Wiktionary:Requests for verification

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new request | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Reconstruction add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/Others add new request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.
Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new request | history | archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.			Language treatment requests add new request | history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, merges and splits.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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.

WikiSaurus entry lines do not have definitions, and hence are NOT subject to the Verification process.

• See Wiktionary:Cleanup and deletion elements WT:CDE for a full list of the codes, templates, lists, categories etc involved in the cleanup and deletion process.

Make a new nomination

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 sent to 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.

Note:

• 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
No pages meet these criteria.

January

nonrecursive

"Incapable of being computed by any deterministic algorithm in any finite amount of time." I think a reference would be more useful than citations for this. See also w:Recursion#Recursion_in_mathematics. Kappa 08:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a big confusion in math/comp sci/logic. The meaning in question dates from the early 30s, possibly before the more common meaning of recursive. It's just a case of the same word having two meanings, but the confusion is greatly confounded by the fact that the two meanings are closely related. Recent literature tends to shy from "recursive" and use the synonym "computable", but people still use "recursive" in this sense. More importantly, this meaning has very large amounts of usage in older computability theory books and journals. If I have time, I'll go find three books with it tomorrow... — This unsigned comment was added by 140.254.93.113 (talk).

I don't think there's much confusion in practice. The term recursive has overwhelmingly come to mean "involves a function calling itself, either directly or indirectly." This is because in certain popular environments, recursive calls eat stack space (even when they don't have to) while the logically equivalent "iterative" form doesn't. By this logic, "non-recursive" means "not involving a function calling itself, and thereby consuming constant stack space".

The older sense of recursive meaning "computable", and "nonrecursive" meaning "not computable" (in the technical sense) is certainly attested; it used to be the accepted definition. Unfortunately, the article as it stands has it wrong. Nonrecursive refers to a particular technical model, not to any possible model (recursive functions, Turing machine, lambda expressions, combinators ... take your choice). There might be some magic technology we haven't thought of that can solve the halting problem in finite time, but that wouldn't make the halting problem recursive.

As the anonymous comment says, this sense probably less used now. In any case, both senses should be given, and this would probably be another place where a usage note on prevalence would be good. Otherwise someone is bound to complain that recursive "really means" the old definition, and the current definition is "incorrect." -dmh 15:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "a particular technical model" -- do you mean only things that are Turing-equivalent and not magical, or, say, only Turing machines and not the lambda calculus?

Perhaps we should make nonrecursive say only "not recursive" and move this discussion to recursive. Cynewulf 16:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm considering "Turing machine or lambda expressions or combinators or anything else proved to be equivalent to them" as the model in question. They're all isomorphic (so you might as well say they're all combinators as they're all Turing mchines). Complexity theory often allows you to throw in "oracles", which are assumed to be able to do things that would otherwise be outside the model at hand. For example, you might prove that a particular problem is still hard even if you have access to an oracle that can solve the traveling salesman problem in constant time. Just so, you could posit an oracle that can solve the halting problem and talk about whether you can do anything interesting with a Turing machine (or whatever) together with that oracle. Such a beast could solve problems that are computable (under that model) but not recursively computable, that is, nonrecursive.

But even my eyes are glazing over here. For all practical purposes (that we know of) "computable" and "recursive" are synonymous. -dmh 00:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

All of those things are equivalent. In terms of what is computable, your choice of recursive function, lambda expression, etc. are all Turing machines. Is there something else out there? Doesn't matter. When I see "computed" I think "Turing machine". When I see "deterministic algorithm" I think "Turing machine". If the definition is "wrong", it's less incorrect than it is a little rigorously imprecise. But when it comes to understanding these mathematical concepts, a more precise definition isn't necessarily a better one. I consider the definition to be correct and this flaw nothing more than an unclarity too minor to fix. DAVilla 17:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, as promised, I went and found some usages. It is annoying to FIND usages of "nonrecursive" because obviously indices only list "recursive". But in the few minutes I looked, I did explicitly find two usages of nonrecursive (among mountains and mountains of usages of "recursive"). These two specific "NONrecursive" usages were speaking about sets rather than functions, but this is a generalization: the mathematicians will agree that (at least in discrete math) a function is itself just a set of tuples, and it's computable as a set if and only if it's computable as a function. If anything, we might add a THIRD sense of "recursive" to talk about sets. Anyway, here are three books:

1. "Computable Structures & the Arithmetical Hierarchy", C.J. Ash & J.F. Knight, 2000. Page 4 gives a handy table with one column labelled "informal" and the other labelled "formal". Recursive (actually "total recursive", a special case) is listed under "formal", "total computable" under "informal".
2. "Computability, a mathematical sketchbook", Douglas S. Bridges, 1994. Page 75 specifically uses "nonrecursive". Page 38 uses "recursive". As mentioned above, this author speaks of (non)recursive SETS.
3. "Computability in analysis and physics", Marian B. Pour-El & Jonathon I Richards, 1988. Page 6 uses both recursive and nonrecursive (it uses nonrecursive to speak of sets, and uses recursive in both senses), and is also chock full of nice quotes:

   "Intuitively, a recursive function is simply a ``computable function."

   "The weight of fifty years experience leads to the conclusion that ``recursive function is the correct definition of the intuitive notion of a computable function."

Yep. That's the Complexity Theory 101 sense. OTOH, if you google nonrecursive "stack space" you'll find a bunch of instances were "recursive"/"nonrecursive" has to do with functions calling each other. As I said, I'm pretty sure this is what most folks mean (even folks who took Complexity Theory 101) -dmh 00:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Arguably, nonrecursive isn't idiomatic. It means (as the first def says) "not recursive". In either sense. I'd vote for removing the second def and adding "(in either sense)" to the first, just to be clear. That's a pet peeve of mine, by the way. We define something in terms of something else, complete with link, but neglect to say which sense of that something else. -dmh 00:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Sense deleted. (This being covered by the previous sense anyway, I'm not sure why it came here instead of RFD, but O.K.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

CATI

--Connel MacKenzie 17:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Seems to be fine. Wikified and pointed at Wikipedia. (Took the liberty of removing the rfv) SemperBlotto 17:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

jigger

This is an rfv-sense for the definition "a spliff". --Jeffqyzt 19:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact it was added out of order (as the primary sense, no less) by an anon IP is a pretty good indication it is just vandalism. --Connel MacKenzie 19:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Do we have "primary" senses (except as obviously, the actual order)? In any case, it seemed somewhat plausible despite the dodgy nature of the contribution. I don't claim to have any great familiarity with drug culture terms. --Jeffqyzt 15:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to the bottom and wikilinked spliff. RJFJR 22:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Sense removed.

