeptical of. — Carolina wren discussió 20:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
1 & 2 look like misspellings of diglotMichael Z. 2009-04-03 20:37 z
I'm very suspicious of the "program written in two languages" sense. Equinox 19:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Either a protologism or a neologism, and is sufficiently jargony/slangy I'd prefer to see it cited. — Carolina wren discussió 15:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like contrastive focus reduplication rather than an actual term of the sort we include. (But, I could be wrong. It's possible that it's a fixed term that simply originated as contrastive focus reduplication.) —RuakhTALK 16:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
See also funny ha-ha

RfV for third sense:

–Firstly, what is an “Organ building”?, and secondly, the definition is not at all elucidating; prospect has no suitably explicatory sense.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  • 1899, Salomon Jadassohn, Harry P. Wilkins, A Course of Instruction in Instrumentation:
    Some, and occasionally many of these pipes serve only as an ornament to the front side — "the prospect" — of the organ; all visible (exterior) pipes are therefore, called "prospect-pipes".

DCDuring TALK 18:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Then it means the front side of the organ. Is this generalizable to some sense of "visible side of anything", which is also a generalization of the building sense (sense 1)? Not durably archived, but [48] has "facade of the car" (meaning its surface). Other examples?—msh210 23:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
WNW has the more general sense which they combine with the "misleading false front" sense. They keep the building sense separate. I think we c/should have at least three senses. The organ sense does seem to have a distinctive synonym: prospect. It is less than obvious to a non-church-attending, non-musical person what the façade of an organ might be. A visual-dictionary-style drawing might help more than a wordy definition. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: door-key child? H. (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There's some evidence (not a lot) that this is a back formation from door-key to dorky, hence a dorky kid becoming synonymous with a latchkey kid. Needs further investigation before eliminating. -- ALGRIF talk 14:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
clocked out DCDuring TALK 09:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Removed the sense. H. (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

avoiding as a noun, "the action of avoiding". RJFJR 16:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

>100 b.g.c. hits for "avoidings". Most present participles seem to have become attestable nouns. Sometimes there is a word I'd prefer (like "avoidance"); sometimes not. This one has been used by Sidney and Carlyle. DCDuring TALK 20:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that the w:gerund? If we do this, then we add a noun heading for the gerund of every single English verb, don't we? Anyone know if the gerund is always identical to the present participle? Michael Z. 2009-04-07 22:45 z
Sure, it's just a gerund. No dictionary lists them separately. -- WikiPedant 23:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
We already have hundreds, many with their plural forms. Most English dictionaries don't have entries for inflected forms generally and it has long been policy and practice here to have entries for inflected forms. Not all gerunds are actually attestable as nouns, so there is nothing automatic about having one for each verb (let alone its plural). Nothing in WT:CFI would lead to their being omitted. This is RfV anyway, so only attestation is germane. If we feel they ought be excluded, we should start a BP discussion preparatory to a proposal and vote. DCDuring TALK 00:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was going to make the point about us already having hundreds. The main issue in terms of dictionary entries (or perhaps I'm just coming from a Scrabble viewpoint) is whether they can be pluralised. I expect almost everybody would agree that beatings is okay but defragmentings is not. As DCD suggests, it has to come down to attestation. Equinox 01:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd bet against even "defragmentings", there being no perfect substitute. DCDuring TALK 02:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
defragmentations is a perfect substitute for me: it's the plural of the action or process of defragmenting. Perhaps debatable, but I don't personally have a feeling for the ing being different from the ion. Equinox 02:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sense 2, which reads "A master of integration, who knows enough from many learned trades and skills to be able to bring their disciplines together in a practical manner; a polymath; a renaissance man." I'm not familiar with this distinct sense (although it clearly overlaps a bit with sense1) and find no support for it in the OneLook dictionaries. -- WikiPedant 23:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

New entry from IP. Couldn't find any evidence myself that this was ever more than a dictionary word, so bringing here. — Carolina wren discussió 00:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don’t know the word either, but Spanish for cough is toser, Latin tussire. So perhaps it’s a technical medical term? —Stephen 09:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't go so far. English itself has antitussive.—msh210 20:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense Passion flower - is meant to be a sex position, so could be fun to verify. A useful link is The Sex Bible (which everyone should own). --Jackofclubs 16:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably shouldn't be capitalized either. --Jackofclubs 16:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Verb: "to undergo a backlash". I thought it was more the opposite: to cause or set off a backlash. Equinox 21:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. One might say "His scheme backlashed on him". Dbfirs 07:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Right, I think. DCDuring TALK 10:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

[ nosebleed seat sense 2 ]

Sense 2 of nosebleed seat

2 {{idiom}} A seat right at the front of the main stage.

I'm seeing this everywhere as LaserJet, a capitalised Hewlett-Packard trademark — not as an adjective or in lower case. Equinox 21:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Two of the quotations have extended the meaning, but the third is just a miscapitalized brand name. I have heard the same in spoken use. If it does pass CFI, I would consider it a rare mistake and label it non-standard, as well as trademarkMichael Z. 2009-04-10 22:16 z
Which ones? DCDuring TALK 22:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The first two are using laserjet as a synonym for laser printer. LaserJet is HP's trademark, so obviously the Samsung and other laserjets quotation doesn't intend to refer to HP LaserJets. I'd like to see the 1994 quote in context, but it's clearly making the same mistake, and it's been fixed or removed in the 10th edition, available for online preview[49] (it also doesn't agree in number, so I'd like to check that). I really hope this doesn't pass CFI. Michael Z. 2009-04-10 22:59 z
Eactly. I believe that "laserjet" is commonly used to mean "laser printer". That is what I have defined as a noun. I believe that it usually used attributively. DCDuring TALK 01:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Cited as lower case noun. I'll leave it to someone else to find evidence of true adjectivity beyond attributive use of the noun. DCDuring TALK 22:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Passed in noun sense, changed to rfv-sense for adjective. DAVilla 18:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Not passed – the 2009 citation refers to HP's printers, which are branded LaserJet. It is a typo or editing mistake, and not a clear citation supporting the generic use of the term. Michael Z. 2009-04-20 17:18 z
The rfv was for the adjective. It is the unchallenged noun that has been cited. I doubt that anyone could cite predicate use or comparative/superlative/graded use. But perhaps someone will. I don't see how one could be certain about the specific usage instance being a mistake. Was it subsequently corrected by author or publisher? DCDuring TALK 17:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
If it may be a mistake, then it's not a clear qualifying citation for CFI, is it? Shall I post another RFV for the noun sense then? Michael Z. 2009-04-20 19:07 z
Anything might be a mistake. The text is presumed correct. In this case a plain reading does not suggest any obvious error. Put in an RfV for the noun if you wish. DCDuring TALK 19:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
A plain reading suggests to me that the short article is poorly edited, using ink jet cartridges, inkjet printers, laser printers generally, and laserjet printers specifically for HP's LaserJets.
Filed at #laserjet (n), below. Michael Z. 2009-04-20 20:18 z

Rfv-sense: "including or containing a mixture of diverse elements or styles; mixed". I don't find this in major dictionaries. --EncycloPetey 18:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think he may be referring to the common usage, "I’m/he’s an ecumenical ___", as an ecumenical abuser (who abuses both sides, both parties, both groups equally). Synonymous with "equal opportunity" (as an equal-opportunity abuser). —Stephen 00:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

[ patronage as a verb? ]

patronage as a verb? RJFJR 19:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "Any of the fictional ring-shaped wormhole-based devices used for interstellar travel in the Stargate universe." Needs citations independent of the Stargate universe. DAVilla 04:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Easy enough to search for cites before the move debutedMichael Z. 2009-04-19 01:11 z
As long as you can show that they're ring-shaped. DAVilla 03:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

otto of roses calims to be a variant of attar of roses. To me it looks like a really bad spelling by someone who doesn't know what attar is. I'm not even willing to consider it a common misspelling without attestation. RJFJR 19:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems like SOP, since otto is an alternative spelling of attar. —RuakhTALK 03:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  1. {{slang|derogatory}} A homosexual person of the goth or emo subculture.

Attestations meeting CFI? RJFJR 20:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

One, to start.msh210 01:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

third person sing. verb: sometimes crescendoes or only crescendos? (Google had some with the es but about 10 times as many with just s). RJFJR 17:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't checked Google (or elsewhere), but the stats you cite seem to answer your question: Both.—msh210 17:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure that the hits you saw were for the third-person singular present active indicative form of the verb, and not for the plural of the noun? Suffixing -es to <o>-terminal words is pretty common in English (e.g., mottoes, potatoes), but that’s not the case for the third-person singular forms, which are almost without exception formed by the suffixation of -s (the exceptions are a few irregular verbs, like be and wit, and archaic forms which use -(e)th). As a verb form, *crescendoes would either be the third-person singular form of a verb *crescendoe or a non-standard third-person singular form of crescendo. (IMO, unless one uses the superior crescendi, crescendoes makes more sense than crescendos as the plural of crescendo because of its pronunciation, which ends in /—əʊz/ rather than /—ɒs/; the conflation of the two pronunciations of <os>-terminal words (the aforementioned /—ɒs/ — usually singular — and /—əʊz/, usually plural) is what leads to words like *kudo, erroneously back-formed from the properly singular kudos — correctly pronounced /ˈkjuːdɒs/ but often mispronounced /ˈkuːdəʊz/.)  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "Ornamental covering for a horse". Al dictionaries I've checked say this is trapping, not trapper. --EncycloPetey 18:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OED has trapper, Obs. exc. Hist., “A covering put over a horse or other beast. . . ; trapping; housing”, with citations from the 1300s to 1902. Michael Z. 2009-04-21 19:33 z
See some examples of this usage in print. They are easy to find: The wars of the Crusades, 1096-1291 by Terence Wise, Transactions - Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society by Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, The seeing stone by Kevin Crossley-Holland, Harlequin by Bernard Cornwell, ... Donama 07:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"A toy soldier or other human figure made from tin." Isn't this always a tin man? Equinox 02:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I found 5 distinct hits on COCA (20 quotes in all), but they were all either the Tin Man from Oz or an allusion to him, and mostly Tinman, not tinman. — Carolina wren discussió 23:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 00:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

English, supposedly. DCDuring TALK 16:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably a sort of typo or misspelling of undistinguished. —Stephen 11:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
distingued exists in Middle English. distingué is French, often used in 19th-century English works. distingue#English seems to exist in English. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Distingue is an obsolete verb synonymous with distinguish according to the OED; the purported meaning of undistingued logically follows thence. I found one Google Groups citation for this term, which I added to Citations:undistingued; Google Books’ only search result seems to be German; 0 via Scholar and 0 via News; this term may be verifiable if a couple of the hits yielded by the Google Blogue or Google Web Searches turn out to be durably archived.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I have done a crude Middle English entry for [[distingue]] because the OED quotes predate 1500. DCDuring TALK 00:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I note that Wiktionary is the root source of most Web hits for "undistingued". Morphological plausibility does not imply usage. DCDuring TALK 00:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis variety. DCDuring TALK 19:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely can be cited from Usenet. I might dig something up later. Equinox 22:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't look citable today! I suppose I must have been looking at Google Groups generally and not Usenet, which has one (and it's embarrassing to cite because it seems to be a personally-identifying abuse thread). Equinox 09:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  1. Perhaps it's granddaddy purp.
  2. Perhaps purp is citable as a marijuana variety with more ease? DCDuring TALK 10:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't verify it either - deleted SemperBlotto 16:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[ new game+ ]

Can anyone cite it? Equinox 22:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Chrono Trigger, 1995, SquareSoft. CyberSkull 23:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
We need something meeting WT:CFI: probably three such separate citations. Equinox 23:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
CyberSkull 01:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not now and has never counted for attestation. DCDuring TALK 10:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
There are some books using the term "new game+", but not enough. -- Prince Kassad 12:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't pointing to Wikipedia, I was citing the games themselves. CyberSkull 04:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Square Co.. Chrono Trigger. Super Nintendo. (1995)
  • Square Co.. Parasite Eve. PlayStation. (1998)
  • Square Co.. Vagrant Story. PlayStation. (2000)
Cited. If others worry about the non-independence of the citations from November 2006 and October 2007 (both of which quote the magazine GameAxis Unwired), then consulting Google Groups Search shows that there are clearly enough examples of use for this term to satisfy the CFI.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say I was worried about the independence. It's the same author, so they're outright not independent. Another citation as you mentioned would be good. DAVilla 11:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I've moved it to New Game+ --Jackofclubs 13:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, but, FWIW, new game+ is more common than New Game+ on Google Groups, and New game+, newgame+, Newgame+, and NewGame+ also exist as spelling variants; they probably all deserve entries.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


  1. Any dark or depressing era, characteristic of malice, oppression, war, poverty, suffering, etc. Opposite of golden age.
  2. A time of poor or controversial progress or achievement in a particular field, as opposed to golden age.

Both seem to be rare figurative use of the classical w:Ages of Man. This is in contrast to the much more common golden age. DCDuring TALK 10:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably merge them and put (figuratively). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

See also #laserjet (adj), above.

The 2009 citation[50] uses “laser printers” generally, and “laserjet printers” specifically for to HP's laser printers, which are branded LaserJet. It is a typo or editorial mistake, and not a clear citation of this term for “laser printer” generally. Michael Z. 2009-04-20 20:17 z

It also appears to be a blog posting[51], cited without page number of any print publication. It's not clear that it qualifies as an attestation in permanent media. Michael Z. 2009-04-20 20:31 z

The 2004 quote[52] also lacks a print citation. Michael Z. 2009-04-20 20:36 z

Rfv-sense: "On the far side of a continent." Really? DCDuring TALK 19:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 00:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This may not be an overly exciting topic, but according to our entries grotto is a small cave and covern a large cave. [www.dictionary.com] is less explicit saying that grotto and cavern can be synonymous. Which is right? --Hekaheka 07:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

From OED it seems like grotto being a hyponym of cavern:
  • grotto: 1. A cave or cavern, esp. one which is picturesque, or which forms an agreeable retreat. 2. An excavation or structure made to imitate a rocky cave, often adorned with shell-work, etc., and serving as a place of recreation or a cool retreat.
  • cavern: A hollow place under ground; a subterranean (or submarine) cavity; a cave.
However, OALD just says (like our entries) "a small cave, esp one that has been made artificially" for grotto and "a cave, especially a large one" for cavern. What seems certain is that cavern has wider usage. --Duncan 14:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
COCA counts: cave 6,434; cavern 830; grotto 381.
I think both are right. Synonyms are rarely exact. DCDuring TALK 15:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I've added a sense to grotto of - A Marian shrine, usually built in a cavern-like structure- which is the common meaning of the term in Ireland. I'm not sure if this is the only place it is used this way, and haven't tagged it with Ireland yet. Anyone know if this meaning is used elsewere. --Dmol 01:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Irish sense certainly understood in rest of UK, though we would probably associate it with Ireland. Cave is a general term. Cavern implies large. Grotto implies small or man-made. Dbfirs 07:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
"grottoes" would be a recognised term especially among Roman Catholics. See w:Grotto? DCDuring TALK 19:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations for workstrand: a project of work? RJFJR 15:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Like w:workstream? DCDuring TALK 15:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems like project management jargon. Near synonym/hypernym: subproject. Scholar seems most likely source. I'll leave it to someone who has access. DCDuring TALK 15:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Unsure whether quotes are "durably archived". Seems to be in the news because of big UK IT study, which uses the word several times. DCDuring TALK 15:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen this anywhere other than the Internet, only чӑваш чӗлхи. Is it attestable? -- Prince Kassad 19:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The admins on the Chuvash Wikipedia use the form чăваш чĕлхи and say that the reason is that this is what almost everyone uses. Many of the non-Slavic languages of the old Soviet Union often or usually used certain Roman letters together with the Cyrillic alphabet to fill in for letters that Cyrillic lacked. The Unicode Consortium has newly provided them with special Cyrillic letters, but they have been slow to adopt them. The Cyrillic counterparts to these letters are brand-new and most people in those regions still do not have fonts that have them, even if they had the special keyboards. I have noticed that this is gradually changing. Four years ago, the Cyrillic чӑваш чӗлхи was virtually nonexistent; today, Roman чăваш чĕлхи has 15,700 Google hits, while чӑваш чӗлхи has 23,300. So the Cyrillic is catching on, at least with this language. Some other languages, such as Chechen, have been much slower to change their special Roman letters to Cyrillic ones. —Stephen 17:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have noticed, most of the Google search results using the Cyrillic letters are only databases, and not actual Chuvash webpages. I myself don't know how to deal with this situation (especially as it affects multiple languages), but there should be a solution that works well for everyone. -- Prince Kassad 17:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I just now noticed that. All the Google hits that I see using only Cyrillic are databases. All the Chuvash text pages use the Roman letters. So it would seem that the Cyrillic letters still have not caught on. I think the only way to deal with it is what we have done, to have both ă, ĕ, ç and ӑ, ӗ, ҫ. But if we have only one, then prefer Roman ă, ĕ, ç, since that is what people use. It’s the same as with Spanish ch, Croatian nj, and Dutch ij. There are special Unicode characters newly provided, but nobody ever uses them. People write them separately. —Stephen 18:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
My idea is to use the Cyrillic versions, but provide redirects with the Latin letters. This prevents needless duplication of entries. -- Prince Kassad 20:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the redirect, but I think it should redirect to the forms that are in standard use. This would mean that Serbocroatian words with nj -> nj, lj -> lj, Dutch words with IJ -> IJ, ij -> ij, but French oe -> œ (œuf). And then Chuvash words with ӑ, ӗ, ҫ -> ă, ĕ, ç. If it ever comes to pass that the Chuvash change the alphabet, it will be very simple for us to switch the direction of the redirects. —Stephen 20:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh yay, here comes the Latin vs. Cyrillic arguing again, which I wanted to avoid because we have different opinions on that subject. -- Prince Kassad 21:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
We seem to be talking at cross purposes. This question about the Chuvash is about Latin vs. Cyrillic. If you don’t want to talk about it, why did you start the question of чăваш чĕлхи in the first place? Chuvash and a number of other languages that use the Cyrillic alphabet also use certain letters from the Roman alphabet. There is a long tradition of this and for good reasons. But if you want to avoid the subject, then there is nothing to be said on the subject of чăваш чĕлхи. —Stephen 21:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Chuvash and a number of other languages that use the Cyrillic alphabet also use certain letters from the Roman alphabet - this might be what the Internet community is doing, but historically it is wrong. ӑ and ӗ were derived from Cyrillic а and е with the addition of a breve, in a similar manner to й. ҫ is also a modification of Cyrillic с, and does not originate from ç. WT:CFI dictates the use of Cyrillic letters, as these are the only ones that can be attested in printed sources. -- Prince Kassad 22:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
It’s not wrong historically. It’s only since the advent of Unicode that Roman e and Cyrillic е became fundamentally different symbols, or Arabic ى and Persian ی became different letters. Until about 2000, Arabic and Persian ى were the same, just as English and Spanish e are the same. In a given typeface in the days of metal type, a Roman e was also a Cyrillic e in a house that handled both scripts. A font manufacturer would create a Roman helvetica typeface and take the same e to suppliment the Cyrillic helvetical counterpart. Only the letters that were actually different were actually different. A Roman B was a Cyillic В, but letters such as г, д, з, ж had to be manufactured specially for each Cyrillic font. Until about 2000, typographers mixed and matched Roman and Cyrillic letters that were identical, and it was the letters of different typefaces that could not be mixed. And it is not just the Internet Chuvash community that uses ă, ĕ, ç, they were using ă, ĕ, ç in the days of metal type and in the days of Compugraphic film font technology, because as long as the letters were the same typeface and point size, they were the same letters. Only now have they been differentiated as though they were not similar at all, and this has so far not been completely accepted by users. If they created a single digraph for English sh , ch, gh, and th, they would only be used by a small number of oddballs...the rest of the English-speaking world would continue to use separate letters. In the same way, the Dutch write ij separately, the Croats nj separately. They don’t need or like the special Unicode symbols that were offered to them. And the Chuvash have not accepted ӑ and ӗ. Chuvash Wikipedia uses the Roman letters and always has. Chechen Wikipedia uses Roman I, as does Avar and others. What it means is that they consider ă, ĕ, ç to be Cyrillic today just as they have considered them to be Cyrillic for centuries past, that ă, ĕ, ç are the letters that the Chuvash use and have been using for decades. —Stephen 22:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The question now is what the goal of our dictionary is. Either we try to be be technically correct and use the characters we're supposed to use Unicode-wise, or we decide to be a service to the readers and leave out characters which may have low font support. -- Prince Kassad 16:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
A similar issue comes up with traditional Hebrew punctuation; for example, Israelis usually type English apostrophes instead of Hebrew geresh-es, but conversely, an Israeli restaurant whose name ends in ־׳ס (-'s) will use a geresh on its signage. In other words, Israelis generally treat the geresh and apostrophe as one character (albeit one that looks a bit different online, א', than in print, א׳), but Unicode treats them as separate. (For that matter, I suppose the same issue comes up in English, with ASCII 's online vs. non-ASCII ’s in print.) I'd be interested in a general solution, if one is possible. —RuakhTALK 18:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a living language, and we need to serve its readers and writers. On the other hand, Cyrillic e and a with breve have been in Unicode since version 1.1 (1993), so maybe these folks are not using Unicode, rather they might be restricted to some other character set's repertoire for compatibility. Are other newer Cyrillic code points used online, like Ç and Ӳ?
We should probably have entries from the one form redirected to the other. If the standardized Unicode spelling displays correctly on most computers, then let's use that for main entries.
But folks, please let's not confuse the language with technical methods for representing it. Whether you use code points from the Latin or Cyrillic block, you are still spelling the same word with the same letter. These are not alternate spellings, they are different ways of representing the same spelling.
Funny how so much work has been put into the Universal Alphabet, but Unicode still gets used and misused like metal type. Michael Z. 2009-04-26 19:16 z
Chuvash people use ӳ online, due to lack of a Latin alternative. ҫ is used by Bashkirs for the Bashkir language. Latin Ç is not an acceptable alternate for them (ҫ needs to contrast with ҙ). -- Prince Kassad 19:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I face this problem repeatedly when dealing with Soviet languages. Especially with Ossetian ӕ / æ. So, let's continue the discussion and reach a consensus. While I agree with redirecting entries from Cyrillic to Latin or vice-versa, I don't see what can be done with translation tables. Any ideas? --Vahagn Petrosyan 11:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
There's the alt= parameter for {{t}} which we can use to show the user the Latin version but silently link to the Cyrillic one. -- Prince Kassad 18:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A quad, or quadrat, is a metal object, and there is no question of it being condensed, expanded, or altered in width.