CFW

Any takers? (no formatting) SemperBlotto 22:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Japo

Supposed to be a prefix, but doesn't end in "-" (i.e. should be Japo- if it is real). Also several others from the same contributer. SemperBlotto 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• I added that based on this usenet post: [1]. However, since you rfd'd it, I looked it up in the dictionary of combining forms and saw that it is not in there. So either you're right that it's not real, or it's very obscure.

hydrogen harmonicon

A few google books hits, but don't appear independent, and seem to have a problem with use/mention. [2] Kappa 00:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

coordination

I guess this is as good a place as any, to itemize the residual damage from point-pushing. --Connel MacKenzie 00:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• coördination should be given as an alternative spelling not a definition. Let’s just do that and close this RFV. Kappa 01:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

…and marked as “archaic”, as it is no longer in common use. Likewise with other words that use a diaeresis. — Paul G 09:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Then it should have a “rare”, rather than an “archaic”, tag, at most. I have just added four citations unto coördination — the most recent is in a book from 2004 — that’s hardly “archaic”. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 13:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The “2004” citation is from a short story The Superior Gods included in an anthology of works by Jack London, who died in 1916. The illustrations and typeface suggest that the intent was to give the feel of the period when the author was alive, ie, it was intentionally “archaic”. I accept that, under our present definition that archaic means “not used for 50 years”, this usage cannot be archaic. That is why I believe our definition is inappropriate, and that it and the definition of obsolete should be replaced by functional definitions. Meanwhile, until this is agreed, since publication of book cited coördination should indeed no longer be tagged “archaic” here, even though it clearly is actually archaic. --Enginear 18:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the contemporary publication “The New Yorker” uses diæreses thus, and without any intention of giving an archaïc feel unto its articles. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 18:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry -- I shouldn't have sidetracked the issue by my views about our definitions of archaic and obsolete. Why don't you add a cite from “The New Yorker”. Since it seems accepted that they still use it, I would agree that Template:italbrac is appropriate. Personally, I would also add a usage note to the effect that the word was used more commonly in the early 1900s, but is now deprecated by most authorities. --Enginear 21:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

pluriform

Defined as "having multiple meanings". A quick look at Google Books [3] says that is has *some* meaning, but not necessarily as defined. --Jeffqyzt 19:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest replacing that definition with "having multiple forms". Kappa 03:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

prebuttal

"A preemptive statement made in anticipation of criticism or argument" Google books hits are not too impressive [4]. Kappa 03:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Google books hits certainly meet the CFI - used in context in multiple published books over more than a three year period. I think it's a perfectly cromulent word. bd2412 T 04:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Undictionary:P ? 09:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Why? It's verifiable. bd2412 T 04:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

dangly thing

• Anything that dangles, especially something whose name isn't known. Not idiomatic. Much the same could be said for "long thing", "smelly thing", "hexagonal thing", etc.
• (informal, anatomy) The uvula. An example of the above rather than a special case - don't people say "that dangly thing that hangs down at the back of your mouth" rather than "a dangly thing" or "his dangly thing" (which I would understand to be something else entirely...)? — Paul G 09:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I called the uvula in my mouth (careful spelling needed here!) a dangly thing for years because I didn'tknow whta the hell it was actually called, however I fell that Paul G may be on the ball here because the term is not really more than the sum of its parts. We may want to keep it if we get a few cites.--Williamsayers79 14:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "dangly thing" is used an inordinately large amount compared to the relative rarity of the word "dangly" itself. "Dangly thing" (the first hit of which, incidentally, is using it to refer to the uvula) gets 10,300 hits vs. 485,000 for "dangly" alone; compare 13,500 "smelly thing" vs. 7,410,000 for "smelly", and 582 for "hexagonal thing" vs. 9,520,000 for "hexagonal". Similarly, although it's harder to demonstrate, I think an inordinately large number of the uses of "dangly thing" would be referring to the uvula.

It may be the sum of its parts, but so are things like mousetrap. I think it should merit inclusion by virtue of being a particular combination of parts that is very commonly used, in preference to other combinations that would mean the same thing. --Ptcamn 13:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that I didn't say "sum of its parts" - I don't use this expression on RFV or RFD, and nor should anyone else. As I have pointed out before, idiomaticity is what is important. "Mousetrap" is indeed the sum of its parts - it is trap for a mouse - but it is idiomatic, as it refers to a very specific type of trap (a snapping device, not a box, a hole in the ground, etc) set for a very specific type of mouse (the rodent, not the computer input device, a quiet person, etc). "Hexagonal thing" is also the sum of its parts, but it is not idiomatic (it can refer to anything that is hexagonal). Hence the first goes in Wiktionary, and the second does not; hence "sum of parts" is an unhelpful label to be avoided in RFV and RFD.

If I had my way, all users should be forced to write out "I must use 'not idiomatic' instead of 'sum of parts' in requests for verification/deletion". ;) Now, could my point about "sum of parts" versus "idiomaticity" be put somewhere prominent so that everyone sees it? — Paul G 09:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

uvula

Not so much a sense, but the usage note makes unreferenced claims for "dangly thing" (see request above) and "tonsils". — Paul G 09:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Any reference to tonsils is an error, not a defnition or synonym.

Question: How many legs does a sheep have if you call its tail a leg?

Answer: Four; calling its tail a leg doesn't make it one.

--EncycloPetey 17:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Am I to assume you think the same of the second definition of Indian? --Ptcamn 13:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a usage note. I have moved these to synonyms. If tonsils (in the plural) is not a synonym then you can RFV that definition there. Otherwise take discussion of how to mark synonyms to beer parlor.