The usage notes (and the ones under em space and en space) imply a second sense of quad “in electronic publishing.” But quads are not used in phototypesetting or digital publishing, and today's designers don't know what they are. Yes, the Unicode standard has named two characters after the em quad and en quad, but these are not used in publishing, and I doubt that their names are attested per CFI. Some publishing systems do have distinct quad left (align left) and quad right (align right) controls, named after the distinct verb sense, as in to quad out a line.

  • OED (draft 2009) puts the quad “[i]n letterpress printing,” and calls it “now chiefly hist.
  • M–W: “a type-metal space that is one en or more in width”[53]
  • RH: “a piece of type metal...”[54]
  • AHD: “A piece of type metal...”[55]
  • Webster's Revised Unabridged: “A block of type metal...”[56]
  • Monotype, Fonts.com Glossary, s.v. em space: “A space equal to the measure of the em at a given point size. In composition with metal type, it was created by the em quad, a block of type that was less than type high so that it would not print. . . . Em quad is a synonym”;[57] s.v. quad “See em space, en space.[58]

So, if the sense of electronic quads can be attested per CFI, then can we also find a reference supporting the encyclopedic discussion of the difference between quads and spaces? – at best this seems encyclopedic and non-defining, but the facts look arguable to me. If the sense can't be attested, then let's remove the usage notes about it. Michael Z. 2009-04-24 02:34 z

At least two Microsoft Press books include this sentence: "Fonts use a break character called a quad to separate words and justify text." Equinox 18:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
And this has been copied to a few other websites. It seems to be related to the typographic quad, but I can't find another reference to this precise sense. A fuller quotation:

The blank character is the first character in the Windows character set. It has a hexadecimal value of 0x20 (decimal 32). . . . Fonts use a break character called a quad to separate words and justify text. Most fonts using the Windows character set specify that the blank character will serve as the break character.

0x20 is the regular space, corresponding to Unicode U+0020. So in this context (handling fonts at the program code level?), the regular space is usually the “quad.” Or maybe it's a mistake.
Also confirmed that the Unicode characters for em quad and em space are equivalent and identical:

U+2003 EM SPACE, also known as the “em quad,” is a space one em wide. . . . U+2001 EM QUAD was a mistaken duplicate encoding of the same thing and now has a singleton canonical decomposition to this character. (Gillam 2003, Unicode Demystified)

\quad is a command in TEX digital typesetting, representing “a quad space”, where \enspace, \quad, and \qquad (repr. en space, quad space, and two quad spaces) have identical properties, corresponding to letterpress quads, contrasting with the several smaller word spaces which expand in justification. “Note that \quad, \qquad, and \enspace have no stretch and shrink associated with them.” (Clark 1992, A plain TEX primer; see also the accompanying table) Michael Z. 2009-04-25 02:42 z

Watch out for scannos for thirteenth. Equinox 18:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Especially on Fridays. Pingku 18:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
But now I recall that w:Bilbo Baggins famously celebrated his eleventy-first birthday. Pingku 20:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 00:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Meaning overpowered in an MMO (of an item or player perhaps?). Equinox 18:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps to clarify; an example is the MMORPG World of Warcraft. Within this game, it is commonly thought that the race Night Elf with the class Druid is "overpowered," simply meaning their skills are significantly superior from the beginning. Using World of Warcraft slang, a sentence in the discussion of this view could sound "nerf drewds r OP," 'translates' into "Night Elf Druids are overpowered."

Rfv-sense: Definition seems implausible, having next to nothing to do with any plausible sense of branding. DCDuring TALK 22:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeesh, corpspeak. The definition should be labelled business or buzzword, if it is a good definition at all.
I think what it means is branding, “establishing a brand's identity among a market group”, from brand 3, 4, & 5, aimed at the staff of a company (internal 4). I call it SoP, but possibly includable because the sense of the parts is restricted to a specialized subject area. Michael Z. 2009-04-25 18:02 z
I now see how it is used and have seen worse: Nation branding], which includes "internal nation branding". DCDuring TALK 18:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of star name entries. Do any of them meet CFI? -- ALGRIF talk 16:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Proxima Centauri is since 2006 see History of Proxima Centauri. Proxima Centauri 16:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sirius is more often called by that name and less often called Alpha Canis Majoris. Alpha Centauri Beta Centauri and Proxima Centauri are most often called by that designation.

WT:CFI#Names of specific entities applies. Is there any reason not to RfV most of the capitalized entries from Category:Stars, as well as the non-alphabetics starting from ٭ and Michael Z. 2009-04-25 17:16 z

As I see it if Sirius, Canopus, Procyon, etc stay Rigil Kent should stay. If Rigil Kent stays Alpha Centauri should stay because the star system is more often known by that name. Proxima Centauri 17:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Each entry is included on its own merits; that's why we post individual RfVs. That said, can you point out even one star name entry which is attested to meet WT:CFI#Names of specific entitiesMichael Z. 2009-04-25 17:26 z

I don't know what your criteria are. I'm off to some other wiki where I'm valued. Proxima Centauri 17:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess we can't really discuss this productively if you won't read the paragraph in the guidelines that I just linked to. Good luck. Michael Z. 2009-04-25 17:47 z

I'm sure at least a few must be includable. I seem to remember Poe or Lovecraft referring to some quality of Algol (al ghul, the ghoul star). Michael Z. 2009-04-25 17:52 z

According to my copy of Chambers, Rigil is another name for Alpha Centauri, and is cognate to Rigel (the bright blue-white star in Orion). The connection is from an Arabic word (of course), rendered in Chambers as rijl, meaning 'foot'. (Rigil appears in a foot of the Centaur, and Rigel appears in a foot of Orion.) Clearly there are rich pickings for Wiktionarians in star names. :) Pingku 18:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on our willingness to include gazetteer entries, I think it is quite revealing of our Earth-centric bias that we have singled out this class of proper nouns for RfV. And what about all the excluded or offensively defined adjectives, like Sirian, Mercurian, et al? After the photon belt hits in a couple of years and we need intergalactic assistance, don't come crying to me when they see all this evidence of our narrow-mindedness. DCDuring TALK 18:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, watch your language! You make it sound like we're all a bunch of dirty earthists. I'm not even from this planet. Michael Z. 2009-04-25 20:44 z

Watch it Earthlings! I'n from Proxima Centauri 02:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC).

It says "Cite, on the article page, the word’s usage in a refereed academic journal.". Sounds like it would be easy to find all the mentioned star names in some Astronomy journal? Whats the problem? Mutante 20:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

These are proper nouns. We only include them if they become part of the language independent of their proper referents. Please see WT:CFI#Names of specific entities for the requirement. Michael Z. 2009-04-25 20:41 z
What about our gazetteer proper nouns? We don't seem to be interpreting WT:CFI#Names of specific entities that way. See Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Rostov-na-Donu. DCDuring TALK 00:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Apotentially useful principle has come to mind. When I step outside on a clear night, I can see many of the referents for star proper nouns. I can't do that with most proper nouns. I think that these proper nouns refer to things people can see for themselves from their own homes merits consideration. --EncycloPetey 02:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
When I step out, I can see a 1970 Thunderbird, about a hundred American elms, my street, a couple dozen buildings including several named ones, and sometimes my mom. Let's leave my mom out of the dictionary.
More specifically, the proposal would potentially add entries for multiple names for the 9,110 stars in Yale's bright star catalogue, including HR 4241, also known as HD 94083, SAO 27809, or BD +53 1439. I think we should articulate any new principles for CFI very carefully. Michael Z. 2009-04-26 15:07 z
When any person in the Northern Hemisphere steps out on a clear night, any of those people can see those stars. Only you and a handful of people can see a 1970 Thunderbird, your street, etc. Note that American elm, building, street, and mom are all valid dictionary entries and are not proper nouns. --EncycloPetey 19:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Quite right. So does star meet our criteria, but not HR 4241, and Alpha Centauri still awaits three durably-archived attributive quotations.
I'm open to suggestions for new principals, but I don't see a clear relationship of this to our mandate or method (we have many definitions of things forever unseen). There seems to be some agreement that some proportion of proper place names belong, but we haven't figured out why. Our CFI is based on only lexicographical principles, and maybe we do have to go beyond that. It would be nice if we had some common rationale for defining the names of important cities and important stars. I'm not convinced that prominence or visibility is it. Michael Z. 2009-04-27 05:27 z
As I understand it, a proper noun needs to demonstrate attributive usage (see New York), or representative usage (see Whitehall). Unless anyone can find durably archived quotes about eating Alpha Centauri hamburgers, or show that Alpha Centauri is used to represent another place, person, or institution, such as the seat of the intergalactic peace-keeping corps, then it should be deleted as being "not dictionary material, please add to Wikipedia". That's my interpretation of CFI anyway, and judging from other comments and other decisions, I suspect the majority of you would agree. -- ALGRIF talk 07:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that the main reasons for current CFI is that dictionaries such as Webster's seem to follow this policy, and that most proper noun dictionaries are encyclopedic. A striking example (for French) is the "Petit Robert", usually considered as a typical example of a language (not encyclopedic) dictionary. Nonetheless, its proper noun counterpart ("Petit Robert 2") is purely encyclopedic (without any pronunciations, etymologies, etc.). Therefore, I think the added value we can bring is a good reason for accepting all proper nouns, provided they can be considered as words (remember, all words in all languages...). It's very difficult, and usually impossible, to find pronunciation information about proper nouns such as place names or family names (etymological info is less difficult to find, as there are a few specialized dictionaries). Lmaltier 08:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter very much to me whether you keep these star names or not as I can always link my userpage directly to Proxima Centauri but I think you should keep them. Product differentiation works in business and product differentiation should work with dictionaries as well. I suggest making Wiktionary different from Websters so users value the difference. Proxima Centauri

That is an interesting argument for changing policy. We seem to be backing into a policy change that goes in that direction. See Rostov-na-Donu discussion linked above. DCDuring TALK 20:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the twenty brightest stars should certainly be included and so should other notable stars like Polaris the Pole star or North star. What about Gliese 581? It's a bit notable so I'll make a provisional entry. Barbara Shack 12:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: The notability of a referent is completely irrelevant to anything. The star named Gliese 581 may be notable, but the star named Gliese 581 obviously doesn't warrant an entry. Something could well be notable without there being even one English term for it that merits inclusion. (Wikipedia would then have the difficulty of finding an appropriate name for its article; but we would have no such problem.) —RuakhTALK 14:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Among the OED's quotes are such as these, which may help qualify some stars for inclusion in Wiktionary by the current CFI:
  • “Binaries and Variables of the Algol Type”
  • “Each gem turned into an Aldebaran or a Sirius
But the OED has many more stars included (even though it is not an encyclopedic dictionary, hence omits many proper nouns). Anyone have insight on their CFI?
Doesn't answer the question, but good reading on this topic is a short paper by the OED's astronomical advisor: Mahoney 1998, “Historical Astrolexicography and Old Publications.” Michael Z. 2009-04-28 20:23 z

Please add fraks, fraking, and fraked to the decisions Goldenrowley 05:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Keeping WT:CFI#Fictional_universes in mind. Equinox 17:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Move these and their ilk (to the extent that we can find them) to an appendix of fictional curse words. I can think of a few others, my favorite being zark from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy books (as in, zark off!). bd2412 T 17:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Red Dwarf gave us smeg, but that's caught on sufficiently in the UK to be trivially attestable (from Usenet, anyway!). Looks like you might be able to manage this with zark as well, at least in zarking or zark off. Equinox 21:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather they all be in an appendix. No doubt there are enough in-universe sources to justify that. bd2412 T 23:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Clocked out without citations. DCDuring TALK 04:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting verification of sense 2, vulgar slang for the male member. — [ R I C ] opiaterein — 17:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Citable, bearing in mind that "a second quest" may be literally a quest that comes second and not this supposed unit? Equinox 00:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 00:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "An activity or object as popular as the PlayStation" --EncycloPetey 05:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cited. Conrad.Irwin 21:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that doesn't fly. If it meant what the definition says, we would have "bullfighting is a PlayStation". But thank you for citing the gaming device. DAVilla 07:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Found some mentions, but no evidence of usage of this word. --Jackofclubs 09:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a job for {{only in}} to prevent this and its ilk from wasting our time excessively. DCDuring TALK 21:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This is found only in what though? --Jackofclubs 07:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of an Appendix, perhaps "Words often mentioned, rarely used" or similar. DCDuring TALK 10:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd call it a misspelling, and would be inclined to remove it. Pingku 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Contributor says it's a protologism, but I'm not so sure.—msh210 21:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it almost exclusively in terms like "free-fooder", "raw fooder", "raw-fooder", "fast-fooder", "anti-fast-fooder". IOW it is almost always formed by adding -er to an open or hyphenated compound. How should it be presented, then, whether or not it an be attested as a stand-alone? DCDuring TALK 21:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Added that sense (and others which are attested); converted this to a {{rfv-sense}}.—msh210 23:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: Ireland,slang immoral woman. Spelling? DCDuring TALK 14:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've marked it as dated. It was common enough when I first lived in Ireland about 30 years ago, but haven't heard it much since. But like most insults, they often don't end up in print. Spellings in Ireland are typically British rather than US.--Dmol 00:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The 2 "g" spelling is very rare in US and much less common (not rare, not dated) than the one "g" spelling in the BNC. (I didn't check for this sense in any spelling.) I put a tag at the same sense with the US "wagon" spelling. Was it in "widespread" colloquial usage there at that time, previously, or after? Should 0, 1, or 2 of the spellings remain? DCDuring TALK 00:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense 2 "- someone skilled with the penis". Looking through Google Groups, this word is usually used as an insult. --Jackofclubs 16:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Definitely should have a sense for the insult. bd2412 T 03:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

as in "the oldest continually published magazine in the English language". Is there an attributive use of this specific magazine? --Bequw¢τ 12:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Does this sort of thing count? "the meaning of the capital letters at the end of each Spectator issue", "he is a regular Spectator columnist". If so, we could easily include many far less notable publications. Equinox 12:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we would question their "independence". DCDuring TALK 15:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Cited in attributive use, IMO. DCDuring TALK 15:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The cites given are "...Spectator contributor...", "...Spectator essay...", and "...Spectator piece...". Consider the city of Mukilteo, which WP says had 18,019 people in 2000. Google News and News Archive bring up loads and loads of cites for "Mukilteo man" and "Mukilteo business". Consider the even smaller Arcadia, which according to WP had 391 (yes, three hundred ninety-one) residents in 2000. A durably archived citation in attributive use is then "The other two members serving on on the Arcadia board were Patty Peterson and Mary V. Shead."[59]. I'm holding out for two more.... No: Seriously, the CFI say "A name should be included if it is used attributively, with a widely understood meaning. For example: New York is included because "New York" is used attributively in phrases like "New York delicatessen", to describe a particular sort of delicatessen." (emphasis removed). This does not include terms like Mukilteo, Arcadia (Kansas), or Spectator (with the cites given).—msh210 21:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm having trouble squaring this with the gutting of standards in the case of Rostov-na-Donu vs. WT:CFI. WT:CFI seems a dead letter with regard to Proper nouns and, indeed, any multi-part word whose components are polysemic or technical. We don't need votes if we an be so, um, flexible with regard to interpretation. DCDuring TALK 23:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: abbreviation of capture. DCDuring TALK 18:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In screencap and vidcap, yes. Alone, I am not so sure. Equinox 20:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 01:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "(slang) Abbreviation for regulars, a street term used for marijuana less potent than it's counterpart "murdas". Also called: reggies, reggie millers, regulators, garbage."