Question: How many oceans are there?

Answer: One. But good luck telling that to your geography teacher.

DAVilla 22:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

swing

This sense: "(of language) w:Jive talk (?)" — Paul G 10:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

batshit crazy

Jonathan Webley 12:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's real. I've heard batshit insane a lot more, but batshit crazy gets plenty more Google hits and Google books hits. bd2412 T 18:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

These cites are now at the article:

• 1994, Les Standiford, Raw Deal: A Novel p. 162

  ...three years later they're sitting at home alone, wife long gone, sick of being around a guy so batshit crazy he can't get out of his pajamas before it's time to go back to bed...

• 2001, James Crumley, The Mexican Tree Duck p. 15

  "You guys took a check from Abnormal Norman? Are you batshit crazy?" I asked. The boys attempted to look at their feet as they blushed.

• 2005, Anne Thomas Soffee, Nerd Girl Rocks Paradise City: A True Story of Faking It in Hair Metal LA p. 199

  Once I determine that the situation isn't going to change and that, in fact, he is batshit crazy, I give up on encouraging him to look for work.

--Jeffqyzt 14:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

adorational

Any takers? Not in OED. SemperBlotto 23:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on its absence from Wikisource and only half a dozen Google hits (some related), I think this is a protologism. It seems to to be intended to describe a particular form of paganism. --EncycloPetey 23:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Erm, what? Seems like a very straight-forward adjectivial construction, with plenty (40+) of b.g.c. hits. I wouldn't exactly call Orthodox Christianity "paganism" so, did you misread that quote, or did I misread your comment? --Connel MacKenzie 05:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you just read different quotes. I read the ones I found while googling. --EncycloPetey 07:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

dawg

Verb sense. All 4 b.g.c. hits deny this usage. Without giving a consistent single meaning, at that. --Connel MacKenzie 04:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this dob misheard? --Enginear 18:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Houston, we have a problem

Does this meet our CFI? SemperBlotto 10:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I created the page simply because there was a red link at Houston. It's a widely used phrase that has a phrases.org.uk entry. 512,000 Google results, not all of related to Apollo13). Utcursch 16:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Very widespread use of this set-phrase. Do you really want the citations added, or did you mean for this to be an extended discussion about set phrases on WT:RFD? --Connel MacKenzie 18:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very common in UK too. --Enginear 18:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly widespread use, RFV passed. As per Connel, did you mean to RFD? DAVilla 21:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

googillion

Zero b.g.c., and looks like a probable copyvio. --Connel MacKenzie 18:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. Linked Wikipedia article did not exist. Deleted SemperBlotto 19:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm, seems this was restored in February, but why? — Paul G 09:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, it's now cited. DAVilla 10:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

quantum leap

Since when did this phrase mean ‘a very small change’? I do not agree with the Usage Note either, since the essence of the phrase is a sudden, i.e. non-gradual, change from one state to another and there is nothing ‘etymologically incorrect’ about extending this to any sudden large change. Indeed the only meaning given for quantum leap in the OED is ‘a sudden large advance’. Are there any citations of its being used in this opposite sense? Widsith 15:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Though not in the sense of "abrupt", it is etymologically incorrect in the sense of "big" versus "small". See w:Quantum leap. DAVilla 17:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Technically, it means a change of a quanta, that is: the smallest possible change distinguishable from zero change. the use of "quantum leap" to mean "some big profound change" is idiotic (in the true sense). In QED, a quantum leap is an utterly tiny amount of energy. One way to think of it is that a quanta is a pixel in the real world (which IS digital!). Quanta are really, really, really small!

The use "big change" is an atrocity. But such is the English language. (Damn hoi polloi ;-). Robert Ullmann 20:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand what quanta are, but I don't think it's idiotic at all. The point is not the size of the change, it's that it "jumps" instantly from one size to another: there is no possible "intermediate" point or gradation. As you point out, it's a non-analogue change. So it makes perfect sense to apply this to other changes which seem to leap from one state to another with no intermediary. A change which is both sudden and large has exactly this appearence.

Anyway, this term is hardly a "contranym" (since when was that even a real word?) because quantum leap doesn't really mean ‘a small change’, it means a change in quanta. The fact that they happen to be very tiny is incidental. Widsith 10:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In the physical theory, the fact that it is "the smallest possible change" is much more important to the definition than that the particle jumps. There are other phenomena where particles appear to jump, even to places where they shouldn't be, but that is not a leap of a quanta. Your phrasing is a little off, from my understanding. It's not a change in quanta, it's a change of/by one quantum in space, that is, as if space were discrete, although that understanding is a bit simplistic. It is a contranym because a quantum leap should be an incremental one; a revolutionary change has many intermediate points that were skipped over. DAVilla 16:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to agree, but anyway, I still want to see some verification for the sense I've tagged, as I do not believe it's ever been used. Widsith 14:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

fickern

listed as a German term, but no interwiki's. multiple anon-users (different IP's, over a period of months) keep changing it to ficken , which we already have a proper entry for & is well interwiki'd. --Versageek 02:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It’s dialect for ficken. I don’t know how many different dialects have it, but it’s used in the Rheinland. That would be dialects such as Kölsch, Limburgish and Rhenish. —Stephen 17:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

How do we handle noting dialects in an entry? it's not really an alternate spelling.. maybe a usage note? It should be noted or people are going to keep changing it to the more common form. --Versageek 18:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I put a note that it is dialect. —Stephen 19:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Value-quality

Any takers? If it is real, then definition is poor - plural is wrong - spelling mistake - wrong capitalisation. SemperBlotto 08:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

John Dewey appears to be using the word to differentiate between the abstract (i.e. sense #7 at value) and the concrete (i.e. sense #5), where value-quality is the concrete sense:

"The first point concerns the ambiguity of the word "value," it being both a concrete and an abstract noun, in the former case designating (although metaphorically) a thing having value-quality and in the latter sense designating an essence, an entity of the sort the scholastics called ens rationis." "The Meaning of Value".

A JSTOR search shows dozens more independent uses in journals of philosophy. Dmcdevit 22:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

listen

Sense:

• v. To have a chat with someone, particularly a confidential one.

Tagged a while ago but I don't see that it was listed. Cynewulf 15:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

lurk

Sense:

• n. the act of lurking.

Tagged, not listed. Cynewulf 15:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Found a couple of b.g.c quotes. And its in the OED. 1. The action of prowling about. In phrase on the lurk. --Eean 00:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Great! Just needs one more. DAVilla 22:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

newline

Sense:

• (computing) The C and C++ programming languages escaped character sequence represented as '\n'.

Tagged, not listed. (Verification of the etymology too? See comment at [5]) Cynewulf 16:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't obvious? Oh, drudge... DAVilla 17:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't Connel just fix it, instead of tagging it? From his edit comment, he surely knows. ( \n is newline in a lot of languages and contexts ) He wasn't doubting it. Robert Ullmann 17:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Laziness. I tagged it without listing, for a couple reasons: 1) I have been refocusing elsewhere. 2) I thought I was the only one these days checking for "tagged but not listed" entries. 3) It was so obviously wrong, someone else would certainly clean it up as soon as they ran across it. 4) I wanted to review this and similar entries a month or three from now. 5) I didn't feel like researching it, to find how just how far back the concept goes...perhaps the telegraph? I dunno...it seemed like the possibilities were endless. 6) Because the first person that saw it obviously would clean it up, I saw no point in wasting everyone's time discussing it at length.  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 05:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, was I the only one here who thought of this when seeing this entry? --Connel MacKenzie 08:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that \n and similar escapes derive from C -- LISP's format uses ~%. "C-style" perhaps. Could be wrong of course. Cynewulf 17:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a question of whether the definition should be restricted to C/C++. It's easy enough to verify it for them, of course, but is there a separate, distinct definition to cover C derived languages vs. other languages? (BTW, here's some formatted quotes, not all of which illustrate sense two) --Jeffqyzt 21:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• 1959, Association for Computing Machinery, Communications of the ACM (ACM Digital Library) Page 599

  The ugly part is the quote marks on two adjacent lines that mean a newline character.

• 1987, T. D. Brown, C for Basic Programmers Page 13

  The calculator program starts off by printing the string "O\n", that is, it prints a zero and then moves to a newline.

• 2002, Laura Lemay, Rafe Colburn, Sams Teach Yourself Perl in 21 Days, Page 69

  Unlike in C, you don't have to loop through the output and watch every character to make sure it's a newline; Perl will keep track of that for you.

• 2002, Allen B. Downey, Jeffrey Elkner and Chris Meyers, How to Think Like a Computer Scientist: Learning with Python

  It contains only a single statement, which outputs a newline character. (That's what happens when you use a print command without any arguments.)

• 2006, Jeffrey E.F. Friedl, Mastering Regular Expressions Page 111

  The original Unix regex tools worked on a line-by-line basis, so the thought of matching a newline wasn't an issue until the advent of sed and lex.

The \n syntax seriously predates C and Unix; it goes back at least to MULTICS, from which C/Unix got it. (That was part of Connel's comment.) Robert Ullmann 23:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I wish to say that I am surprised at the collective alacrity you have all displayed. Wow. --Connel MacKenzie 05:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

mixophilia

"the fetish of watching others engaged in a sexual act." Don't see any usage for this sense in google books. [6]. Kappa 17:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• No. It seems to mean a propensity for heterogenity - preferring mixed-race company and such like. SemperBlotto 17:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

metropoli

This entry was generated automatically, presumably based on Widsith's addition to metropolis. A Google search turns up this word only on foreign language pages, not English, and it is not the plural one would expect from a Latin or Greek root. The English-form plural is metropolises (for the "city" definition), and I can find evidence that the plural for the Orthodox sense is metropolia, but I can't find metropoli. --EncycloPetey 17:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A few google books hits for "metropoli like": [7]. Kappa 17:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

216 for metropoleis: [8]. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 17:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

And all of them are about the ancient world, not the modern definition, so that works for only one sense. The question is still whether metropoli is valid, not what other forms are out there. --EncycloPetey 17:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Now there are three citations for each sense. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Only just saw this discussion. For reference, the OED lists the following plural forms: metropolisses (16th century, now obsolete), metropolis's (17th century, now obsolute), and the current ones metropolises (attested since 18th century) and metropoli (attested since 19th century). Widsith 15:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

nerk

This has been there a while, but no attestation provided. --Jeffqyzt 21:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

antean

Any takers? Not in the OED. (Antean seems to be "of or pertaining to Atlantis") SemperBlotto 22:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

From http://www.medterms.com

Antean: Exceptionally strong or large. A multi-vitamin pill may, for example, be of Antean proportions.

After Antaeus, the mythological Greek giant. The son of the earth mother Gaia, Antaeus challenged anyone he encountered to wrestle and always won, since he received strength from his mother, the earth, as long as he was in touch with her. Hercules discovered the secret of Antaeus, lifted him off the ground, and crushed him.

But I could not find anything qualifying this term under CFI. Antean is also a city in New Jersey and a pharmaceutical recruitment firm. --EncycloPetey 01:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

EncycloPety, you'd find more at Antaean (which we're missing, but here's a g.b.c. link.) I'd say this is just a misspelling. --Jeffqyzt 21:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, but I'd be more likely to consider it an Americanized spelling, parallel to encyclopaedia / encyclopedia; palaeontology / paleontology; archaeologist / archeologist; etc. --EncycloPetey 02:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

metasymphony

It has some cites, but has no b.g.c, and is not in other dictionaries. Jonathan Webley 14:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That's odd. I got one b.g.c. hit. --EncycloPetey 16:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Depends if you choose All books or Full view books. (It's not in Groves Music) SemperBlotto 16:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So the dispute is over whether or not this word can be matched via booksDOTgoogleDOTcom, despite the existence of multiple published references? That's sufficient for a rfv? The first comment is resolved by the second and third.