  • Tagged November 2007. I could not find a contemporaneous heading here. DCDuring TALK 23:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm familiar with regular visitors to a chat room, etc. being known as regs. That's the reg sense of regular. Don't know about drugs. Equinox 00:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wagner's house. Quotes don't seem attributive under WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 00:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

RFV context. It is a valid word but the definition could use some clarification in context. Goldenrowley 01:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Anything for WT:CFI? Equinox 01:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I added two citations from news sources. There's more references circulating on blogs and forums. Goldenrowley 03:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"An inner or special power/energy mentioned of in graphic novels (manga) Ex: In the Manga/Anime series Yu Yu Hakusho, the amount of power someone has is measured by their Aura." Equinox 16:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't really pass judgement on the meaning but I think that maybe it should stay (perhaps with a less specialised tag); I would not say that it is uncommon, e.g. the Pokemon Riolu and Lucario have "aura" based powers. 50 Xylophone Players talk 10:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you reckon you can cite it from our usual suspects? Nobody else is going to bother looking up anime stuff. Equinox 22:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A noun, eh? Equinox 20:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

  • 1884, The popular educator‎, page 49:
    Pearly is that silky and often coloured lustre which renders of such value DCDuring TALK 20:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't argue with that. Will you humour me and find two more? Equinox 00:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps xmag.png
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Any takers? SemperBlotto 21:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

w:Le Corbusier was the nickname of a Swiss architect, and he was known as Corb for short. —Stephen 21:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes - but are the nicknames of famous people fit for a dictionary? SemperBlotto 11:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Not unless we can attest attributive usage. I don't think I would count the attributive used to indicate possession, as “a Corb building” meaning one that he designed. But if the name signifies an architectural style, it could be suitable for inclusion. Michael Z. 2009-05-04 13:51 z

The verb. Equinox 23:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete. I thought we'd already RfD/RfV'd this sense in the past, but maybe it was the noun. It's a neologism derived from the character of Charlie (played by Charlie Sheen) in the American sitcom Two and a Half Men. --EncycloPetey 21:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 01:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-senses: (many) On July 30, 2005 many unvetted items from w:AAA were moved here: some proper nouns, some jargon, some dupes. Of proper nouns about 10 are for orgs that have WP articles; some might get articles; some had articles deleted, some are debatable. I've rfved the ones that seem the worst. I have the feeling that the WP dab group is likely to do a better job with proper nouns than us. We might do better with the jargon. Under our current interpretation of the lemming rule the terms would all be included I think. DCDuring TALK 15:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

RfV-sense for “abbreviation of: material; materials”.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

[This b.g.c. search] suggests use in bibliographies for journal names. Not in OneLooks as abbreviation.
BTW, is "mother" sense really "formal"? I think of as a UK public-school, class thing. DCDuring TALK 19:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
As mater, as mater., or elsewise? Seems like a strange way to abbreviate it to me; matl and matl. seem more intuitive to me (and they’re shorter). But hey, if it’s verifiable, add dem cites!
The OED agrees with you; I’ve added that context to the entry.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
We have a few hospitals here (Australia) called Mater, but their full formal name is Mater Misericordiae which I belive is "Mother of Mercy" in Latin.--Dmol 23:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
See quotes at mater#Etymology 1. "Formal" tag removed. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ƿidsiþ added an {{obsolete}} sense meaning “the womb” to the entry in this revision; the OED also has it, but its two supporting quotations are unconfidently dated ante 1425 and ante 1475, which makes them both Middle English (the boundary between Middle English and Early Modern English being circa 1470). This information exists in the entry for mater’s Middle English etymon, matere. Consequently, I have requested verification of this sense, which means that it needs supporting quotations that are clearly post the Middle English–Early Modern English divide — i.e., preferably from the sixteenth century or later.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

After four months, no citations have been presented either for obsolete sense of “the womb” or for the abbreviational sense of “material(s)”. RfV-senses failed.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Somone replaced "Croatian" with "Croatian (not really)" summising that "no such phrase exists". Conrad.Irwin 16:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a verb with this name, but I've never heard of this adverb (neither do I know how "destruction" can be used as an adverb) -- Prince Kassad 18:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

msh210 20:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted reverse hagan: no evidence even on the Web generally, let alone our usual CFI sources, and I don't get the impression this came from recent media. "Pull a Hagan" does, though, score a few hits: whether they relate to the given definition I don't know. They are probably just separate coinages relating to different people called Hagan who did copiable things. Equinox 21:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly rather difficult: "Mac OS and Mac OS X, the Macintosh operating systems". When does Mac alone mean this? The difficulty is that if you say that some software is "for Mac" it might be for the OS, but that's basically equivalent to the computer because you can't run the OS on anything else (can you?). In any case, can it ever unambiguously refer to the OS and not the machine? I don't think emulation counts, because even then you have an (emulated) machine. Equinox 22:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Attributive uses like “Mac program” seem to refer to the OS and not the hardware, at least in some cases. Or is Mac just an adjective? Michael Z. 2009-05-06 13:56 z
  • 1991, “Breaking Communications Barriers”, in Compute!, v 13, n 9, pp 28–31:
    Built by Matthew Weed, a blind political science and history major, and Victor Grigorieff, a computer science and psychology major, the system is based on a Macintosh IIfx, although it can run on earlier models, since each Mac program has a similar interface.
  • 1993, “The New Microprocessors Powerchips” in Popular Science, v 243, n 1, p 58:
    Apple, IBM, and Motorola have teamed up to produce this 32-bit chip that will be used in future Apple Macintoshes and IBM PCs. PowerPC systems will run Mac or Unix programs, and possibly Windows software in the future.
  • 1993, “The Newest Appliance” in U.S. News & World Report, v 115, n 21, p 90:
    If you invest the time to learn one Windows or Mac program, you'll automatically have mastered the basic skills to use hundreds of others.
Need to spend more time searching for cites like this one. There may be cases where Mac refers to either or both the hardware or software.
  • 2007, “Uninspiring Vista”, in Technology Review, v 110, n 1, pp 72–4:
    As this shift accelerates, finding software that works with a particular operating system will be less of a concern. People will be able to base decisions about which OS to use strictly on merit, and on personal preference. For me, if the choice is between struggling to configure every feature and being able to boot up and get to work, at long last I choose the Mac.
 Michael Z. 2009-05-06 14:03 z

Why? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this used to mean "a thousand dollars" (as "a grand" still does), but it got demoted (much as "troop" used to mean a group of soldiers, and has come to mean one soldier). —RuakhTALK 14:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Both senses cited. —RuakhTALK 15:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Death. DCDuring TALK 15:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is plausible but difficult to search for. A quick glance on the Web did find a few items that might support it, e.g. "Is swine flu 'the big one' or a flu that fizzles?"; "In-custody death: Getting ready for the big one". Equinox 21:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
To me the "big one" is just a pronoun, possibly meriting an entry, but not with such a limited meaning. It's referent always depends on context: in auto racing, it's a multi-car collision; in California, it's a titanic earthquake; to many veterans, it was WWII. DCDuring TALK 23:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The "death esp. by heart attack" usage probably originates with the old w:Sanford and Son US TV show, in which Sanford (w:Redd Foxx), did a standard shtick where he would clutch his chest, look heavenward, and exclaim, "It's the big one!" I'm not sure how much this usage really caught on beyond the TV show. The California mega-quake sense noted by DCDuring is certainly more common. (And, indeed, back in the early 1960s, on the old w:Dobie Gillis TV show, Dobie's father did a regular shtick where he would speak with pride of being a veteran of WWII, "The Big One.") -- WikiPedant 06:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this used in the generic sense? I can only find references to the specific Watergate scandal, including indirect ones like “another Watergate”. Michael Z. 2009-05-08 15:41 z

Any proper name can be used to refer to what it exemplifies (a Thatcher, a Kissinger, a Kennedy, a Vietnam). Only some become eponyms: solon/Solon. This one doesn't seem likely to get there, let alone be there. DCDuring TALK 16:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

“I'll have a Watergate?” Michael Z. 2009-05-08 15:41 z

Supposed to be a male given name. SemperBlotto 15:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It is glossed as British, but I have never heard of it here. You can find it on a few baby-naming Web sites, but that is true for literally hundreds of vanishingly rare inventions that are unlikely to pass CFI. Equinox 15:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Blue was sometimes used as an informal nickname in Australia. Very dated, and possibly was not used much back then anyway.--Dmol 05:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I've heard it occasionally in the U.S. as well. In fact, some friends of mine recently had a son, and they gave him the middle name Blue after one of his great-uncles. It's hard to find examples on b.g.c., but I've managed to find three:
  • nickname: the main character of Gilbert Sorrentino's 1983 novel Blue Pastoral;
  • name or nickname (I can't tell): a character in Carl Weber's 2005 novel The Preacher's Son; and
  • name (but given by a semi-delirious mother, with narrator's tone suggesting it's an odd name): a baby in Raymond Andrews' 1979 debut novel Appalachee Red.
Are those enough, or do we need to demonstrate common use for this to be worth including?
RuakhTALK 01:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It was an Australian nickname, usually for someone with red hair. Brilliant Aussie humour strikes again. Ƿidsiþ 09:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a real surname, though. I've added that definition. The given name Blue does appear in birth records. It's mostly a middle name, more often for women: Bonnie Blue, Skye Blue, Blue Bell. But any English surname can be a middle name - Green, Brown, Black, White are not defined as given names. In the absence of quotations, shouldn't there be a minimum requirement of bearers? A hundred, maybe, or even five hundred, among the one billion potential English speakers. ( Five persons would do for Icelandic names.) You can find quite incredible names in vital statistics. Here's a sample from Zambia: Table, Petrol, Seventy, Behave, Railway Station, Moby Dick. --Makaokalani 15:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Defined it as a female given name+male nickname, and added quotes. After all, we have many even sillier names here.--Makaokalani 13:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Does Basque use ñ? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 16:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. See [[w:Basque language#Writing system]]. —RuakhTALK 01:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"To party all night long." Is that a suitable definition? Can you go out on the town but get home before midnight? Can you party all night long at home and claim to have gone out on the town? Equinox 16:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a good definition. I wonder, though, whether this is not an SoP combination of [[go out]] + [[on the town]]. MW and RHU have "on the town" as an idiom at their entries for "town". AHD and Cambridge idiom dictionaries have it too. Other collocations "night(s) on the town", "(be) out on the town", "evenings on the town", and more.
Not worth citing, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 15:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Defintion is - Any one of the British post offices in Morocco.
But I don't think this was ever a singular, refering to an individual post office. The more common term Morocco agencies meant the entire British postal service, not specific offices.--Dmol 07:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense, as above, the plural of Morocco agency.--Dmol 07:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense —This comment was unsigned.

Delete. It's actually pretty citeable using Usenet ([60]; [61] or [62]; [63]), but I just don't think this is something we want. —RuakhTALK 19:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is citeable. I don't like it because the subject is so encyclopaedic and fleeting (who will remember this game in five years, especially when it was never actually released and its developer no longer exists?), but then again we list abbreviations for many encyclopaedic subjects — albeit mostly less obscure. I abstain! Equinox 20:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added a few more senses for you to argue about! (Some will be more permanent than the Duke) Dbfirs 08:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: obsolete, uncountable: A state of existence. Does the OED have a cite for this? Date? DCDuring TALK 14:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like OED 2 (obs.), roughly meaning a state of fact as opposed to possibility. Quotations follow. Michael Z. 2009-05-11 05:27 z
  • 1398 TREVISA Barth. De P.R. IV. i. (1495) 78 The noblest thynges of shappes of kynde and of crafte that be hydde comyth forth in acte and in dede.
  • 1595 SHAKES. John IV. iii. 135 If I in act, consent, or sinne of thought Be guiltie.
  • 1662 MORE Antid. agst. Ath. Ep. Ded. (1712) 2 Plato, if he were alive again, might find his timorous supposition brought into absolute Act.
  • 1677 HALE Prim. Orig. Man. 109 They are only in possibility, and not in act.
Sounds like a suitable def might be 'actuality'. Pingku 11:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Tagged (by Opiaterein) but not listed. Allegedly Estonian for humorous. 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you question it? It’s certainly Estonian. See w:et:Eri:Search/humoorikas. For example, "Juhansoni reisid" on humoorikas romaan ("Juhansoni reisid" is a humorous novel). —Stephen 21:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I tagged it because the ever-dubious User:Ross Rhodes added it and it didn't strike me as looking very Estonian. (Granted, I don't speak any, but it didn't look like any I'd ever seen) — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 02:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I question it because I don't speak Estonian. 50 Xylophone Players talk 09:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "One who ablates." Is this word used in any other sense than "that which is ablated"? Pingku 17:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

In Latin, yes, which suggests the possibility in English. The Latin definition is "one who removes or takes away". --EncycloPetey 20:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
There is also the spelling ablater, which, when it is not French, seems mainly to be used in the sense of "that which removes", in the medical sense of removing unwanted tissue and also in the setting of images on metal plates. "Ablator" seems almost entirely reserved for the sense "that which is ablated". I found one instance of a psychological sense for "one who ablates" (removes from his/her own memory) - it was spelled "ablator", but this might be a mistake. Pingku 12:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The definition given is for "smackdown". None of the first five pages of google hits for slapdown mention wrestling, whereas a search for the term 'smackdown' yields a first page almost full of wrestling-related sites. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 02:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've converted the rfv to rfv-sense after adding 3 senses. Please take a look since you know what usage is. Edit freely. DCDuring TALK 03:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense ""# (Australian, slang) a dark skinned or black person (not indigenous), usually used pejoratively or abusively. May be archaic."" Conrad.Irwin 14:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

References and citations all say that the disease may be referred to as the "long goodbye". Can we find any text that actually uses it? Equinox 23:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I added one more quotation which provides a use, not a mention, of the term. But only to humour you. This defn was already adequately substantiated. (BTW, the title of the article given in the Wisconsin Healthlink reference also uses the term in my opinion). -- WikiPedant 05:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
How is it substantiated? Texts that say "'the long goodbye' means this" are not evidence. Equinox 23:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
By authority. Academic journals and medical school links are authoritative with respect to this term. -- WikiPedant 03:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we usually accept words only on the grounds that an "authority" (however that would be defined) says they are words. Need to meet WT:CFI as with anything else. Equinox 13:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Attestation, not authority, is the very foundation of lexicography. We accept authority for non-English terms. We are influenced by those authorities who take attestation seriously (the "serious" dictionaries, OED, MW, AHD, RH, Longmans, Cambridge, Macquarie, etc.). It would definitely be preferred that the quotations not surround the headword with quotes or otherwise mark it as not an ordinary part of the language of the writer/speaker and reader/listener. It might be attestable. DCDuring TALK 15:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Attestation and authority are different albeit related concepts. Attestation of a term pertains to the function performed by the quotation (whether it uses or mentions the term). Authority pertains to the source of the quotation. Each attestation carries with it its own degree of authority. Attestations sourced from literary classics or refereed academic journals are rightly recognized at WT:CFI as having greater authority (since only 1 such attestation is needed to satisfy CFI). Like you, DC, I prefer to avoid quotations in which the definiendum is set off in quotation marks, but I'll settle for them as long as it is clear that this is not a one-off coinage by the author. -- WikiPedant 06:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The straight uses (not mentions) that I find come up in many contexts and always refer to an extended departure. One amusing quote is about it most literally. Others are about extended departures from the public view. The Alzheimer's sense is included in that sense. I am not at all sure that any sense really is idiomatic as opposed to simply an SoP metaphor or figurative use. I also not that is much more common in attention-grabbing titles than in ordinary text. DCDuring TALK 16:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The specific nickname "long goodbye" for Alzheimer's is widely used in North America by health professionals. I've heard it used this way for many years. I honestly believe it qualifies as a distinct sense. Since you still have doubts, DC, I shall look for more quotations. -- WikiPedant 06:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have now added 3 more quotations (all uses, not mentions) and expanded the defn and the etymology. -- WikiPedant 22:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This b.g.c. search produces many hits for "cancer" as affording a long goodbye. It just seems like a nice turn of phrase for the situation generated by many diseases of aging or indeed any debilitating disease without institutionalization. DCDuring TALK 00:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, DC, I saw a few in this vein when I was rummaging around. I see the Alzheimer's sense as a separate, established sense (which has its own wrinkle of meaning since it involves progressive loss of the ability to recognize and communicate with friends and family), but think a 2nd, broader sense is probably attestable with respect to any lengthy, degenerative disease (or even process) which is ultimately fatal. -- WikiPedant 03:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps xmag.png
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

To lack redeeming qualities: to "suck", basically. The etymology says that this is from a TV show. Can anyone find citations? Equinox 01:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone who does extreme ironing. I can find only one citation (on Usenet) where this doesn't appear as extreme ironist. Equinox 14:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 01:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Both senses - Form of address, and close friend. I've googled "hello blud", "goodbye blud", "ciao blud", "hey blud" and "hi blud" but it doesn't look promising. There's plenty of misspellings of blood, however. Enough to deserve an entry? Maybe --Jackofclubs 16:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Some Google hits, but little on permanently-recorded media. Maybe another definition of takedown required? --Jackofclubs 17:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No French entry for this one yet. I know people who say bien sûr que si, or oh/ô que si, but I'm not sure if this is really an interjection or just two interjections next to each other. I'll leave you lot to think about it. Mglovesfun 20:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems good to me. —Stephen 13:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Potentially sum of parts ("but of course!"), but with my limited French I'm not sure. In any case I will try to cite it to pass the "is it real?" part of RFV if nothing else. Equinox 20:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
It's definitely SOP; "que" can be used this way with any number of expressions, and obviously this is one of the main meanings of "si". —RuakhTALK 22:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Equinox 12:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I can find two on Google Groups (ignoring the ones that refer to a brand name for boats or something). Any more? Equinox 13:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm only seeing a small handful of formulaic fantasy books where it's not clear that the word has either of these senses. Equinox 18:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 01:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty verifying this. SemperBlotto 21:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In Germany we have a similar tradition, called Funkenfeuer or Funken for short... There is a Wikipedia article on the subject: [[64]], and I can imagine that such an event could be formulated in exactly that way it is written under the description... PS: A second sense was added, due to the capitalization... --BigBadBen 20:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 01:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation page just looks like a typo. Nadando 00:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It is, or was, a trademark for piperacetazine, thus capitalised Quide (if we consider it worth keeping). Equinox 08:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing no evidence for the cited dictionary's existence. Not seeing any good cites either. If this fails, anarchyists should also go (if not, it should be formatted). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Scuttle. I can't find any evidence for the existence of this dictionary either. Not listed in Library of Congress catalog. As for finding cites, Google Books and Google Scholar yield some apparent hits, but they all seem to be German language hits in which the construction is "...Anarchy ist...". -- WikiPedant 20:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 21:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Adding anarchyists (plural form) to this discussion. Goldenrowley 05:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete. This is the kind of thing that SB usually gets before we ever see it. "Lala Land", indeed. DCDuring TALK 16:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 01:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"Aspiring deejays and ejays can get their start by broadcasting shows on the Web." But can we cite from BGC? Watch out for the trademark for certain sample sets (Ejay Rave etc.). Equinox 11:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved here from RFD per consensus: see WT:RFD#family. Equinox 00:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

(Comment moved from RFD) Keep and expand definition, but delete these cites. Family has a meaning of having traditional values, being conservative, even old fashioned - for example "family values". The examples are clearly wrong, and are attributive uses of the noun.--Dmol 09:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I have inserted two senses with usexes that illustrate the additional meanings that would justify keeping the adjective PoS. I would argue that both have widespread use in the US. The value of the RfVed sense is to remind users that some meanings are limited to attributive use of senses that are the noun's. If there is agreement as to the widespread use and the suitability of the usage examples, this matter can be closed forthwith. DCDuring TALK 10:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

A case of {{only in}}? -- Prince Kassad 08:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added two citations. If anyone has access to ISO 639-3:2007 itself, we can have three; or, we can stipulate to its existence, and count it despite its not actually appearing in the entry. (Alternatively — is either LOC's FAQ or SIL's "scope of denotation" document considered durably archived?) —RuakhTALK 14:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: this section was formerly titled yngling.

Can't find much on this. Is the capitalisation correct? Is it a brand name? Equinox 15:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a brand name (see w:Yngling (keelboat)), and since the original editor included a {{see|Yngling}} at the top, I surmise that (s)he did think this sense existed in lowercase (though w:Yngling (keelboat) capitalizes it throughout, so (s)he may have been mistaken). Searches through b.g.c. seem mostly unproductive; google books:"a yngling" has exactly one relevant hit, and it's capitalized. (Plus, it's snippet view, which is a pain.) —RuakhTALK 20:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
O.K., it somehow hadn't occurred to me till now to try google books:yngling keelboat. It pulls up a fair number of relevant hits — all of them capitalized. So, moved to Yngling. —RuakhTALK 20:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: Open-ended prison sentence. There's evidence this may be for some kind of undetermined period. Not specifically prison though. Alas, tis a fine tune - my grandmother sang me this. --Jackofclubs 19:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There's not much I can find outside of dictionaries, both online and printed. The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, (2006) lists it with two meanings, a habitual criminal (1917) and an indefinite jail sentence (1970).
Theres an earlier example in A Dictionary of the Underworld (1961) which lists kath with a def of "an indeterminate prison sentence" from 1910, listing it as Australian and New Zealand slang and having an origin in the song.

So are we missing a definition for the criminal, and are we missing the definition I expected to see - that of a poetic name for any Irish girl. It should be noted that Movourneen is just the English version of the Irish for "my darling" mo mhuirnín. (mh is pronounce V in Irish). One example is "THE WHISTLIN' COLLEEN" which I could not find a date for but it was on google books as out of copyright. More recently is the Wolfe Tones song from the 1980s Irish Eyes, which has the line - My rose of Old Erin my Kathleen mo mhuirnín.--Dmol 21:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense. Shoes --Jackofclubs 09:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit of a "mention", but D Dakers, Conserving the past - building for the future: Inverness 1987 has this: "In addition tae Ayrshire Scots, ma mither introduced exotic Fife words like baffies for slippers, an bocht for ill..." Equinox 14:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Long-time tagged, first-time listed. I find very few hits in this sense, and what hits I do find, are all what I would consider to be transliterations of Hebrew סוֹפִית (sofít), final-fem.-sing.-indef.), rather than bona fide English uses. The more common English spelling is sofit — though I don't know if even that one is really English, either. —RuakhTALK 14:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"To insult". Equinox 22:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 01:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: Windows sense. I previously marked this "RFV passed", but Dominic has since pointed out that some of the cites were actually for "defenestration". Further, in trying to clean up the cites, I've discovered that they don't all still seem to exist — and Googling the text, I find different sources for them. Never mind that last part; that was due to a later editor's attempt to clean up the cites. Non-standard formats engender so much confusion … All told, this bears re-evaluation. —RuakhTALK 23:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Equinox 04:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 01:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Defn given as "A language spoken by a native people, such as a tribe, mainly as opposed to the language of the dominant culture of a colonizer, empire etc." Seems off the mark to me. -- WikiPedant 03:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added 2 less tendentious senses and converted rfv to rfv-sense. Does that help? DCDuring TALK 04:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
These all sound SoP to me
  1. native in the sense of by birth/inherited/innate, as in native skills, native habits.
  2. [not sure what “language of a community” is.]
  3. native in the sense of of or relating to Aboriginal/Native peoples (I would mark it as also capitalized Native language). Definition needs rejigging anyway: why should “a tribe” be assumed to be dominated or colonized?
 Michael Z. 2009-05-19 04:36 z
Delete. google books:"supplanted the native languages" has 29 hits, mostly all in this sense (at least, by my understanding of this sense); but I agree with Mzajac that these are all SOP (the more so because no one sense dominates: all SOP interpretations are available). —RuakhTALK 13:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: "no one sense dominates": Is this a quantitative issue? What if there were 2 dominant terms?
Re: "all SOP interpretations are available": Would the logic be that if any of the 18 possible combinations of the 3 nonspecialist senses of "native" and the 6 senses of language were not attestable, then we would need an entry? That would seem unworkable.
I keep hoping that there might be some rules that captured more of our individual subjective senses of what makes a multi-word entry "right". We have moved well beyond any ordinary sense of idiomaticity. It seems no longer to be a question of whether the meaning of a term can be inferred from the meanings of the components, but rather can easily be inferred by anyone without regard to prior knowledge or context. DCDuring TALK 15:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
What I mean is, there are a lot of fixed expressions that have more-specific meanings than you'd suspect from their parts. For example, "post" and "office" each have various meanings, and logically there are plenty of things a "post office" might be; but in fact, it means one specific thing, and any other sort of use is weird ("his new post comes with an office and a lab. the post lab is slightly cramped, but at least the post office has a gorgeous view"). This is subjective, in that "weird" and "attestable" are neither comprehensive nor mutually exclusive, but I hope that in most cases we can reach consensus via discussion. —RuakhTALK 15:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, post office needs an entry because it can refer to either a building or a public corporation (and also a kids' game, which we don't define).
But our CFI doesn't address some of these questions adequately, and even then I think there is a range where some judgment must be applied. But we've mostly coped okay. But, if we are to serve as a dictionary for language learners then the answers will probably be quite different than if we are only a dictionary for native speakers, and I suspect that we aren't accommodating these readers adequately. Michael Z. 2009-05-19 16:57 z
Re: a building or a public corporation: I think that's true of a lot of "offices". —RuakhTALK 20:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe so, and I haven't compared other examples, but the difference is significant. Here in Canada, a post office (building) is often a counter at the back of a drugstore staffed by contract workers in uniform—no Canada Post employees in sight. A post office (building) may be no longer owned by the postal corporation, no longer serving as a postal outlet, converted into a private residence, or torn down. The post office (corporation) may have a billion dollar budget, and may be referred to as Canada Post or USPS. Each sense has a different set of synonyms. Michael Z. 2009-05-19 20:28 z
Fair enough — but even if not, I'd still say post office warranted an entry, for the reason I gave. We can have more than one reason to keep an entry. :-)   —RuakhTALK 20:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, certainly. But the more I discuss this, the more I confuse myself. Native language has two meanings, but both are plain applications of different senses of native/Native (adj.). Post office is not SoP in Canada, since “the post” is usually called mail here, and also we don't currently define an adjective sense of post. —This unsigned comment was added by Mzajac (talkcontribs) 21:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC).
  • Comment This should presumably by at RFD since its existance is easily verifiable. I preferred it as one sense personally, I think it just makes it more complicated to split it into these different possible sub-uses, but anyway, it's a common idiomatic collocation and should be kept. Ƿidsiþ 20:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    Senses 1 and 3 are very different. Native in no. 3 is the name of an ethnic group used attributively, and arguably may or should be capitalized in formal writing. Cree is a Native language; Ukrainian is my native language. One sense would be inadequate. But since both are plain applications of adjectives, I think zero senses may satisfy our current CFI. Michael Z. 2009-05-19 21:09 z
    Yeah, you're right about the senses. I still say keep. Ƿidsiþ 20:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Wordnet and Webster's New Millennium have this, but no other OneLook dictionaries. WNM has a computer sense. It is linked to here as a synonym by first language and mother tongue. It appears more common in the main senses than either of these in COCA. DCDuring TALK 14:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Six non-English entries link to it as a translation or defining term. But editors of 36 of our entries use the term without wikilinking it, perhaps suggesting that it seems SoP to them. DCDuring TALK 14:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep I've added cites for sense 3. I still think all three are SoP (although we don't distinctly define Native for sense 3, and now I see that my citation for 2 isn't great). But the subtle distinctions may not be obvious even to a native anglophone, so I vote keep. Michael Z. 2009-05-20 21:23 z
See also my additions to native, adj. & n. Michael Z. 2009-05-20 21:50 z

Rfv-sense: Someone who spend [sic] a year doing something. Compare with yearsman. Search reveals "Yearman" as proper noun, scannos, a possible combining form (other sense given in our entry), an apparent fictional-universe sense in works by J. V. Jones. DCDuring TALK 14:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 01:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense x 2: noun:

  1. Use.
  2. Business, need.
Has this been in use after 1500? It might belong under an Middle English L2 heading. OED might help. DCDuring TALK 14:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion moved from RFD. --Hekaheka 22:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Translingual entry:

Quote from Wikipedia: Symbols are iterated to produce multiples of the decimal (1, 10, 100, 1000) values, with V, L, D substituted for a multiple of five, and the iteration continuing: I "1", II "2", III "3", V "5", VI "6", VII "7", etc., and the same for other bases: X "10", XX "20", XXX "30", L "50", LXXX "80"; CC "200", DCC "700", etc. At the fourth iteration, a subtractive principle may be employed, with the base placed before the higher base: IIII or IV "4", VIIII or IX "9", XXXX or XL "40", LXXXX or XC "90", CCCC or CD "400", DCCCC or CM "900". ... Note that the subtractive principle is not extended beyond the chart, and VL is not used for 45, which can only be forty (XL) and five (V), or XLV. --Hekaheka 04:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Since we try to be descriptive, what WP says doesn't really matter: this is an issue for RFV.—msh210 18:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added a cite (Darling) which is mention rather than use, but only in the sense that it's mentioning a band (music band) name that uses "45" in it because of the "VL" connection; thus, although the book cited is mentioning, the band name is, sort of, using. Not sure whether that counts. I've added another good cite (Sonneck), though it's quoting another source. And I've linked to a third cite, which is in Latin, so I don't know what parts of it to quote as meaningful in the quotation — but it's a cite of this term. So we have two (onw of which is not quoted on the citations page) and possibly a third (Darling).—msh210 18:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added one more cite. Like the Latin cite, I can't quote this one: this time, the language in question is Italian. This time, actually, I have a sneaking suspicion — not that I know any Italian — that it may be a mention. Not sure why I think so. These cites are all, by the way, on the cites page.—msh210 03:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "A CD containing between 3 and anything up to 30 tracks (songs or instrumentals).", as distinct from the more general "A group of audio recordings, on any media, intended for distribution as a group." (I'm not really insisting on three cites — dunno how you could cite this — just for confirmation that there really are speakers for whom this is a distinct sense. I mean, I do have a vague notion that some media are more "album-y" than others, but this seems a bit much, no?) —RuakhTALK 01:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

In many of our definitions, younger (I infer) contributors seem to find that our more inclusive definitions don't provide meanings they can immediately relate to. So they add something much more particular, less abstract. I wonder if shortening and using more vivid simple language would make the more general definitio seem better. Like: "Audio recordings, on any media (eg, CD, tape) distributed as a group", Simply excluding "CD" might make the other definitions seem less current. Can an album be on a DVD? Does adding video make a group of audio recordings not an album? To an older speaker (and I speak with more authority here), "album" might be restricted to phonograph records, [and not just vinyl!]). DCDuring TALK 09:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It's plain wrong. A lot of EPs have three or more tracks, and they are not albums. (Incidentally, I see that we define "EP" only as a vinyl record. I was talking about CDs, and you can find plenty even if you insist on "EP" in the name, e.g. Aphex Twin's Come to Daddy EP, Mesh's Fragile EP.) Fixed that! Equinox 19:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


  1. In some out-of-date dictionaries, "to alarm by a sudden attack"
  2. Repeated verbal assault

The second definition isn't even a verb at all. Maybe tosh? --Jackofclubs 06:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The first sense was in Websters 1913. I've marked it obsolete and removed the quotes. I will convert the other one into a verb to give it a chance. The whole entry could use a clean up. DCDuring TALK 09:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we've all jigged along to this Beatles song, but all the searches I get for ("fix/fixing/fixed a hole" heroin drug] are about fixing holes, or websites whicb say stuff like "Fixing a Hole is about heroin". Any decent attestations? --Jackofclubs 18:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

4 senses. A neologism in French, now in English. Perhaps there is one attestable sense. DCDuring TALK 23:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Defined as "(obsolete, slang) Criminals in the stocks, or pillory." -- WikiPedant 05:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

google books:"babe|babes in the wood" pillory works (though one needs to weed out the mentions).—msh210 16:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense 3: A masturbation technique where one sits on their usual hand until it goes numb, so it feels like someone else's hand. --Jackofclubs 10:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed. —RuakhTALK 18:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

since we don't have ablutophobia, why this? -- Prince Kassad 12:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

We lack ablutophobia because it's citeless, not because it's inherently bad. If it had cites, it'd be fine. So I think we can treat this discussion as a standard foreign-word RFV rather than one in which "since we don't have ablutophobia, why this?" is an argument that needs answering.—msh210 22:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
In which case, cites don't find themselves but need to be found. -- Prince Kassad 04:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —RuakhTALK 20:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: Very particularistic sense, might be rendered obsolete or miss part of what ought be included. Has rfc tag, but may not be worth cleaning up. DCDuring TALK 01:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: to run out of time. Apparently my use of this is idiosyncratic and unattestable. I couldn't find it among hundreds of collocations at b.g.c. I have added 2 other senses. The electronics one should be looked at by an electronics engineer-type. DCDuring TALK 18:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You might also try chess. I can't find a cite, but I seem to remember it being used in a chess sense for timed games. --EncycloPetey 21:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I have heard it used as a euphemism for death, which might be an extension of the RFV sense. - TheDaveRoss 22:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
As an aside, DCD, I always read your "clocked out" as a transitive verb rather than an intransitive one: "I am hereby clocking out this term" (closing it because of elapsed time). Equinox 19:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Clocking out is not official terminology, though 30 days is considered to be the earliest at which something can be stricken.
I think it would be ergative, both transitive and intransitive, with the meanings relating in a predictable pattern. I thought that with the passage of time the RfV would "clock out" on its own (intransitively). Its time ran out. I didn't do it. It's not my fault. I was merely drawing attention to the fact, especially for entries where I had entered the RfV and thereby felt debarred from striking. DCDuring TALK 20:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I had interpreted this use as intransitive, just as you intended it, and it didn't strike me as being at all odd. Until you listed it here, it never occurred to me that I'd never heard this use anywhere else. —RuakhTALK 00:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
English: the language of easy invention. DCDuring TALK 01:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
BTW, what's a good substitute. "Expired"? "Out of time"? "Past 30 days"? "Past its attest-by date"? Is it useful enough to keep as wikijargon (in WT:GLOSS)? DCDuring TALK 01:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No language given, but not found either. --EncycloPetey 19:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it might be Scots, not sure about the overlap into English. Nadando 20:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Plausible, but I can only find the one poor citation I've already added, even after a cursory look on Usenet. Equinox 21:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I've heard that one a bit, but I don't know whether it's primarily a spoken term. I've more often heard cheese and rice. --EncycloPetey 21:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: the heading of this section was previously "dabiñe, dabine". —RuakhTALK 17:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Does not seem to exist, no google hits, and I never heard this word.Matthias Buchmeier 13:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have speedy-deleted dabine, since it was a self-identified misspelling. (Admittedly, it said that it was common Internet slang -slash- misspelling; but since the "common Internet slang" part is obviously wrong — I can't find any hits on Google that seem to be in this sense — I'm not worrying myself over that part.) —RuakhTALK 17:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —RuakhTALK 18:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Tagged nearly two years ago by Keene. Might be considered an RfD. It seems like a proper noun for a specific government workmen's insurance scheme. I think it would need attributive use. There might also be a noun or different spellings.

Deleted. Equinox 01:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

An anon has questioned the "reality" of this seldom-edited word. --EncycloPetey 17:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Though there are many scannos for utilitarian and though no OneLook dictionary has it, the word seems real. I'm less sure about the noun meanings given. I could buy "military man/person". DCDuring TALK 15:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I have IMHO cited the adjective. It might be possible to cite an additional sense that is more specifically pejorative.
As for the noun, the original contributor must have been imagining a back-formation from militarianism or Militarianism. I'm not finding it. However, there is a sense of "a person in, connected to, or interested in the military" for which I have provided quotations. DCDuring TALK 16:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Cited, thanks. --EncycloPetey 15:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

But the four cites for the noun don't support the two senses very well. I will RfV-sense the two noun senses. DCDuring TALK 17:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Said senses RFV failed, removed. —RuakhTALK 18:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia article says they are sometimes called this, but I can't find any suitable citations except for one, and it's German, not English. Equinox 19:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 01:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense An anon had deleted this and another sense on the grounds that they are merely ironic or sarcastic use of the word. One of the deleted senses is well supported in dictionaries. The other I'm not so sure about. I'm sure that we'll find quotes for all senses that could use illustration. DCDuring TALK 12:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this a usage note? "Pretty" (attractive) may be used in a derogatory fashion to describe something that is seen to be pretty (attractive) but not, as it should be, functional. (The current sense is wrong at least in that it wouldn't be used for anything that was ugly and unfunctional.) It reminds me of an RFD/RFV a while ago where somebody suggested that "good" had an extra sense simply because one might sneer, "Oh, she's such a good girl." Equinox 21:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if it is even a usage note, but I can't quite reconcile the Hemingway quote with the senses we have -- or even those in MWOnline. It may be a good example of why not every quote really fits under a single sense or usage note.
The sense in "Now this is a pretty mess" seems like it might have evolved from ironic use of the original straight senses. (This doesn't sound like a US usage to me, BTW.) Maybe another negative sense is emerging or has emerged. If it doesn't seem that way to anyone here, maybe not.
And don't forget that "bad" acquired an opposite meaning that it accepted by most dictionaries. And consider "goody-two-shoes" and goody-goody. DCDuring TALK 23:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The negative use of pretty isn't new, and could very well have been strengthened by it's use in the popular operetta The Mikado (Gilbert & Sullivan). In the second act is a trio piece that twice uses the phrase "Here's a pretty mess" to describe the difficult situation they're in, and ends with all three characters singing a protracted "Here's a pretty how-de-do" in unison. --EncycloPetey 02:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The question is whether there is a second negative sense. The opposite-to-normal-valence meanings of "bad", "goody-goody", and "goody two shoes" are all fairly old, "bad" being at least 80 years old. DCDuring TALK 02:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: To tend a fire. OED? DCDuring TALK 14:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Not specifically. OED's troll v. I. 2. says, in part, “to roll, bowl, trundle; to turn over and over, or round and round”, which may be an action taken by someone tending a fire. Michael Z. 2009-06-05 02:47 z

Any takers? If it's OK, we need a definition of /b/. SemperBlotto 21:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC) p.s. The slashes are causing havoc.