One might argue that the three citations are nonce usages, but three independent instances of nonce usage constitute usage, nonetheless. Groves is not the only well-known work in publication. Further, if the wiktionary were reduced to the intersection of words that occur in other dictionaries, it would be a painfully useless dictionary. Delnerdo 03:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

There's no "dispute". People are just recording what they have found, as a preliminary to determining whether the word meets our criteria for inclusion. We work together on this -- usually one person does some preliminary "quick and dirty" checks, and then others look into the issue in more depth. To pass CFI, there should be at least three durably-archived cites showing use (not mention) for each definition.

The present first and third references could be turned into correctly formatted cites, which gives one for each def. The inclusion of archived blogs is contentious, but would probably be accepted in conjunction with other durably-archived cites. That leaves just one more cite to be found for each sense in order to pass RFV. I've done a net search and not found any more, but more specialised searches might work if someone wants to try.

Unfortunately this is a word which is very similar to at least two product names, and we are particularly strict about uses which might be spam. So without those extra cites, the entry is likely to be deleted. --Enginear 13:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

silver fox

"A person with graying hair who has sex appeal. " and "An unusually crafty, subversive or otherwise manipulative individual, often with romantically exemplified regards. "

Kappa 15:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Silver Fox? What Women Think About Gray Hair by Marcy Barack. — V-ball 17:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

From the Wall Street Journal there's A hair color not to dye for by Marylin Johnson, dated 30 Sept. 2006. — V-ball 17:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

From the Seattle Times there's A growing acceptance of gray hair by Robin Abcarian, dated 5 June, 2006. — V-ball 17:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally, an example for women from Jan. 2006's edition of Ebony, Hair care for sisters. — V-ball 17:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the first definition is fine. What about the second? — Paul G 09:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

4x2

No. Definition given is dodgy, and misleading. "4x2" can not be used conversationally (without much derision.) It possibly might be listed as a classification on an automotive spec-sheet, but probably not by manufacturers, right? --Connel MacKenzie 16:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only possibly, but actually [9]! It's odd to see that the first pictured hit is a book called Jeep, but surely no American would be derisive of Willys; even in the UK some of us know they helped win WW2! It shows how much automotive aspirations have changed in the last 60 yrs. Needs some work though.

Also, it's used much more commonly in UK (in spite of metrication) to mean a length of wood of cross-section 4" x 2". Is that universal, or merely UK use?

And is/was it 4x2 or 2x4 (or neither) that the army used to use to clean rifles? --Enginear 21:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Re the wood cross section mentioned above, 4x2 is commonly used in Australia, and that is what I thought the listing was about when I first saw it. To be honest, it is used enough to be listed as a definition in its own right, but I'll think it over during the weekend. --Dmol 21:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• four by two is definitely UK for a length of wood of this cross-section in inches. It has sometimes been used as rhyming slang for Jew (I seem to remember). SemperBlotto 22:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC) (p.s. I was expecting that to be a red link)

It's two by four for wood in US, or at least in the Midwest. Cerealkiller13 01:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Anywhere in the US, it's 2x4. 4x2 will get you strange looks. Very strange looks, like maybe you need to be hit with a clue-by-four ;-) Robert Ullmann 16:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

crisitunity

The had been deleted and re-entered in an age long past, before Wiktionary had RFV. In the meantime, Wikipedians have done their homework on it, and concluded that the buzzword was not valid as stated. <Insert rant about RFV being broken here.> --Connel MacKenzie 01:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Meh. I think it's a perfectly cromulent word, which has embiggened the stature of the English language. Cerealkiller13 02:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

ex-tian

"A former Christian". Google book hits appear to be scannos. [10]. Kappa 02:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Google gives only 722 hits, most of which seem to trail back to a single namesake website. Google books gives seven hits, none of which seem to imply a cohesive definition. Cerealkiller13 03:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

rabbit

Sense: colloquial Someone new to something. --Connel MacKenzie 04:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The Everywhere Girl

If this term just refers to the girl in the picture, I think it should be deleted as encylopedic. The entry claims "The term itself denotes overuse of stock photography." which would make it worthy of inclusion but I don't think this sense can be backed up by citations. Kappa 01:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

...Response to request...

The phrase "The Everywhere Girl", to denote the phenomenon of stock photography overuse, and to track this specific example, and as a short-lived Internet Meme is a well documented, if still obscure reference. This specific example is also known as the "Dell/Gateway Girl", "The Stock Photo Girl" and the "Getty Image Girl".

References in support of inclusion:

http://www.rbloch.net/index.php/weblog/more/everywhere_you_look/

http://www.brianbehrend.com/archives/2004/09/more_stock_foot.php

http://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=57857

http://www.joeycoleman.ca/archives/2005/04/16/u_of_m_dell_everywhere_girl.html

http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Christian_Fundamentalists_upset_the_Everywhere_Girl

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=24735

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36947

http://www.visualeditors.com/forum/archive/the-story-of-everywhere-girl-5078.htm

http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/index.php/2005/stupid-stock-photography/

http://ligsy.stumbleupon.com/tag/the-everywhere-girl/

http://www.netsoc.ucd.ie/~rory/gallery/

http://brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/e/ev/everywhere_girl.html

http://www.luckypix.com/blogger/2006/05/stock-photo-girls.html

http://commercial-archive.com/112042.php

http://researcher.se/archives/2004/08/igen/

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/11/wsj-on-companies-use-of-nonexclusive.html

While the below WSJ article doesn't mention The Everywhere Girl as a specific example, it does highlight the stock photo overuse trend, for which she is the best tracked example. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116467838729434053-M7qaK32f_P0exg6tqL_QMsu6caM_20071128.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

Prior "everywhere girl" stock photo model tracked - who did not get the same level of exposure. http://www.dailyping.com/archive/2001/02/09/

Another self-tracked example called "advert girl". http://precious-jas.blogspot.com/2006/05/advert-girl.html

--Wiremold 07:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

While this seems likely to pass Dmh's "is anyone likely to look this up" test, I don't see how this can be deemed to have print citations spanning a year. At the moment, I forget the exemption rule for this sort of thing. --Connel MacKenzie 22:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

batshit insane

--Connel MacKenzie 03:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I've heard it used in conversation. Actually, looking at batshit, it's rather sum-of-parts. bd2412 T 06:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Only insofar as batshit has taken up the meaning as a shortened form of batshit crazy (which is also up for RFV further up the page here) or batshit insane. There are only two Google Books hits, but lots of USENET citations available (the 2nd one I've cited seems to indicate that it's Australian in origin *shrug*):

• 1998, Dave Thompson, "That White Stuff" in USENET's alt.war.vietnam [11]

  Are you absolutely batshit insane? What in the world does your snit with Frank have to do with snowball fights?

• 2001, Jeff Waugh, User mode linux... in USENET's debian.isp [12]

  When I described doing this as "batshit insane" at linux.conf.au earlier this year, Jeff Dike smiled and nodded. :) I wasn't expecting him to pick up the Australian lingo, but I think he had a fair idea of what I was saying.

• 2004, Jon Stewart, Ben Karlin, David Javerbaum, America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction p. 54

  ...in the foreign policy of the Fillmore Administration, a period later dubbed by historians as "The Era of the President Who Was Batshit Insane."

• 2006, Ed Turner, Mad Jack p. 101

  "Oh, please!" John said. "Of all the batshit insane ideas you've come up with..."

Also added at the entry. --Jeffqyzt 14:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• RFV Passed. bd2412 T 01:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

clover

"(♣, ♧) a symbol used on playing cards, see clubs". If this is a real usage, why don't I get any google book hits for "ace of clover(s)"? [13] Kappa 01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not synonymous in terms of usage. The symbol may be called a clover (and is), but that doesn't mean it's used the same way as "club". I have (often) heard the 2 of clubs called the "two of puppy feet", and can verify this usage with Google hits, but the symbol ♣ is never called a puppy foot. It's called a club, clover, or trefoil, though. --EncycloPetey 02:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

educational outreach

Any takers? (needs formatting) SemperBlotto 08:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

educational + outreach (#3)? Kappa 09:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am new to wiktionary, so i'm not sure how to go about this. However, "educational outreach" is an increasingly important topic in academia, especially as associated with grants from the National Science Foundation, who now requires that every grant include a request for funds to support educational outreach. Yet, in my research to determine exactly what is meant by this term, I found nothing. So, I prepared a detailed summary of everything I could find from NSF and other agencies, as well as universities engaged in educational outreach. Based on the extensive but diverse informaton I found, I formulated the definition. I hope to post an entry in wikipedia on the same topic with some of the information from the summary document I prepared for my employer. I am a member of the research staff at a large university, but also the instructor for an educational outreach internship. I just googled "educational outreach", exact phrase and there were 857,000 hits.

This definition is consistent with the information published at www.nsf.gov I suspect no definition has been given because they don't want to risk being too specific. I would be happy to provide more detailed information, but I don't know quite what you are looking for in terms of verification.

Can you help?

A good starting point would be to provide three independent instances of usage (i.e. three separate quotes with the phrase being used in a manner that suggests its definition), keeping in mind that the entry will only be kept if the phrase is more than the sum of its parts. Hope this helps. Cerealkiller13 06:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure this should have been RFVed. 750 Google book hits. DAVilla 22:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

baba

Disputed senses: "grandmother"; "old woman". Not found in OED (second edition), Chambers, infoplease.com, dictionary.com, Webster's 1913, Merriam-Webster online, all of which give the cake sense only. — Paul G 08:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Very common around here. Instead of differentiating one's grandmothers with "Grandma X" and "Grandma Y", it's common to pick two of "grandma", "nana", and "baba" (and a couple of others). Rarer as a common noun, and often slightly pejorative.

The Canadian Oxford's entry is: "1 (among people of E European descent) grandmother. 2 informal an old woman of E European descent." (Before looking it up, the Eastern Europe restriction wouldn't have occurred to me, but I can see the case for it.)

The very first b.g.c hit is Baba, a novel about an old woman (possibly even a grandmother). A bit later on is The Baba and the Comrade: Gender and Politics in Revolutionary Russia. I don't have time right now to slog though the much vaster numbers where "Baba" is part of a middle Eastern or Indian personal name to find good cites, or through the mountains of Gutenberg hits for "Ali Baba". Here's one at random, though I honestly can't tell if this one's supposed to be a grandmother or a father (a sense we should also have), or something else besides:

• 1863, Charles Kingsley, The Water-Babies

  He was a brave little chimney-sweep; and when he found himself on the top of a high cliff, instead of sitting down and crying for his baba (though he never had had any baba to cry for), he said, "Ah, this will just suit me!" though he was very tired;

Keffy 19:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be regional, then. I don't remember hearing it in UK, where we have nana, nanny, grannie, and grandma, amongst others.

Incidentally, it may be worth checking the context of your Kingsley cite further. OED2 online uses the same cite to support use as "an infantile variant of papa, but I haven't checked, and since it is the only cite they have for that usage, they just might be wrong. --Enginear 21:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Any possible derivatiom from Baba Yaga[14]? Wikipedia claims "baba" means "grandmother" in many Slavic languages, as the entry itself notes. RobbieG 18:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. There's now a ton of citations and new senses and citations for the new senses. I'm not completely happy with the new etymology section, but there are so many mutually reinforcing derivations involved from so many different languages, that I can't see any way to impose the usual one-ety-per-subhead structure without producing a hideous monstrosity that is unreadable, uninformative, and almost certainly inaccurate to boot. -- Keffy 02:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

poll

The sense "hair" - this has a citation so seems OK, but is it under the right etymology? — Paul G 10:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not a simple question to answer. The OED etymologies for poll are convoluted in the extreme. Appparently there were once several words spelled "poll" in various senses and origins; these led to several derived terms; these then collapsed back into the form poll, but the details are complicated. We're also missing many, many definitions of this word. Note that the Poll page is currently a redirect to poll. --EncycloPetey 16:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The poll tax article at Wikipedia mentions that "poll" once meant "head". It seems like a bit of a stretch to say that Stephenson meant "head" in this cite, but to me it clouds the "hair" definition a bit. Afiler 16:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

guiri

"British citizen or 'Northern European' in Gibraltar or in Spain who does not permanently live there, especially a foreign tourist". Need some citations to show it's an English word not just a Spanish one. Kappa 15:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Pretty sure that it is a Spanish word for foreign tourist. I don't think it is English yet. SemperBlotto 16:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  Indeed, though it comes from Basque and was originally used to describe the supporters of one side during Spain's 19th century civil war, especially the soldiers of the royal government. It is still used informally for members of the Civil Guard. (Source:RAE) --EncycloPetey 16:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

eisteddfodau

(RfV tag was removed out-of-process, restored)