IFYPFY for dehavocification purposes.—msh210 23:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Red link because the slash is interpreted as part of the URI. Note that "The word is known to have over 9000 users" is an in-joke; these people are generally amused by talking about things being "OVER 9000" (from an anime series in which a spaceship's power level dangerously exceeds this, I think). Equinox 21:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Useless trivia: "OVER 9000" is from an episode of DragonBall Z. You can get all you need from the first ten seconds of this. bd2412 T 02:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: "Brisk, cold weather that passes quickly." (N.B. the example was added later.) —RuakhTALK 16:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The example is cold snap. I've heard that very often, but never snap for weather outside of that phrase. Equinox 16:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's definitely what a cold snap is in the UK - not really sure about snap itself. (edit conflict!) SemperBlotto 16:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, in the U.S. as well. I am definitely not questioning "cold snap". —RuakhTALK 17:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
"A cold snap"; "a snap of cold"; "the air/breeze/wind had a snap to it"; "a snap in the air/wind/breeze". There seems to me some transfer of meaning among these common usages. I can't sort it out (yet?). Is it "the sensation of cold/dry on the skin/nose/throat" that unifies these? DCDuring TALK 18:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand the "snap" as being a spell, i.e. the period of weather, not its effects. Equinox 18:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I had been looking at COCA which makes certain kinds of searches (collocations, hyphenation) easier than Google. I could not find any kind of snap except cold and cool there. On b.g.c. there are "hot snap"s, so I expect that other weather-related senses are possible. I wonder whether it is only weather or if social atmosphere or musical mood can have a "snap". DCDuring TALK 20:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster Online, defines it as a "sudden spell of weather"... --BigBadBen 20:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"Without a mathematical mean." All I could find was a 2004 book: "the average is used to get a meanless dataset". Equinox 16:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Statistics context makes no sense. Any real sample is finite and therefore has a mean. A probability distribution without a mean can exist in a mathematician's imagination. I don't understand the quote. DCDuring TALK 17:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
In your cite it seems to mean roughly "normalized, such that the mean is zero and the expressions can be written without a mean". In this one it also seems to mean "having a mean of zero", but I'm really not sure. By contrast, in this one it really does mean "having no mean whatsoever": if you set up the improper integral, you'll find that it diverges to infinity; see w:Power law distribution. (I suppose one could also say "having a mean of +∞", but "having no mean" is also a valid interpretation.) —RuakhTALK 17:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be be some sense that comes up in signal detection and/or encryption that may be the given sense, but confirming it and entering the formulas are both beyond my paygrade. To say "meanless" means "having a mean of zero" really bothers me, especially with a mathematics context tag. It seems so literary. DCDuring TALK 17:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
It shouldn't bother you. Mathematicians frequently speak of "no|without holonomy", "no|without homotopy", etc., meaning that the holonomy or homotopy is zero. Brevity, though the soul of inaccuracy in mathematics, still makes for easier reading.—msh210 16:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps someone can extract something from these 4 from b.g.c. DCDuring TALK 18:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not certain about this, but I think that in all four of those, it means "meaningless". One says that L represents blah-blah-blah when it's at least 3, but that it's "meanless" otherwise; one says that you can use dual-rail logic (which encodes 0s and 1s in a higher-order stream with equal numbers of 0s and 1s — it's usually used to combat channel bias) to make Hamming-weights (numbers of 1s in strings of 0s and 1s) "meanless" to would-be decrypters; one describes various kinds of image analysis that are limited by certain assumptions or requirements, including one that's useless in situation foo and another that's "meanless" in situation bar; and the remaining one explains that they're not bothering to distinguish horizontal from vertical because said distinction is "meanless" when you're just dealing with numerical images. —RuakhTALK 18:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps: the number of "meanlesses" on Google Groups (Usenet) as errors for "meaningless" is very high indeed. Equinox 18:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Statisticians in writing would generally use more formal language, saying a distribution had an "undefined mean" (as with the Cauchy distribution or certain parameterizations of the F-distribution), but I've heard "meanless" used in sense orally (sorry, don't have time to find cites). --Bequw¢τ 22:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps try Scholar if you have the chance. There seemed to be some, but I couldn't get enough access to be sure. I looked through b.g.c. without much luck, but you might have better google-fu. DCDuring TALK 22:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The OED has two senses, one from the noun (ie "without the means") meaning "without agency or aid" (a citation mentions "meanless miracles" which ceased since Christ's ascension). The other from the verb, meaning "meaningless". Both marked obsolete, and the first rare as well. Ƿidsiþ 16:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense The first sleep of the night in a biphasic sleep pattern. I would like this meaning verified. I hope that we can come up with a more plausible "ordinary" (SoP?) definition as well, because most usage has no hint of "biphasic sleep patters". DCDuring TALK 22:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense The second sleep of the night in a biphasic sleep pattern. Companion to #dead sleep DCDuring TALK 23:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure: even if this can be cited, I think it's SOP, and obviously not common enough to be considered a set phrase. But seeing as it has somehow passed RFD twice, I guess the time has come for someone to put their money where their mouth is and cough up three cites. google books:"Spanish double l" has 7 hits, but none have this capitalization, and even if we ignore that, most aren't actually using "Spanish double L" as a term for the digraph. —RuakhTALK 00:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete English double SOP Spanish (adj. 2) + double (repeated, of a letter or number; undefined in Wiktionary) + l (n. 1). Michael Z. 2009-06-05 02:42 z

RfV-sense for “[t]he dot, or diacritic replacing it, on the Latin letters i and j”; can the term tittle really be extended to the diacritic that replaces the dot normally found atop the <i> and <j>? This sounds like a non-standard overextension to me…  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, OED says: "1. A small stroke or point in writing or printing. a. Orig. rendering L. apex ‘point, tip’, applied in classical L. to any minute point or part of a letter, also to the mark over a long vowel, as á, later also to a line indicating an abbreviation. More recently applied also to the Spanish tilde or circumflex over ñ, formerly to the cedilla under ç. By extension, any stroke or tick with a pen. b. The dot over the letter i; a punctuation mark; a diacritic point over a letter; any one of the Hebrew and Arabic vowel-points and accents." --Duncan 12:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Webster's third says that the term may be applied to any small stroke or diacritical, including a cedilla. Our definition is apparently not broad enough. --EncycloPetey 15:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Cites, please; I’m especially sceptical of the second sense.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been here for over three months, and that particularly dubitable second sense is still unattested; RfV-sense failed. The first, more reasonable sense, now has one citation of its use (and it is a use, despite the quotation marks). Furthermore, a third sense has been added, but I feel no need to question it. I’ve deleted that second sense. I’m OK with closing this RfV with the entry in its present state, FWIW.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Adjective senses 3 and 4. Both try to demark specific time periods for the meaning covered by sense 2, but while I have found plenty of examples that don't fit the given time period restrictions, other than an unsourced Wikipedia article for vintage car, I can't find anything that gives those as the definition to be used. Possibly might be used by specific collector organizations, but no evidence of general use being restricted to those definitions. — Carolina wren discussió 01:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
OED, vintage, n.:4. attrib., [. . .] c. transf. Denoting an old style or model of something, esp. a vehicle; vintage car, a motor car made between 1905 (or 1917) and 1930; cf. veteran car s.v. VETERAN n. 3.”
They've combined the general sense of old model and the technical sense of car model from particular years. A good approach.
I like our approach of separating the two, so one person might say vintage car meaning “car of 1915,” and another may say vintage car meaning “my old ’57.” The former is really a subsense of the latter, and in many cases it may be impossible to tell which sense is being used. But the problem with this is that we must list every attestable standard as a separate technical sense: cars, watches, etc. Michael Z. 2009-05-31 02:54 z

After edit conflict

Yuk. That [the OED def.] doesn't seem very lexicographic. It seems more like something written by an aficianado, perhaps someone with a garage full of pre-1930 cars. When was that written? Assuming it ever reflected usage beyond the owners of pre-1930 cars, is it still generally used that way? In the US? UK? Hawaii? NYC? In another ten years, will this still be the definition? If we are going to have definitions like this with dates, we're going to have to flag the entries for periodic review to make sure they don't get out of date. DCDuring TALK 03:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The entry is marked Second Edition 1989. Whether we're happy with the OED's details or not, it's not bad support for keeping vintage adj. sense 3. EtymOnline says that cars have been called vintage since 1928, so I'm assuming it didn't always mean 1930, and perhaps it won't always.[65] Michael Z. 2009-05-31 04:39 z
This is one case where I can't accept the OED definition at face value. For instance, The Vintage Car Club of Canada uses a definition of vintage that covers any car that is 25 or more years old. Perhaps there is a British collector organization that uses the 1919-1930 definition the OED gives, but we have conflicting use that can be well documented, so at best such a hyperdefined sense would need considerable context marking. Moreover, without primary cites to back up the sense, keeping the current sense 3 based on it being given in the OED would not only violate the attestation requirement of CFI, but be a copyright violation to boot. — Carolina wren discussió 01:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Certainly not copyright violation. The facts related in a dictionary are not copyrighted, including the definitions of words. Only the writing is, that is, the precise wording. Even so, all dictionaries necessarily borrow from others—there are only so many ways to irreducibly define some words. The OED doesn't label British usage, so one could presume that their definition of vintage (car) is restricted to British usage.
OED also has an interesting quotation under Edwardian:1968 Woman's Own 28 Sept. 28/1 Can you tell me what is the difference between a veteran car and a vintage car? A veteran is a car built before 1905 and a vintage car is one manufactured between the beginning of 1919 and the end of 1930. The period in between is covered by the category ‘Edwardian car’.” Michael Z. 2009-06-05 02:33 z

[Moved here from an earlier RFD.] Supposedly some kind of free-for-all video game. The word does appear on Usenet (though not to any extent in Google Books), but it does not seem to have this sense at all. Mostly it seems to mean whacking or snipping (removing posted content to make a reply smaller). Equinox 00:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably doesn't belong on Wiktionary, but should be listed on WT:RFV. 02:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Everything I was able to find meant something along the lines of "excessive whacking of things", couldn't find anything about a genre or type of game. Never heard it personally. - TheDaveRoss 19:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 01:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've seen 'phone, 'plane, and 'bus, but never anything with a final apostrophe like this. Can anyone confirm/cite? Equinox 18:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The plural "demo's" is not hard to cite using b.g.c., but (1) it may just be the grocer's apostrophe, and (2) even if not, it's not obvious to me that the singular would be "demo'" and not, say, "demo." or something. I don't think there's any way to cite "demo'" using any of the Google searches, though other corpora might be brought to bear; Wikisource, perhaps? —RuakhTALK 20:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
BTW, final apostrophes do see use in o' (of) and in eye dialect — don', mo', fo', etc. Those differ in that they're all just eliding a final consonant, but given the final o, I can kind of imagine that it might get borrowed over for demo as well. —RuakhTALK 16:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I see 2 possible uses on google books. Nadando 02:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Doremítzwr claims that umlaut has a plural umlaute (i.e., like the German plural Umlaute). Is this an acceptable British way of pluralizing umlaut, or is it wishful thinking? In the U.S. I have never seen anything like that being done. —Stephen 11:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

umlauts appears in BNC (1), COCA (5), and OED citations (4); whereas umlaute does not. Maybe we're looking at a potential justification for {{hyperforeign}}. DCDuring TALK 11:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • He seems to have cited it pretty thoroughly, and while some seem obviously to be treating the word as German, other do not. So...QED. I would tag it rare. Ƿidsiþ 11:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd emphasize seems. In the unhelpful quotation dump are at most three citations that do cite the headword (uncapitalized) without marking it with parentheses (as a gloss), or in italics or quotes (as a foreign word), to wit 1874, 1945, and 1998. (The capitalization of a German noun would also seem to mark it as foreign.) I don't think any of the other quotations belong in the entry, especially as it is not a lemma.
  • The absence of use in the 3 controlled corpora and the 867 raw b.g.c. hits for umlauts would suggest the need to indicate low frequency with a {{rare}} or {{uncommon}}. DCDuring TALK 12:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
OTOH, although the material should not reside at this entry, it illustrates the difficulties folks have with handling non-English words. In this case, the writers can be presumed knowledgeable. But they (or their typesetters) come to different conclusions about the right way of presenting a plural form of a non-English word to their readers. DCDuring TALK 16:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of these appear to be wholly unnaturalized usages, judging by italics, capitals, and the use of bold in one reference. At least a couple don't look like English usage to me at all.

We do need an unnaturalized or foreign usage label, indicating words that usually appear in italics for foreignness. Michael Z. 2009-06-05 01:34 z

A number of the sources are linguistic sources. 1900 is interesting because, unusually, it is a non-German linguistic context. Perhaps this deserves to be labelled foreign, linguisticsMichael Z. 2009-06-05 03:26 z

"A person online who is not actually there anymore." Like an IRC ghost? Never heard of it. Equinox 17:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 01:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: Verb: To hit someone in the crotch. Widespread? Regionally? DCDuring TALK 02:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there any doubt? A simple google search for 'been crotched', which must be verbal, yields 10.800 hits! —This comment was unsigned.
Are they durably archived sources that we can rely one and meet WT:CFI? Is the definition accurate? Is there more than one definition? DCDuring TALK 15:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

An English word with two dot-below diacritics (paṇḍit)? Surely this is in another language. bd2412 T 06:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sceptical of that kind of marking being preserved in English too. Note that we do have pandit. Equinox 20:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Different definition, though. bd2412 T 05:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it’s supposed to be used in the English-speaking community of India to mean a Hindu scholar. In Indian English, they preserve these retroflex consonants. I don’t think we have anyone here who represents the English-speakers of India and we don’t know much about their dialect. —Stephen 05:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"Very clean, and trendy looking (of garments, clothes, shoes, accessories)." I have heard of "fresh" meaning "cool, trendy", I think, e.g. "fresh" hip-hop beats. But clothes, and particularly clean ones? Equinox 20:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 01:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Excerpts from RFD discussion, some of which are here out of context of others' remarks ("sense 2" discussed there is the only extant sense now):

Move sense 2 to RFV; if it passes, then keep. I know of no other intransitive use of into — the intransitive counterpart is always in — I find it really hard to believe that are speakers for whom "the ice melted into" means "the ice melted", but if there are, then melt into certainly warrants coverage. []RuakhTALK 00:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
[] troubling to the RfD is "melt into" in a sense of "become". "In a moment, the brave soldier melted into quivering protoplasm." This would seem to possibly be a copula, albeit with a semantically limited range. "Brittle melted into gooey." DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 18:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Not a copula, since it requires a preposition. I don't see this as any different from "The company closed as a successful experiment." It is the preposition into that carries the sense "producing, becoming", which is already given in that entry. --EncycloPetey 21:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
In the second example the putative preposition "into" was followed by an adjective, which is why I thought it was possible that it was a copula. One would have to infer a noun that was "understood" (a word from grammar classes long ago) or that "gooey" was functioning as noun. I'd be surprised if there were no scholarly work on the concept of "phrasal copulae". ;-)) DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
But there are plenty of examples of adjectives functioning substantively, and it's easy to fabricate examples: "The rich turned into the poor." "The happy bled into the sad." "Light dimmed into dark." In all of these situations, one quality is transforming or grading into another. By definition, it's not a copula if there is a conjunctive word in addition to the putative copula. --EncycloPetey 23:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It is not as easy to fabricate examples with bare adjectives, which would seem to be the minimal requirement for a copula. I was careful enough to avoid any determiner before "gooey". I'm not trying to be difficult: I just want to make sure that I've pushed this as far as it can go or have somebody buy me a really good English grammar (either cgel or the previous best one) to shut me up or raise my quality of discourse. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 00:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing about a copula that requires a bare adjective, or any adjective at all. A copula can work with any subject complement, whether adjective, noun, noun phrase, or any nominative compound construction. --EncycloPetey 04:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the bare adjective test is a potential test for discriminating. A bare adjective cannot be a substantive, can it? A preposition cannot "take" a non-substantive, can it? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 12:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
In fact, a bare adjective can be substantive: "Meek wins." And a preposition can take a non-substantive (sort of). However, the prepositional object becomes a substantive automatically, in every case I can conceive: "She wrote the book on clean." ... even when the object is an adjective. --EncycloPetey 19:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
If necessary RFV second sense, which seems more like a mistake than anything, or just delete along with everything else. [] DAVilla 04:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sense 1 removed. Sense 2 kept, sent to RFV.msh210 21:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Noun: "A type of sound effects". Equinox 21:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

overdrive an amplifier, maybe? (overdriving, overdriven). Michael Z. 2009-06-05 02:18 z
An override is a device that allows you to prioritize audio signals. For instance, you could pipe classical music, voice intercom, and weather alerts over a single wire, and the override assigns the lowest priority to the music, higher to voice, and highest to emergency alerts. If you’re listening to music, the override will cut the music out to allow a voice signal. —Stephen 16:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The noun form is fine.

But the adj form I'm having problems with.

The first sense of "made from alabaster".

The second sense of "white, pale, ghostly" is problematic for me--especially the addition of ghostly. 22:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I updated the definition. I believe that alabasterness isn't ghostliness, although it may contribute to that quality. Michael Z. 2009-06-05 01:44 z
How do we know that the word doesn't mean "ghostly"? If we change the definition how do we know what is being challenged by the RfV?
The originally challenged senses should remain until this has had its 30 days. Any proposed new sense could be inserted, the RfV tag replaced with RfV-sense tags at the challenged senses.
Also, the citations now shown do not provide evidence that the term can be a "true" adjective. We would need cites of gradable or comparative use (which are available). The attestation of the adjectivity is not necessary for this RfV, is it? DCDuring TALK 15:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm unsure what constitutes a "true" adjective. I'll admit that I'm not a professional grammarian, author, or wordsmith. But I was paying attention in third grade English and back then we were taught an adjective is any word that modifies a noun. Now I'll admit that really noun can be an adjective, and it makes little sense to add an adjective section to every noun stating that the word also means "of or relating to" the noun. Igloo in the phrase an igloo salesman can only be an adjective (I wouldn't however say it is an "untrue" adjective. The adjective form isn't needed because it is a economic way to say a salesman of igloos.

When it comes to alabaster meaning "made from alabaster" I suppose that "alabaster box" it is evident that the box is made out of alabaster. In this sense it interchangeable with alabasterine. (Is that a "true adjective." But the tendency in English is to drop inflection. It has happened to alabaster/alabasterine -- a word I've only encountered in MW definition under alabaster listed as an acceptable alternative to the adjective alabaster. It is happening to leaden, so much that my educated guess is that leaden is used primarily to suggest lead (especially something that is weighty) such as a leaden foot. Something made of lead usually drops the inflection. (A Google search of lead bullets in quotation marks yields 88,000+ hits; while a similar search of leaden bullets yields less than 17,000).
It is also in the beginning stages with the word wooden. Wooden staircase yields 3 times the hits as wood staircases. In 150 years, it might be reversed. In 300 years, it might be that people will profess only seeing wooden as an acceptable but archaic alternative to the adjective form of the noun wood in dictionaries.

I added more quotations to the adjective form of alabaster. When I know the difference between "true" and "untrue" adjectives then I'll be able to intelligently address your concerns and might even be able to drum up some citations showing a "true adjective" form of the noun.

Forgive this long and rambling post. But I wanted to fully explain my POV on the subject. SonPraises 23:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
In "igloo salesman", "igloo" isn't an adjective, period, "untrue" or otherwise: it's a noun used attributively. If a man sometimes sells igloos, but usually other things, you can't call him an *"occasionally igloo salesman". If he's tall and sells igloos, you can't call him an *"igloo tall salesman". If he currently sells other things, but will start selling igloos next week, you can't say he'll *"become igloo soon". (None of these tests is perfect — not all adjectives pass all of them — but if a word doesn't pass any of them, then it's apparently not an adjective.) —RuakhTALK 02:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, then. I split this definition, since it was two things (but now the intended sense of ghostly is less clear). Michael Z. 2009-06-06 14:40 z
I'll readily admit my inclusion of "ghostly" as a defining sense along with "white and pale" may have been overreaching. It very well could be that it is more of a connotation rather than a denotation. I added the adjective form when all of the literary examples proved to be adjectives--alabaster boxes, alabaster chambers, alabaster cities. Reading several uses of alabaster, it seemed to be used within phantasmic contexts such this century-old New York Times headline: "Ghostly Hands Seen After Writers Left: One Looking Like Alabaster Moved Objects" SonPraises 23:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Dated sense just added by an anon: "To estimate the velocity of a boat or ship in knots by casting overboard the knotted line to whose end is attached the lead and thereafter counting the knots in the line as it goes aft along the side boards of the vessel." It sounds authoritative, but I can't readily find any corroboration. Nothing in OED, Webster, or dictionary.com supports this sense and this site suggests otherwise. -- WikiPedant 04:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup#wa alaikum assalam
Seems to be transliterated Arabic, is this really "English"? I'm going to avoid verifying it myself as I know nothing about Arabic. Mglovesfun 11:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The Arabic is وعليكم السلام. As far as I’m concerned, the transliteration should be deleted or redirected to وعليكم السلام. —Stephen 13:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've heard this (and the greeting it responds to) spoken by people who then continue to speak in English. So I assume that it has entered the language. SemperBlotto 21:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems very rare. No forecalling on Google Books for example. If it's a keeper, it will need some explanatory glosses (rare, archaic?). Equinox 20:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Only seeing one 1973 Books citation that seems to match this sense. On Usenet, it means a few different things but is mostly a specific filename. Equinox 20:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 01:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this a protologism? The alternative spelling looks like an adjectival form. Why are all the translations capitalized but not the English version? SemperBlotto 06:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a protologism at all. Part of Buddhist ethics for centuries. Used in academic articles since the 80s, including works by Marvin Harris (Our Kind, 1990), Johan Galtung or Glenn D. Paige (2002). Entries in other reference works include:
  • "Nonkilling: A New Paradigm" International Encyclopedia of Peace. Oxford University Press, New York (2009)
  • "Nonkilling Political Science" Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict, 2nd Edition. Elsevier, San Diego (2008)
  • "Nonkilling Global Society" Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS). EOLSS Publishers, Oxford (2004)
See academic support of Nonkilling Research Committees.
The alternative spelling follows the same logic as that of nonviolence/non-violence, even though use without hiphen seems to be preferred.
Capitalized translations have been corrected. --Cgnk 14:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
References are not citations. We need to see how the words are used in context in the entry itself or on Citations:nonkilling. Each citation should be from a different work, preferably a different author. Google Books is a good way to get the material. For something that is under challenge we need three citations. See pirate#Noun for an example of two challenged senses, once cited, one uncited, the uncited one being likely to be deleted. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Quotes showing the range of use of the noun would help. A quote from a well-known author, like Gandhi might be nice. Quotes with usages like "Nonkilling is ...." or "Nonkillings are...." clearly show noun usage in contrast to usage as above in the titles of the works where it could be adjective usage (though it probably isn't). DCDuring TALK 17:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments and guidance. Please take a look to see if it's OK. Never done a dictionary entry before. Thanks!--Cgnk 20:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
It is not clear to me that the quotations for the "doctrine" sense support that meaning as opposed to the other one. It is also not clear that we have a true adjective as opposed to a noun used as an adjective ("attributively"). A true adjective could be used after a form of "to be" ("predicatively") and would be comparable ("more") or gradable {"very"). Plurals show true noun use. Such citations may not make for good illustrations of meaning, but are necessary for constructing a high-quality dictionary entry. This is especially necessary when we venture into an area where no dictionary has gone before. If the quotes don't contribute to the users, we might put some of them on the Citations page. DCDuring TALK 13:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
This seems quite complicated. Can it be simplified? DCDuring TALK 14:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Cited all senses; closing. Equinox 01:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (science fiction) A person or group seeking land off-earth, emigrating from earth to other bodies in the solar system. Terrestrial sense cited. DCDuring TALK 19:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Etymology 2, as an interjection. Is this really a separate sense? A separate part of speech? A spearate etymology? Lot's of words can be "shouted", but this does not make them interjections. (e.g. Bob!, Ice cream! or Spoon!) --EncycloPetey 17:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This is very bad. I doubt the etymology (a little-known video game where it is used as a verb) and the "usage notes" that equate fail to failure are hardly saying anything about fail. Equinox 23:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Bad behavior. Material was removed out of process. RfV tag was removed before this was resolved. I have inserted rfv sense at Ety 2 for the new material. This seems as fatuous as the first and may have same underlying authorship. DCDuring TALK 20:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Clocked out. Both senses of Etymology 2. DCDuring TALK 18:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: a particularly large cannabis joint. The people on Google Groups who "smoke carrots" seem to be referring to the orange vegetable. Maybe Camberwell carrot from Withnail and I could get some hits. --Jackofclubs 18:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Somebody who needs to be fed: "Our new baby will be another mouth to feed." Isn't this mouth to feed? Does mouth alone ever mean this? Is it perhaps an attempt to be a little too proactive and document obvious figurative usages ("we could use another pair of hands")? Equinox 23:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 01:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Not in DRAE, maybe obsolete spelling? Matthias Buchmeier 09:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

google books:"hé tú" and "he tú" suggest that both are "in mention", at least. From more "natural" searches, such as "hé hecho", I can't discern if either one has ever been in use. I wonder if this is one of those nigh-theoretical things; the imperative used to be , then when the Academy took the accent off of hé (yo), they officially took it off of hé (tú) as well, but by that point the form was no longer in use. (Like if an English Academy decided to simplify "thou" conjugations by removing the "dost"/"doest" distinction in favor of common "dost" — it wouldn't really change anything.) But the distinction that our entries are making (he is yo-indicative, is tú-imperative) definitely requires support. —RuakhTALK 12:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Looking at google books:"hé tú", the first is an OCR error from the words "he said". The rest are separated by punctuation, as "yo he, tú has" ("I have, you have"). "he tú" is also separated by punctuation as "yo he, tú has". All of the instances under "hé hecho" that I looked at were either typos or misspellings. The spelling does exist, at least theoretically, as the tú-imperative, but I haven’t seen it in use before. —Stephen 21:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Weird, b.g.c. must be showing you something different from what it's showing me. At google books:"hé tú" I see a bunch of relevant mentions (including the one you link to below). (I mean, I also see Irish and Pinyin and other irrelevancies, but about a third of the hits I see are relevant mentions.) —RuakhTALK 19:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It’s difficult to find an example. I finally found a simple mention in Anuario de la Academia colombiana. —Stephen 21:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Equinox 12:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

+ An {{rfv}} for the undiacriticked spelling, zoopathologies; nota the dearth of Google Books hits. Term seems uncountable.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

RfV-sense for:
(rare, honorific) A housewife.
Quotations?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been here for over three months. RfV failed.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"(British) Having slimy filth in one's eye." Gunky eyes, yes, but sense 1 covers that. Can people and pets be gunky? Equinox 19:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 01:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"Available only in Japanese. Not yet fan-translated." Note that the word is not Japanese-only. Equinox 19:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. I feel that this whole entry should go, actually. Equinox 01:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps two words? Equinox 19:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 01:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Really English? Equinox 20:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Use in English language sentence added from Sumo Fan Magazine. SemperBlotto 06:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps xmag.png
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Even the typo for basement seems commoner than this. Equinox 00:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I see two cites for this at google scholar:absement integral|displacement -basement; some of the authors of one of the papers are some of the authors of the other.msh210 00:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 01:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Uncapitalized version appears to be extremely rare or just plain incorrect. Michael Z. 2009-06-11 12:40 z

  • keep. For information, Webster gives egyptologist and egyptology, with the mention usually capitalized. almost always capitalized would have been more accurate. An example of egyptologist: Auguste Edouard Mariette, French egyptologist, dug out Sphinx 12/16/42. (www.brainyhistory.com) I think that the absence of citations should not lead to the deletion of these pages, because it's very difficult to find citations in such cases (capitalization). I feel that Webster's authority and the citation I found (even if not durably archived) should be sufficient. The presence of a word in a dictionary is not considered a sufficient reason for including a word, because typos are possible, and do happen, even in reputable dictionaries, but the mention usually capitalized cannot be a typo or a mistake. Lmaltier 13:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Alas, our guidelines say that this should be attested or go, votes notwithstanding. There's a whole month for this, so I think the guideline is fair. Michael Z. 2009-06-12 00:25 z
This is not what I understand. CFI are not criteria for deletion. Don't forget the first guideline in CFI, the major one: all words in all languages. Lmaltier 05:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
See above: “[t]hen the disputed sense will be removed or the disputed entry will be deleted with a note saying it failed RFV.” If it doesn't meet criteria for inclusion then it isn't included. “All words” implies only words that actually are in languages.
Happily, this one has been verified. Thanks. Michael Z. 2009-06-12 12:35 z

Uncapitalized version appears to be extremely rare or just plain incorrect. Michael Z. 2009-06-11 13:14 z

What "authority" is saying any of these are incorrect. Why should we believe them? Isn't there a more constructive approach, like a "rare" or "uncommon" tag? I thought that Wiktionary was descriptive. Why are we wasting time on prescriptivism? DCDuring TALK 13:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? We are a descriptive dictionary, so I've requested that if someone thinks that this is worthy of inclusion they bother to find a quotation or two that we can use to describe this term and its usage. If this is a valid term, then citing it is not prescriptivism, and it is not a waste of time. Michael Z. 2009-06-12 00:25 z
Already done. DCDuring TALK 00:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It was a poor choice or target and a poor choice of remedy. DCDuring TALK 01:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The major need here was to reverse the erroneous move by a conversion script 4 years ago that moved Egyptology and Egyptologist to the lower case. DCDuring TALK 15:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

RuakhTALK 19:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The famous polemecist w:Richard Dawkins has started calling his critics "fleas". "Dawkins' fleas" might be how an ally of his might refer to them in plural. However, I have not seen any actual evidence of use of the collocation and the references don't have it AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 20:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
While I've not found any durably archived references, I've heard the term on CBC radio (during an interview with one of the said 'fleas') and it is reasonably common online (2k hits.) - Amgine/talk 01:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 01:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Although the Taalunie has this form as a ligit spelling, it is never used. Google does not give any real usage, only glossaries etc. If needed it would be formed as in English: "meest cynisch". This holds for all -isch adjectives. 04:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (British) an abundance of trolls. DCDuring TALK 20:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Silly. Deleted. Equinox 01:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

RfV-sense for three senses not supported by the OED:

  1. A part of a psalm or other portion of the Scripture read by the priest at Mass immediately after ascending to the altar.
  2. An anthem or psalm sung before the Communion service.
  3. Any composition of vocal music appropriate to the opening of church services.

These being listed in the entry alongside the following, which is the closest one of these four senses to the third sense listed by the OED:

  1. A psalm sung or chanted immediately before the collect, epistle, and gospel, and while the priest is entering within the rails of the altar.

It may be better to fuse these senses into fewer than we presently have, if verification efforts fail to yield clear distinctions along the lines laid out in the entry.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot personally find evidence for the senses relating to nomination, and do not see them in other dictionaries. Dfeuer 05:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Try a search for nommed on Google Groups. Equinox 10:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
It does appear there, and in that sense, but it seems rather rare (compare hits for "nommed", "nom nom", and "exculpatory" in Google Groups. Perhaps I should mark it rare? I like the Variety article as evidence. Dfeuer 04:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm also not sure how to find evidence for nom as a noun, which is claimed in the current entry. Dfeuer 05:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Forget I said that. That was dumb. Dfeuer 05:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

RfV for a sense recently added by an anon., viz.:

  1. (slang, Swedish) A fighter; an aggressive and hardhearted person.

 (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been here for over three months. RfV failed.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a natural usage. COCA only has it once, as an adjective. Is it attestable as a noun? Under the new inclusionism this and working hour are probably idiomatic, if real. DCDuring TALK 17:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Judging by Google Books the non-hyphenated form looks real enough, but I wouldn't care to create and cite it as I'm sure it would be RFD-ed as SoP, and the hyphenated form seems to be used only as an attributive form of the non-hyphenated one. --Duncan 17:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: The front of a queue. Is this ever used without words like "of the queue" or "of the line". Ie, "You can come to the front", unambiguously meaning "of the queue" without saying so. DCDuring TALK 12:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Lisp uses head and tail to refer to the endmost items of a list or queue (data structure). I'm probably clutching at straws! Equinox 13:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It's possible that there is a specialized sense needed for that even if the RfV's sense is arguably unnecessary. If so, we should keep this sense with its current wording to include both senses, if that does the computing sense justice. DCDuring TALK 14:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
So what if it isn't? You can't possibly be suggesting that head of the line, head of the queue, head of the waiting line, head of the sequence, etc. are all idioms that warrant their own entries? Or are you just saying that this sense should be merged into sense #4? —RuakhTALK 13:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
No, they don't seem idiomatic to me. I'd argue for merging senses. Perhaps substituting usage examples or having multiple usage examples that were not full sentences on the same line in an appropriate sense. A long entry like this could use all the help it can get to shorten it without omitting anything truly useful. If we had something like a "quick definitions" show/hide, I wouldn't be so persistent.
Maybe I should just try to come up with some more general approach to enhancing usabilty for long entries that doesn't violate too many of our prevailing norms. DCDuring TALK 14:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is used without "of the line" or "of the queue". I'm reminded of a TMBG song "Mrs. Train", which includes the line: "the line has a missing head" (because no one wants to be first in line). The word line is still present, but not in an adjectival prepositional phrase modifying head. --EncycloPetey 18:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologise initially for my lack of wiktionary experience.

  • Definition used here appears not to have enough backing to be justified.
  • Meaning not conveyed in enough sources.
  • Term as defined has not been in use for long enough.

Just generally not sure whether this definition meets criteria. Polargeo 16:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The 3 cites do not span a year. Do the two cites from the coiner/promoter of the term count as independent? DCDuring TALK 02:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
This new cite is still just under a year as the word was first published less than a year ago. I think the majority of the coverage the word has had (associated with Bill Gates) until just recently is due to the wikipedia article on it that was transwikied here. So if it becomes a phrase that is widely used I think it will be largely from the success of the wikipedia article. Polargeo 08:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The great big warning tag should hold us for now. Someone didn't like the tag and removed it, twice, I think. If attestation can't be found now, the citations will be moved to the citations page, for later use. The RfV process gives an entry a minimum of a month from the posting of the RfV. DCDuring TALK 12:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

An area of an old town that is outside of the settlement's historic boundaries or town walls. Hard to find citations. DCDuring TALK 20:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Not in BNC. DCDuring TALK 20:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
This is used, in combination, as part of several city parish names for parts of an existing parish that has grown beyond the old city boundaries. But I don't think it exists by itself. SemperBlotto 21:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Do any specific examples of city or parish names it is paired with come to mind? Is it used with a space after a name, hyphenated, closed? Throughout UK? North? Midlands? Is it dated? Used in shop names? DCDuring TALK 23:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Example: Wokingham Without. Equinox 08:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
OK. It is used. In that use doesn't seem to me to be a proper noun. Any more than "White" "River" or Junction" in w:White River Junction. It seems to be a capitalized post-positioned adjective derived in its application from the the phrase "beyond the walls" or "beyond the boundaries" or something similar. Except for its being unusual (outside the UK, anyway), I don't see a reason for it to appear as a capitalized entry. If the conjectural etymolgy seemed correct it might warrant a separate etymology at [[without]].
Could it the used alone? "On Sundays after Church, we like to stroll out to the Without?" It is then like the multi-local use of "the City" to indicate the local urban center. It is very hard to cite this, so someone familiar with its use should use their knowledge to find some citations if it is real. DCDuring TALK 13:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
No, it's more like a postfixed adjective, as you suggest. Equinox 15:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Unless we get some contrary evidence, that's what it will be. DCDuring TALK 15:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This might be a wind-up or just SoP, but I prefer doing things, by the book, so here it is. Mglovesfun 21:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this a marketing/promotional? Crafts? A home-entertainment/hospitality? Restaurant? DCDuring TALK 23:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Cited from trade press. It turns out to be an alcoholic-beverage promotion device. The mystery suggests it would meet WT:CFI as idiom: It meets the what-the-hell-would-that-be test?. DCDuring TALK 23:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Suits me (but still, it's just bizarre). Mglovesfun 08:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
What do you find bizarre? The thing itself? The word? That someone should need to have a term for such a thing? The world economy creates things like this and needs names for them on a regular basis. DCDuring TALK 12:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Cited; striking. Equinox 01:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:amerigine#RFV — failed. —RuakhTALK 00:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I requested verification for this word because twice in the past month the entire senses included have been replaced by an anonymous "editor" and replaced with the single translation of "yuck". Verification is requested, therefore, to establish consensus and avoid an editing war.

I understand that the "definition" of as an interjection may leave much to be desired. The problem with this interjection is that there are so many different ways to translate the term, that an exhaustive list of words that could be rendered by would be fleeting.

Reto vortaro defines the word as "Malbone! Malagrable!" (Bad! Unpleasant!). While the Esperanto word for malagrabla does encompass the sense of nauseous in the literal sense, it is typically rendered and used as English speakers would use unpleasant or disagreeable.

Reta Vortaro gives the following example sentence for :

Mozilo ne plu funkcias bone pro la nura ĉeesto de tiu Fajrovulpo en la sama komputilo! aĉ!