This plural of eisteddfod seems to have comparable usage (in English text) to the standard English plural eisteddfods. There are Welsh pronunciations here and at eisteddfod, belong in the Welsh language section (which is missing). This entry was fine a short while ago, now needs serious cleanup as well, including removal of POV comment re writers’ use of the standard English plural. Robert Ullmann 18:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I consider thirty-six citations, all from durably archived sources, spanning 174 years (from 1831 unto 2005) to be ample verification of the use of a word. As such, I removed the RFV tag.

As for the usage notes, I assume that you do not object unto the first of the two, being as it merely explains why eisteddfodau is so common in English. The second usage note is also very reasonable, and not POV. It is a fact that many in Wales would cringe at or ridicule the use of eisteddfods and would consider it a sign of the writer’s ignorance of the correct plural, eisteddfodau (notice that I did not use any POV words such as correct or wrong in the usage notes, even though that is what I believe). I speak Welsh and I live in Wales; I know these things. Many people use Inuk as the singular of Inuit; doing so is a sign of cultural sensitivity. Ditto eisteddfodau. Face the facts and stop continuously seeking to undermine my contributions. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 18:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to undermine your contributions; just drag them back toward something resembling reality. The second note is extreme POV:

• Use of eisteddfod’s alternative plural, “eisteddfods”, particularly in writing, may be considered to be a sign of ignorance of the etymologically consistent plural — and even wider Welsh culture — on the writer’s part.

Hardly. It is always correct to use the standard English plural, not a “sign of ignorance”. Instead of pushing your POV, trying to pretend the standard plural is wrong, say this:

• The use of this plural is preferred by some writers and speakers over the standard English plural (eisteddfods) as it is accepted use and shows greater cultural sensitivity.

Which I have changed it to. (Also the grammar in the first note, “commonplace” is not comparable ;-).)

Other point: 36 (or whatever) citations is silly, pick the good ones (esp. the older), drop the others or put them on a citations subpage?

Final point: where is the Welsh language section? Seems like it would be very useful here? (And at eisteddfod.)

And let someone else remove rfv tags. Someone else will check it, record it as passed here, and remove the tag. Robert Ullmann 19:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The quotations have been moved to a subpage, modelled after listen. Cerealkiller13 20:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, your revision of the usage note is more POV than mine original is. The essential part of the original is: “may be considered” — this shows both that the forewarned outcome is a possibility, rather than a certainty, and that the outcome is a negative subjective reaction, not an objective grammatical flaw or some such thing. Whereäs the revised usage note states that eisteddfodau: 1 — “is accepted use” and 2 — “shows greater cultural sensitivity”. Some (namely those who most vehemently object unto the use of foreign plural forms) would not consider eisteddfodau to be acceptable in English (though admitedly, they are few and far between). Secondly, using the etymologically consistent plural form may not necessary show greater cultural sensitivity — it may just be a sign of pædantry (like my using ligatures here, there, and everywhere is not a sign of my sensitivity towards Roman culture, but rather of my pædantry). I was a bit hurried in my reply; in place of “doing so is a sign of cultural sensitivity”, I ought to have written “doing so is a sign that one is not wholly ignorant of the discussed culture”. However, these points are quite minor. I more object unto “over the standard English plural (eisteddfods)” — whilst there is nothing incorrect with this part, it does imply that eisteddfodau is a non-standard English plural — which it clearly is not, considering the frequency of its usage (as well as the rationale I gave on my talk page). I suggest that the usage note be rewritten:

• Most writers, when in need of a plural for eisteddfod, opt for “eisteddfodau” over “eisteddfods”, at least in part out of a desire to appear culturally sensitive and to dispel any impressions which may be held by some that the writer is ignorant of the etymologically consistent plural.

Or something unto that effect. Please note that although I consider eisteddfods to be both ignorant and incorrect, I was not arguing that that is what ought to be written in the usage note. No allusions were made unto the correctness of either eisteddfods or eisteddfodau, only the impression and the reactions which the use of the former may evoke. I was not “trying to pretend the standard plural is wrong”.

Thanks for your correction of “commonplace” in the first usage note. Though I’ve accepted that change, I’ve changed “this” back unto “the” (as there is only one etymologically consistent plural form, and “this” implies that there are others), and I’ve reädded “far”, as doing so was no exaggeration (cf.: corgŵn, cymoedd).

A citations subpage is a good idea; I would have done it myself, if Cerealkiller13 had not beaten me unto it. I have added Welsh language sections unto both eisteddfod and eisteddfodau; I have also cleaned up the former. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Since you’ve raised no objections thereunto, I’ll go ahead and add the revised usage note. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 10:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

nomadicity

Def given: The ability to move from platform to platform across various machine architectures.