Mozilla is no longer working well due to the mere presence of that Firefox on the same computer! .

I'm not certain what else I need to do to verify these senses, but I'm willing to jump through any reasonable hoops to do it

SonPraises 04:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nimbleness. Claimed to be from OED, c. 1897. No citation at BYU's base of OED citations for wildcard search of "deliverh*". No Google books hits. An error at old OED later corrected ? DCDuring TALK 22:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Humorous computing slang indicating a question (from Lisp syntax): "Hungry-p?" This is famous from Eric S Raymond's New Hacker's Dictionary, but (like a lot of his words) I have yet to see it used without a self-conscious explanation. Citations please! Equinox 16:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 01:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Added as a "Polish" word, this isn't correct for Polish spelling, as far as I know. --EncycloPetey 18:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the Polish spelling is Polak, the form Polack only appears AFAICT as a Germanized surname. --Duncan 19:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This is by far the most common of the many spellings of the ethnic slur, AFAICT based on b.g.c. search of "dumb pol...". I will add the English. DCDuring TALK 19:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to whoever did it already. This is clearly widespread use. I would be willing to cite all of the five common spellings from b.g.c. alone. They are all in DARE, too. Most of the OneLook dictionaries don't have these. DCDuring TALK 19:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Of greater concern: Are there really three separate meanings, or just one? I discern only one. --EncycloPetey 20:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The only issue is how to handle the apparent fact that it took on a derogatory meaning and lost its neutral meaning, at least in the US. I already have citations that demonstrate the Elizabethan neutral usage. The contributor's "definition" is a short essay not in our style at all, but the quotations speak for themselves. The way in which "Polack" is derogatory is different from some other ethnic slurs, because it is almost the same as the Poles' name for themselves in their own language. It is actually sometimes neutral, sometimes only seen to be intended negatively to be pejorative by the presence of a negative adjective, sometimes clearly pejorative all on its own. DCDuring TALK 21:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I would put that information under the Usage notes, and give it a context tag of {{context|label=now|_|derogatory}}. --EncycloPetey 21:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Used to indicate emphasis", as distinct from sense 1 (increase). Which up- words are these? Equinox 14:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

For some verbs that collocate with "up" (maybe "link up"), the "up" seems to be there mostly for emphasis, since the verb alone carries the sense. If one formed the verb "uplink" and used it in those situations (not in the communications sense), that would do it. A lool at OneLook.com's wildcard search for "up*" suggests several mostly dated, archaic, and obsolete verbs like upbar, upheap, upcheer, upfill, upbouyance. Perhaps upkeep. I think that the "up-" is not easily considered as adding more than intensification. DCDuring TALK 16:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense sense 3: case. Not in User:Hippietrail's dictionaries (as of 2007). --Jackofclubs 16:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it means case. Hippietrail's dictionaries must be small. Por ejemplo, una vaina de cartucho = cartridge case. Also, the reinforcing hem along the edge of a sail (tabling), or the edge of a flag that is folded over and hemmed in order to pass a rope through it, is called a casing, which is Spanish es una vaina. A vaina is a sheath, scabbard, case, husk, or pod. A synonym is funda, as in pillowcase (funda de almohada). There is also the "cuchillo provisto de vaina", or case knife. To put something into a case is envainar. Case is a very common translation of vaina, and vice versa. —Stephen 11:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I've got the tiny Collins Spanish Dictionary Complete & unabridged, 8th edition, 2005, 84-253-3940-5, over 2000 pages; the miniscule Larousse Gran Diccionario Español-Inglés, 2nd edition, 2004, 970-22-0656-1, over 1600 pages; and a little Diccionario de la lengua española, 22nd edition, 2001, 84-239-6813-8, over 1500 pages. But yeah even though they must be some of the smaller Spanish dictionaries available, any dictionary can be incomplete (-: — hippietrail 13:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense 2: Used as an honorific for an important man.

Was tagged by User:Ruakh but not listed here --Jackofclubs 16:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

RFV'd in 2007, to not avail. I can't find cites. --Jackofclubs 16:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Used as a title by at least two scat singers: Scatman Crothers and Scatman John. Does not seem attestable otherwise. Equinox 16:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 02:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense 3: (Harry Potter, always capitalised) A field position in the game Quidditch.

Any mentions outside of HP? --Jackofclubs 16:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It's also a position in non-fictional Quidditch, so perhaps we could find documentation of that game. Equinox 16:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense 4: One who spreads rumors or reports or otherwise blazes matters abroad. --Jackofclubs 16:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

French: An illustration movement born in France during the 1990’s. It has been influenced by comics as well as by techno design. --Jackofclubs 16:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This page has been created on the French Wikipedia, then deleted (the creator of the page supported this deletion, with the following reason: sandbox, but the pseudo of this contributor has been mentioned elsewhere in Wikipedia as the creator of this "movement"), then created again (by an anglophone, very clearly). Very probably bogus. Lmaltier 09:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Are these separate senses, or should they be combined?

  1. A vile, wicked person.
  2. An extremely depraved person, or one capable or guilty of great crimes.
  3. A deliberate scoundrel.

--Hekaheka 21:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

They are the same, as far as I can tell. Also, the final sense (feudal rank): isn't that villein? Equinox 21:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
For villain, Chambers gives villein as the (noun) "original" meaning, and adjectival senses of low-born, base and villainous. Pingku 22:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
A depraved person capable of crimes is not the same as the rest of that (a vile, wicked person, guilty of crimes, a deliberate scoundrel): he may have never done a bad deed in his life. That said, I don't know the "depraved person capable of crimes" sense of this word. Anyone else familiar with it?msh210 22:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

An antivivisectionist? Equinox 22:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 02:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

[Psst, it is only I. The following comments are from the WT:RFD discussion, where the consensus was to move here to RFV.] Equinox 00:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

RfD of two senses:

  1. A motor car made (some time ago) by Ford in the United Kingdom.
    Keep, we have Honda, Ford, Toyota, Fiat, Mini, Mini Cooper, Jag, VW, Vauxhall, Chevy, even 98 Oldsmobile. There's plenty of others. --Dmol 01:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
    "Otherstuff" doesn't apply - we have a very specific CFI for brand names. bd2412 T 22:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. A small town in India.

If we accept these, then præsumably we shall also have to accept many of the other senses catalogued by Wikipedia.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 01:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, RfV. bd2412 T 22:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
RFV the first and delete the second along with any other "small town" definitions that aren't significant for reasons of etymology. 00:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What’s the current policy on terms like this automobile sense now?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"Verb: (computing) To convert an idea to an image." I don't even know what this means. Equinox 04:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Only works if your computer has a conceptualization interface installed. Michael Z. 2009-06-22 12:39 z
I don't see how this can be kept. Go ahead and remove it unless someone can cite it. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 02:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

[ arguendo#Latin ]

The translation is given as "For the sake of argument", but, despite my minimal knowledge of Latin, I would think this should be translated as "gerund of <whatever the first-person singular form is>", and then, possibly, as "for the sake of argument" as a second translation; or is it (or was it) only used in Latin (not in English or in legal terminology) to mean "for the sake of argument"? — Paul G 14:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

We have four places to put a meaning that respects the Latin grammar:
  1. A Latin section on the same page
  2. The etymology of the English term
  3. A sense (possibly dated) that exactly respected the Latin grammar but in English usage.
  4. A modern sense artfully worded to respect the Latin sense.
I would reject the last because it allows to much weight for the dead hand of the past. The third requires (in principle) attestation, which might prove time-consuming and may not get done at all. The other two seem more economical to me while effectively communicating enough about the evolution of meaning.
One advantage of our multi-lingual nature is that we could have a Latin entry in the same page. There is some thought to put glosses on the entries for inflected forms like this one.
As I understand it, one could define its legal use with a non-gloss definition: Used to set off the facts presented in an argument on a point of law from facts in dispute in the case. This in no way depends on the Latin grammar. DCDuring TALK 15:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for running on about this without having looked at the actual tag location. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to think the problem through. DCDuring TALK 17:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the Latin section of the page. It is a form of a Latin gerund, and four forms of a Latin future passive participle.

With regard to the points above:

  1. The Latin section on the same page now exists.
  2. Including something in the etymology section of the English entry sounds good, but...
  3. You'll have a hard time finding an English usage that parallels the Latin grammar, for two reasons. (a) Latin gerunds are typically restricted to the singular genitive and dative, with some appearances in the accusative, but never in the nominative. (b) The participle forms are the gerundive (future passive participle), which does not have a proper equivalent in English.
  4. So a modern sense "artfully worded" isn't feasible. The translation would be awkward and couldn't properly capture the Latin meaning without lots of aditional explanatory notes about the Latin future passive participle (or gerund).

So, the idea of putting a gloss on the Latin entry is also impractical. The future passive participle does not translate well or simply into any language that I know of. --EncycloPetey 03:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense I didn't see this posted or in archives. A NZ verb sense. DCDuring TALK 16:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Not seeing it. I'd even speedy, except that I see Web hits.msh210 21:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Rfv-sense - A device used in offices for holding papers, such as bills, that are no longer needed.
  • Rfv-sense - A device used in balers for hay or straw bales for knotting the string around a bale.

Neither of these senses in the OED. SemperBlotto 13:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I would love to know the name for the second thing. I own something of close to that description, that I imagined was used in a shipping room, but I don't have the owner's manual. DCDuring TALK 14:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps "bale needle". See here. Pingku 15:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sense2 ("Specifically, in warfare, acts like using symbols like the Red Cross or white flag to attack the enemy; or placing military personnel or equipment in densely populated civilian areas, considered a war crime"). This just seems like an instance of sense1. Also, sense2 is not very clear since it provides only examples but no defn. -- WikiPedant 01:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It does seem to be used to refer to violations of treaties (arguably sense 1), but also to violations of some implicit unsigned treaty concerning the rules of battle, which usually favored the side leveling the charge of "perfidy". The meaning seems to be gradually coming to mean "trickery". It doesn't seem particularly military; political and diplomatic usage possibly like sense 2 abounds. Was Odysseus perfidious or clever? DCDuring TALK 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
All true, but political and diplomatic usage is also readily covered by sense1. I'm thinking sense2 should go, especially since it's not even written as a defn. (PS, I see Odysseus as too complicated a fellow to brand as perfidious. More like a cunning, gutsy, ruthless, yarn-spinning, and pretty capable rogue who was, in spite of it all, an inspiring and sometimes soulful leader who was ferociously loyal to his family and friends.) -- WikiPedant 19:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I was more focused on the apparent drift of meaning to include acts of deceit that do not necessarily involve disloyalty or broken promises. The challenged "definition" is, um, poorly worded and would almost certainly be rendered redundant by a definition, "deceit", such as Oxford Compact and Encarta have (and others at OneLook don't). Webster's 1828 shows a very particular delineation of the faithlessness/disloyalty sense. It seems to reflect a breach of agreement or certain kinds of social or political obligations. DCDuring TALK 19:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Cited, surprisingly to me. The modern law of war uses the concept rather specifically to mean "illegitimate deception in war". I would think that rewording, though radical, would not be objectionable to the contributor. I have also added the "deceit" sense. DCDuring TALK 20:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: previous discussion at Talk:Polack and User talk: —RuakhTALK 11:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


  1. {{alternative spelling of|[[Polack]]}}

(Has been questioned by an anon editing [[Polack#Alternative spellings]].)
RuakhTALK 17:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Cited, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 18:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! —RuakhTALK 00:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense This is chalengeable as it appears to be a neologism rather than an acknowledged sense of the word pollock. Meaning it is not backed-up by any dictionary and/or encyclopedic sources. --Jazzeur 03:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The words Pollock and pollock are different, as Smith and smith are. The multiple spellings of "Polack" are shown for example in DARE, but we require only that a given sense be supported by 3 quotes from durably archived sources spanning a year. See WT:CFI. If this were a neologism, that does not mean it would be removed. If it meets the attestation standard, it stays. It might be made to have a neologism tag, but the criteria for that are not systematic, AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 15:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
It actually seems that one could even attest the spelling pollock for the same meaning based on a Google books search for "dumb pollock", but the "See" links at the top of the page should be good enough. DCDuring TALK 15:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, we do delete misspellings, unless they're "common misspellings"; but that seems to be outside the scope of RFV. —RuakhTALK 13:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Should we have specific guidelines for deleting one of these? All, including Polack, are in origin eye-dialect of the Polish. They are something like the many spellings of באָבקעס (bubkes), (large) beans). DCDuring TALK 14:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I think an RFD vote is sufficient. If the community decides it's a misspelling (as Jazzeur seems to think), and that it's not a common one (as I think is pretty clear), then it goes. Personally, I think it might be nice to have some sort of "Alternative spelling, or perhaps misspelling, of ____" template for cases like this, where it's attested, and adequately cited, and it's not necessarily clear whether to consider it a misspelling. —RuakhTALK 23:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[66] doesn't help imo.msh210 18:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"To snub or disrespect", and "To thwack or fubar". (Thwack itself is already under RFV in this sense.) Equinox 14:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Just delete the second one. This sense of thwack & bork are defined circularly, and fubar ain't a verb, so the definition means nothing. Michael Z. 2009-06-27 17:19 z
Deleted. Equinox 02:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: (finance)) The action of experienced investors selling an asset to inexperienced investors at a high price. Previously tagged, but not brought here. A little too theory- and value-laden to be a good dictionary definition. There is a more neutral sense to be inferred from attestation-worthy quotes, but perhaps someone can get cites for this one. DCDuring TALK 17:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This should be attestable in attributive use. DCDuring TALK 13:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A look on Google books suggests that marmite (ie, minuscule) can also be used to mean the yeast spread. Does that seem right? — Beobach972 02:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't surprise me. But I am fairly sure that the upper-case brand name preceded the lower case for the yeast stuff. The brand name is apparently derived from the container it was sold in which resembled the French marmite (a covered pot, usually earthenware). If "Marmite" can't be cited in attributive use, we can still have the lower-case entry and include the brand name in the etymology. DCDuring TALK 02:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a medically-useful substance called Marmite, but I'm not sure whether it's the yeast spread or not. It seems to be. Take a look:
  • 1940: the Indian Council of Medical Research, The Indian Journal of Medical Research, pages 377–378
    In this group there were 3 cases which showed only extensive scrotal involvement that cleared up completely after Marmite was given for 3 weeks. [... In another case,] the dose of Marmite was not doubled as was done in the other cases, where the desired result was not obtained.
  • 1963: Donald Stewart McLaren, Malnutrition and the eye, page 261
    Calcium, phosphorus, and nicotinic acid were not of value but Marmite gave slight improvement in all cases who received it.
(The 1963 one is also an interesting use of 'who'.) — Beobach972 15:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • 1917: Robert Hutchison, Food and the principles of dietetics, page 98
    Recently, extracts prepared from yeast have been introduced as substitutes for ordinary meat extracts. A good example of these is the preparation known as Marmite, which has the following composition [...]
  • 1997, Bessie Head, Maru, page 81 or 87
    Moleka's kisses taste like Marmite sandwiches. Moleka's kisses taste like roast beef with spicy gravy.
  • 2008: Elizabeth Hartley Winthrop, December, page 197
    "Do you like Marmite, Belle?" Isabelle pauses to inspect the brown stuff now on her knife. She has never had Marmite before, and it smells terrible [...]
— Beobach972 15:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I think only the "Marmite sandwich" case fits the attributive use criterion, but I'm not sure. The broad sense of attributive might include this:
  • 2001, “"Great Train Robber Ronnie Biggs"”, The Independent, London:
    Ronald Biggs, the Great Train Robber, is a sick man. Now aged 71, he has run out of money; .... After three decades as a semi-celebrity in Rio, posing with topless lovelies on Copacabana Beach, he wants to come home to the country of Marmite and warm beer to die in peace. How very touching. Not.
DCDuring 16:06, 1 July 2009

This is lowercase, but I thought I'd put it here for now.

  • 1919 (?): Lawrence J. Weidmann, The Battle of Bourges, page 92
    Two girls were on the night stretch and three on each of the others, one making sandwiches, one acting as cashier, and the third, called the marmite girl, [...]

— Beobach972 19:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's another example of 'Marmite sandwiches', referred to both with article and without:
  • 2007, Annette Laing, Don't Know Where, Don't Know When, Confusion Press, page 28
    Brandon, hungry, decided he would prefer something savory, and was offered a choice of sardines on toast or Marmite sandwich. [...] Brandon didn't know what a Marmite sandwich might be, but it sounded better than crunchy eyeball fish, [...]
Also, I'm sure someone could find examples of 'Marmite kiss[es]' in usenet. — Beobach972 19:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The English part - added like this as the only edit by the anon. --Duncan 17:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how it would be used. Like meister? Or like Mister, but only for Germanic types? Or just as a noun? In the absence of some clarification it might qualify for deletion under "no usable content". DCDuring TALK 18:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense ×3. Entry was created with the RFV tags, but not logged here. They look dubious to me. Michael Z. 2009-06-27 17:17 z

Rfv-sense (informal) Astronomy using observations via telescopes that are sensitive in the range of visible light.​—msh210 22:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the sense in RHU. Isn't that more likely than the other sense, even though less likely to be used precisely? DCDuring TALK 23:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry: what's RHU? I only tagged it and requested verification because a (admittedly cursory) look at bgc yielded lots of examples of the other sense and some ambiguous examples, but not one example of this sense.​—msh210 16:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
RHU=Random House Unabridged, one of the list of "Dictionaries to be Taken Seriously" and also on OneLook via Dictionary.com.
Many hits for "optical astronomy" involve the "w:National Optical Astronomy Observatories". The scientists are much more aware of the details of what can be done outside the range of visible light but using the many ground-based reflecting and refracting optical telescopes. A goodly amount of the usage aimed at normal people just makes a simple distinction between "radio astronomy" and "optical astronomy". Sometimes they try to distinguish between visible-light and optical astronomy. This is the kind of thing that we need to do, especially since Wikipedia seems to occasionally drop the ball on normal-person semantics of technical terms.
I found some quotes that show some of the kind of use I mention above. It is tedious to separate the voluminous technical usage from the other in books. Newspapers are better. DCDuring TALK 17:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We've had a whole run of Macedonian towns and cities. I picked this one because it has non-standard (for English) diacriticals. --EncycloPetey 01:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  • As an administrator you should be well aware that there are many entries here with such diacriticals. Some langauges have to use diacriticals, as it is their only way of writing words in the Roman alhpabet. Macedonian is transcribed by a standard system and, if you look at the English Wikipedia entries for Macedonian (and many other languages), towns, names etc, they all stand like that. There is no other way to write them.

As for the large number of the Macedonian towns and cities, I thought I may put them all here, since there are only 34 of them in total. The rest are rural places (i.e. villages and hamlets). If this understanding of mine however, is against the criteria of Wiktionary, feel free to delete the ones you deem "insignificant". --B. Jankuloski 02:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The question is twofold: (1) Whatever the Macedonian transcription, is this spelling demonstrably used as English? (2) The perennial question of place names. I wish I could tell you what our policy is on including place names, but we never seem to pin down what it is we allow, or how and where it should be entered. I'm seeking the opinion of the community in a general way, using this specific locale merely as a point of discussion for the wider issue. --EncycloPetey 02:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, that is what I assumed as well. I am just pointing out to the community that this transcription is the only way of reffering to Macedonian placenames in English, and that this is indeed ubiquitously used in all Wikipedia articles, as well as the Web in general. --B. Jankuloski 07:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
google books:"in|to|near|of|into|from Delčevo" is telling.​—msh210 17:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Delčevo is used in English, and Delcevo too. Lmaltier 18:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC) It's true that Delcevo seems to be the usual spelling in English (1 hit for the above request, 58 hits for the same request using Delcevo), except in Wikipedia (4 pages mention Delcevo, 25 mention Delčevo). It's easy to find other uses of Delčevo on the Web, though. Lmaltier 19:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, but that is only because people do not bother writing it properly. Many non-Macedonians do not actually know what the proper spelling is, and that is mainly due to the fact that and Macedonians themselves either have Macedonian (Cyrillic) or English on their keyboards, and very rarely the approapriate keyboard with diacriticals, i.e. that they obviously don't bother telling anyone about the correct way. I may suggest inviting users and admins from mk Wiki to testify to that. In any case, have a look at w:Romanization of Macedonian, I think it might be of use. --B. Jankuloski 21:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Delcevo is the usual spelling in books written in English. The most correct spelling of a word in a language is the spelling usually used in books written in this language. Therefore, Delcevo seems to be the correct spelling in English (but I agree that Delčevo cannot be considered as incorrect). Lmaltier 21:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • [e/c] As Lmaltier just wrote, we care about how a word is actually used in the language we're claiming it's in. By "used" we mean used in durably archived sources, not including Wikipedia. Please see WT:CFI.​—msh210 21:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently created to be a tranlsation, but I've never heard this term in my years of working in onomastics. --EncycloPetey 14:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

google books:"his|her calling name" has sufficiently many hits ([67], [68], [69], [70], [71], and [72], and possibly Nepal, Jailbreak, [73], Mountains, and Spiritpath) in the sense of "name that one is called by, though it may be a nickname or otherwise unofficial"; perhaps that what the contributor meant?​—msh210 17:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Edited inconsequentially.​—msh210 21:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
An idiomatic definition that seems to encompass all the quotes is "nickname" not "given name" which, I thought, is more official (appearing on a birth certificate etc). Not a term I remember hearing or reading before, but easy to infer its meaning from context. DCDuring TALK 17:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, except that some of the above hits seem to use calling name to refer to an official name (i.e., not a nickname) by which one is familiarly known: Nepal, Jailbreak, Spiritpath, and possibly Mountains.​—msh210 17:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Edited inconsequentially.​—msh210 21:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I also noted more than a few hits for a sense referring to "a name that an animal is trained to respond to". (search "dog" "calling name"). We may end with three or more senses. DCDuring TALK 22:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Are those not all the same sense? A name one goes by (is called by).​—msh210 22:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Would that include screen names (computer), stage names, aliases, pen names, affectionate names like "meathead" and "mon petit chou", and surnames, all of which one may be called by? The regrettable speciesist tendencies among normal users may prevent them from realizing that "one" applies to animals. And speciesist animal users might also have a problem. I suppose that if we have all the synonyms listed the human senses should be covered. I'd still be a little concerned that a user (say a translator) might not be discriminating in the choice of synonym to translate from. For a short entry like this, why not be nuanced ? DCDuring TALK 02:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
As both onomastics and biology are ong-time interests of mine, I think a nuanced entry in this case would be spiffy. --EncycloPetey 20:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: The definitions need to be reworked in light of some quotations. Two of the senses (one literal) seem to be there just to provide cover for the Star Wars sense. I don't think that "dark side" as in "There is a dark side to his personality." is idiomatic. Dark (hidden", "malign", "depressing) + side (aspect) seems to cover it. Perhaps there is some idiomatic usage of some kind that the OneLook dictionaries have yet to notice, probably because it's still too new. DCDuring TALK 01:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the wrong generation to know if this text message acronym meets our criteria or not? Goldenrowley 04:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  • RFV failed. Deleted.Goldenrowley 02:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Usage on blogs suggest that it's plausible (e.g. 'gleðikona verður afturbatapíka! enn gerast undur og stórmerki.' — 'prostitute becomes "convalescent virgin"! miracles and wonders still happen!'), and the only Google Books hit is a dictionary, which could be very useful — but that it's restricted content. — Beobach972 20:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: alt spelling of 9/11. COCA mostly has 9-11, not this spelling. Is this spelling in widespread use? It is so easily confused in the US with the emergency-call phone number, that I can't imagine any one using this spelling except by mistake. DCDuring TALK 18:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

= willy (penis)? I am sceptical. Equinox 08:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 02:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

equipment (3) = equipment (2), in “gaming, especially role-playing games”. As if “equipment” were gaming slang for the in-game entities which represent equipment. Michael Z. 2009-07-03 13:00 z

I think the intended nuance is that there can be things in a game that are "equipment" in the broadest sense but cannot be "equipped" (donned by the player as clothing or accessory). Equinox 13:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Example? Michael Z. 2009-07-05 19:40 z
For instance "dragonhide gloves" are equipment in World of Warcraft (not that I've ever played it), even though gloves would not usually be called "equipment" in real-world English. Conversely, World of Warcraft might well have things that would be equipment in English (perhaps a wheelbarrow or something, I dunno) that are not "equipment" in the role-playing sense because they can't be worn/applied to one's character. Equinox 10:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this term as specific as the definition states? The entry was created based on a phrase "theologically liberal religion" added to another entry, which seems to argue that this phrase is sum of parts only. --EncycloPetey 16:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It certainly seems to mostly be a hypernym for more specific traditions (like Unitarianism or a liberal tradition within a religious denomination} that are demonstrably religious traditions. That it is a tradition itself is doubtful. Would interfaith meetings among members of various liberal religious tendencies and a common reading list among liberal intellectuals affiliated with various denominations mean there was a single tradition that constituted liberal religion?
Do we have to depend on that kind of quasi-encyclopedic knowledge to determine whether this is SoP? That seems tantamount to requiring zealous advocacy for such entries because of the time, effort, and/or prior knowledge required. We're going to need many more and more diverse contributors to reasonably include such terms in a balanced way.
The only OneLook reference that covers this term is Wikipedia. DCDuring TALK 16:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Top Cat. Interjection seems likely, but the verb? I don't think shupping etc. are going to meet CFI in the foreseeable future. Equinox 20:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Verb-ness and inflecting-ness are sometimes separate issues. google:"wouldn't shup" -"shup up" does pull up uses that we can't write off as interjections; but this could be one of those verb idioms, like login and try and X, that only exist in the plain form. That said, google:"wouldn't shup up" pulls up lots and lots of hits, presumably typos (of the anticipatory variety, where your mind is already ready for the next word, helped along in this case by the <u>/[ʌ] assonance). So, I can't tell if "shup" really exists, or is just a common typo. Is anyone familiar with this usage? —RuakhTALK 18:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: noun "A single-celled organism". I've never seen this used as a substantive. The usual term as a noun is unicell. --EncycloPetey 02:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks plausible considering the plural: [74] Equinox 22:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: Noun, Verb could use checking as to sense. DCDuring TALK 03:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't verify the meaning of this word. Will need formatting if OK. SemperBlotto 18:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how best to define it, but a b.g.c search returns many uses. --EncycloPetey 18:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"(computing) A structure in a programming code, like blocks, functions, subroutines, etc." The verb is well known. For instance, if you have an inner loop that looks at every column in a grid and an outer loop that looks at every row, you can "nest" them, which means you put one inside the other (and thus consider every grid cell, every combination of row and column). I learned this term in the 1980s. But I've never heard of this being a noun, and I distrust anybody who talks about "a programming code" as though it were singular. Equinox 01:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some use of this mainly as "loop nest". Conrad.Irwin 01:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The etymology is incredibly suspect. Does anyone know this word? Equinox 02:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The etymology is what other dictionaries have. I'm unfamiliar with the word, but it appears at [75] and [76].​—msh210 16:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: baseball slang interjection. DCDuring TALK 16:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Very hard to search for this using Google. (Do the BYU corpora help? I'm unfamiliar with them.) This page (equivalently, in case that's 404, this one) make it seem like a noun, and capitalized. Of course, that's not durably archived. I've found the following book hit so far, but POS is unclear:
  • 1994, April Sinclair, Coffee Will Make You Black, 2000 Harper Perennial edition, ISBN 0380724596, page 27 [77]:
    I could hear my brothers clapping and yelling. "Home run, jack! Home run, jack!"
Make of it what you will.​—msh210 16:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Other Web hits concur that it's a noun.​—msh210 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Based only on google and google search results, this appears to be a word made up to be one of the longest English words. That said, if this isn't actually used in the medical community, can we please make a note of that in the entry? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 22:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

My search found one ad for a "dictionary", reprinted many times, and many dictionary mentions. The closest things to usage are discussions of medical and scientific terminology which criticize this term. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox 02:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense This definition seems dubious to me. The "i" prefix is just something companies put at the front of their products to seem techno-cool. 13:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Not companies. One company... Lmaltier 21:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
One company, especially (Apple products), but I've seen it elsewhere (iGoogle, iWireless, etc.) as a takeoff on Apple's "i-" thing. But it IS almost exclusively Apple that uses this prefix... I don't think that "i-" needs this definition. L☺g☺maniac chat? 13:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
My earlier comments on this are at WT:TR#i-. Equinox 13:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


comment: The losing-transmission usage does seem iffy. The term I've always heard was "you're breaking up". 21:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In some limited English use - maybe a combo of mull and lament. Or maybe a borrowed French or Latin word? Goldenrowley 02:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be sum of parts, unless it has a specific business sense that I don't know about, and I'm no businessman that's for sure. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is probably minimally attestable (4-5 cites). More common in print (5+:1) is digital direct marketing. That term seems more readily comprehensible and more SoP (= "digital" + "direct marketing"). Thus we may be in the position of favoring the less comprehensible term with an entry. This is what I call the "misnomer principle", like w:Gresham's law ( = bad money drives out good).
Perhaps I will add a sense defining it as "digital direct marketing" and try citing it in that briefer, more general sense, more likely to accommodate the limited number of citations than the current wordy entry. DCDuring TALK 21:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Some additional citations using the term have been added to the page.Cb711
Please see WT:CFI for a description of what sort of citations suffice.​—msh210 16:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, direct digital marketing is not synonymous with digital direct marketing. The difference is more than just preference on the order of the words. Digital direct marketing means executing direct marketing campaigns in a digital way. Direct digital marketing means executing digital marketing campaigns in a direct, addressable way. Direct digital marketing means the marketer can control the entire life of the message from the initial send and response to the next triggered campaign. Direct marketers have very little control over the consumer response, and it is highly unlikely that a direct marketing campaign is able to trigger another timely call-to-action. Cb711

Equinox 21:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Google gets 139 hits for this, but I'd have to look quite hard to get three "usable" ones. It's not sum of parts if it does exist (IMO). So, good luck! Mglovesfun (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Was Application Delivery Network before renaming.

Protologism? Commercial product? Capitalised? SemperBlotto 11:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've done a bit of cleanup, based on the fact it might meet CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't come across this before. I can see some usage on Usenet, but I am suspicious of two of the four senses as probably over-specific variants of sense 1. They are: "A fan of Brazilian jiu-jitsu"; "A fan of Bruce Lee and/or MMA (mixed martial arts)". Equinox 21:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I could see, this seems to mean a zealous, argumentative online fan of someone or something. See Citations:nutrider. I'd be happy to wait for someone with more familiarity with this to confirm it (or not). DCDuring TALK 23:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The current example sentence is not adequate because it only says something is like Fibber McGee's closet. Equinox 23:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

See Citations:Fibber McGee's closet. Some are similes, which shouldn't qualify. Others are metaphorical uses, which should. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the research. I'd say that five or six of your eight should qualify. Equinox 12:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: circus ringmaster. Not in Onelook or accessible parts of online slang dictionaries. Didn't show up in search for support for comparatives and number. DCDuring TALK 18:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"(Australian, slang) penis". Only appears in word lists. Equinox 19:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 02:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"A respectable person". Equinox 00:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 02:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: Police slang. Any takers? --EncycloPetey 14:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added one cite. This is a hard one. Incidentally, based on the hits I found, we seem to be missing some senses; I added a few that I could figure out (people waffling their hands to indicate vacillation; a waffled surface), but there seem to be yet others, if anyone's up to it. —RuakhTALK 18:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A contestant who has left a game show with nothing. Equinox 18:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox 02:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: As the older name of Snickers chocolate bar. Can we find sufficient citations as a trademark to warrant inclusion? --EncycloPetey 20:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I cannot do the searches right now but look on w:Snickers. Also I remember that they sponsored the w:London Marathon for a few years using the brand name 'Marathon' when I was a kid. This may be a search to follow up on. Polargeo 14:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
This definitely exist as a brand name (as the article says). I could be {{rfd}} material however. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn;t a question of whether the word exists. It's a question of finding citations sufficient to meet CFI for brand names. If no one provides such citations, the entry will be deleted for failing RFV. --EncycloPetey 19:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  • RFV failed, content removed. -- Visviva 11:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice a {{rfv}} for the term Wikimedia Foundation un-usable as an entry for wiktionary, even marked as {{wjargon}}? This has been requested for deletion in Nov 2007 and there was a keep vote in Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation Lantrix 09:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The "keep" you mention is from November 2007, which was during the vote to limit inclusion of brand names and before the vote to exclude WMF jargon. This conversation can easily be reopened imho.​—msh210 15:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

clocked out DCDuring TALK 12:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Equinox 15:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What a strange word. I suppose the capitalisation is wrong (look at the citation), coming purely from the older English habit of capitalising Important Nouns. I also can't find any text with the word in. Equinox 15:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There isn't actually a definition either, it just gives a meaningless red link. Seems to qualify under "no usable content given" if you ask me. Mglovesfun (talk)
AFAICT, it seems like it might be a scanno of an Afrikaans word. The plant in question seems to be from the genus wikispecies:Dodonaea, w:Dodonaea angustifolia, the sand olive. w:Carl Peter Thunberg gave his name to a lot of plants, especially in South Africa, but some seem to have been taken away. A google source gave sandolien and ysterhout as names for the plant, presumably Afrikaans. "bossie" might be an Afrikaanized word from an African language. DCDuring TALK 01:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
In Afrikaans yster = iron; hout = wood, this is yet another species called ironwood.
I can't find or guess what bossie might be for this. DCDuring TALK 01:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with Mglovesfun: the definition is a couple of species names. Assuming (I haven't checked) that those are real species, that's a valid definition, if one that can be worded better.​—msh210 17:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
MG was reacting to the unexpanded species names. What's there now is what I've found. As it was, the snippet quote didn't give enough context to determine that "D." was Dodonaea. DCDuring TALK 17:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I think I've got this right now. If the multi-problematic original cite can be accepted as a citation of ysterbos, then ysterbos is cited. DCDuring TALK 18:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  1. Knowledge a person shares with the intent for it to be easily recycled/re-used in the future by others.

Is this right? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The book The Making of Green Knowledge seems to use the term in the sense of 'body of knowledge about the environment'. Pingku 15:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I wonder whether this is a sign of extending the "recycling" aspect of greenness and the word "green" to new realms. Are we missing a sense at green, or should something there be reworded? Does green now mean, among other things, "reusable", "extendable" as might apply to wikis or software objects as well as tangible objects? DCDuring TALK 15:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
This is what I'm talking about. Is there more? DCDuring TALK 15:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The opposite.  :-) ​—msh210 17:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. A lot of mentions of "greenfield" software development (starting from scratch}, too. In any event, not yet, it seems. DCDuring TALK 19:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Not in COCA, which allows searches for punctuation. Does anyone have any suggestions for how to verify this? Is it in widespread use somewhere? Is it actually " 'get you " as in "forget you". DCDuring TALK 02:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not heard it in the sense of "forget you!", but only as "look at you!", "get a load of you!" It means "well, aren’t you just the best!" —Stephen 05:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Totally agree - this is fine. (Try a Google book search for the phrase "Ooh get you" (to weed out all the other combinations of the words). SemperBlotto 07:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this UK? It does remind me of get a load of (behold). DCDuring TALK 11:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, I have one illustrative quote. If that captures it and it is in widespread use in the UK, we could declare victory. Is there use that is significantly different from the quote?
More importantly, isn't this just yet an colloquial imperative/hortative/precative? Could I not say "get her". Are all common colloquial imperatives entitled to their entry? DCDuring TALK 12:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you could say "get her". Remember the song If My Friends Could See Me Now? "Brother, get her! Draped on a bedspread made from three kinds of fur!" Equinox 19:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this has passed as an RfV. There is the CFI/RfV issue. Should this be a redirect to get#Verb or to a specific link point at the exact sense? Or should we bow to the inevitable and include this and all attestable exclamations as interjections? We have a large number of such terms that contributors seem to think merit an entry. Maybe we should take the persistence of these as a warrant for rationally including at least some of them.
"Get her" would be expected to have less justification as an interjection as it concerns a third party. What would be the emotion? Envy? It certainly has less of a role in conversational direction or as a kind of linguistic politeness. DCDuring TALK 14:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew verb sense.​—msh210 23:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Does Job 37:6 count? The Even-Shoshan Dictionary lists הֱוֵא (hevéi) as an imperative from הָוָה (havá), to be), with the same meaning as the actual imperative of הָוָה, and gives Job 37:6 as the only citation. According to Wikipedia, modern secular scholarship puts authorship of Job at somewhat after the first exile, by which point I imagine Hebrew had received silent final em kria aleph from Aramaic, so it could have had the same pronunciation as well, so maybe we're just talking about an alternative spelling. (I can't think of too many examples of final tzeirei-hei in Hebrew — can you? — whereas in Aramaic tzeirei-hei-mappiq -éh is a very common ending and tzeirei-alef is an existent one, so to me this seems like a logical way to respell it — as does הֱוֵי, which also exists, e.g. in Pirkei Avot, but which the Even-Shoshan Dictionary does consider to be just an alternative imperative of הָוָה, rather than a separate word from such.) Given all that, Strong's could perhaps be excused for inferring an actual *הָוָא. If we do count Job 37:6 as a citation for *הָוָא, then this automatically passes under the "well-known work" ConFI, but a usage note is almost certainly warranted. Even if we don't, we'd need an entry here for Job's הֱוֵא, so all we need is to rewrite some and add a usage note. —RuakhTALK 04:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Normally I'd take a scholar's word for it, but הָוָא?? Does ibn Ezra or Kimchi say anything? (If I remember to, I'll check it out.)​—msh210 18:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, as an Italian speaking, the translatione "idiota" for "jerk" catches only in part the English meaning. "Idiota" is very generic, and not transmitting the sensation of something repelling. Maybe better "stronzo" (literally shit), but even it is not perfect. I don't think there is only a single word, but I am no sure (unsigned message). Mglovesfun (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)