While this seems like a plausible figurative use, it doesn't define the term especially well. Is this a new buzzword making the rounds? --Connel MacKenzie 03:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have given it its normal definition and also what seems to be a new use of the word. I don't see any use of the word in the sense above. SemperBlotto 08:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be nomadism used figuratively, such as "Brand X Compiler offers a great degree of nomadism?" Joe Webster 14:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

matelot

English? --Connel MacKenzie 03:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see it occasionally, usually in war stories. OED has it cited from 1847. Our cites are more recent, but it still passes CFI. --Enginear 12:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; removing tag. A lingering question is, is it specific to UK or CW? --Connel MacKenzie 18:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this probably should have been an {{rfc}} to begin with; what is the tag "English" supposed to mean? --Connel MacKenzie 18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and changed it to Template:italbrac, which I think is more likely to be correct -- it's not slang so much as a hint that the sailor is French (or from nearby countries) and it "feels" like a UK-only use (well probably England, actually, but "UK" is easier since I'm not sure). --Enginear 21:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• RFV Passed. bd2412 T 01:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

智慧道

This appears to be some kind of Buddhist term but wisdom walk doesn't really clarify the meaning for me. Kappa 04:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

道 (dào) means road, path, way, Tao; as in bushido, taekwondo, judo, Taoism, etc. Therefore, 智慧道 will be something like "the way of knowledge" or "the path of wisdom". —Stephen 15:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

scred

Perhaps a common misspelling of screed? --Connel MacKenzie 07:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. But where do people get {{{1|definition}}} from? SemperBlotto 08:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the weird template stuff, see WT:GP#So-called "basic entry" definition pre-fill --Jeffqyzt 16:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not it's a valid word, it's a useful word. After seeing the entry on Wiktionary, my subconscious mind seamlessly integrated it into my lexicon, where it has about a weekly status (on average used about once per week in inner monologue). There doesn't seem to be any more valid synonym, and it IS something which arises commonly enough in office environments. Whether or not this word sticks or is valid, sooner or later a verb equivalent to it is bound to enter the language. It's also interesting that the word seems to be phonologically very appropriate: whoever coined it new what they're doing. Of course this isn't a keep (nor kill) vote, just observation. Hard to research the word since there seems to be lots of noise. Language Lover 16:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

warfighting

There has been some discussion as to the merits of this term on its talk page, but no citations have been forthcoming. A quick Google books search shows that it's definitely in use, but for such an (apparently) redundant term, it would be nice to get some established citations. --Jeffqyzt 19:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

About half of the top 100 b.g.c. cites (out of >2000) are from the US Department of Defense, from 1945 - 2006. Certainly established, but not my bag to add to the entry. --Enginear 21:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Vishwagram

Any takers? SemperBlotto 22:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

kilogoogle

--Connel MacKenzie 08:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

well, i get about 1.1 kilogoogles on the phrase, with it popping up in places like PC Magazine's encyclopedia([15]) and the jargon file ([16], along with giving me 55 hits on google groups going back to 2002. 208.114.180.220 19:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happens, it is now correctly formatted. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

megagoogle

--Connel MacKenzie 08:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

old timer's disease

Was initially labelled as non-standard for Alzheimer's disease but apears to be a pejoratively used slang term.--Williamsayers79 09:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Slang, pejorative. Haven't heard it since high school. — V-ball 18:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've heard it, but only in reference to a single un-funny joke. Nonce ==> delete. --Connel MacKenzie 18:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe this to be an eggcorn; in fact, I have friends who use this regularly without knowing it is Alzheimer's. sewnmouthsecret 01:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've heard it genuinely used in error for Alzheimer's disease.--Dmol 18:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If we keep this, it should be moved to "old-timer's disease" or possibly "old-timers' disease (it is a disease of old-timers [old people], not of old timers [old timing devices]). — Paul G 16:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

ch-

Supposed to be a prefix. I am willing to believe that ch is used as a stem, but not that ch- is a prefix. SemperBlotto 09:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - can we use "Stem" as the POS? — Paul G 16:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

fleah

Any takers? Possible joke? SemperBlotto 10:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Definite joke. It's garbage. Recommend deletion.--Dmol 18:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

instanciation

--Connel MacKenzie 18:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

moblog

--Connel MacKenzie 18:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

ameba

--Connel MacKenzie 19:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A "bogus misspelling", with 885 b.g.c hits to amoeba's 1860? You're not mutæting unto another user, are you? -- Keffy 15:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Come on, a look in any print dictionary that shows US variants confirms that this exists. Resolved — Paul G 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

foodie

--Connel MacKenzie 19:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Ask any one of the top chefs in Boston, they'll tell you I'm a foodie. (And ask where I've been, haven't been there for a while ;-) Someone who likes food of all kinds, from a meatball sub to falafel from a cart to the best food in a first tier restaurant. But it all has to be good! Robert Ullmann 19:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally good word.  Uses in the news all over the place at by searching with Google News. — V-ball 19:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely; UK too; 600+ b.g.c. hits, some good, and cited in OED2+ from 1982 (which blows at least one etymology on b.g.c.) --Enginear 21:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nipponophile

Nonce? --Connel MacKenzie 19:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, etymologically speaking it's a fairly logical construction (along the same lines as "anglophile" or "francophile"), so it's very plausible. I would have just assumed the existance of the word. It gets 10 google book hits, and all the unrestricted ones appear to mean the same as is defined. RobbieG 20:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"The place was actually set up by ac eques Nipponophile Englishman, but the kitchen staff are all Japanese and its Far Eastern credentials bear scrutiny. ..." ~ The Rough Guide to London Restaurants 2004 (ISBN 184353097X) p29, by Charles Campion, Rough Guides, 2003

"... postwar scientific meetings held in that country, Strauss had become something of a Nipponophile and had returned to Japan for a sabbatical in 1958. ..." ~ Correcting the Blueprint of Life: An Historical Account of the Discovery of DNA Repair Mechanisms (ISBN 0879695072) p114, by Errol C. Friedberg, CSHL Press, 1997 RobbieG 14:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

pogonophobia

--Connel MacKenzie 19:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the description of what the request for verification process is for, at the top of this page. The purpose is not fact-checking, but to verify whether a sense meets our criteria for inclusion. "Occurrence in other dictionaries" is not one of our criteria. The word usage is there, not "listing" and was put there very intentionally. Blindly copying from other dictionaries leaves us vulnerable to copyright violations, allegations of copyright violation, Nihilartikels and invalid appeals to authority. Referring to other dictionaries is fine to clarify (or even correct) a definition. But other dictionaries are not valid citations for a request for verification. --Connel MacKenzie 21:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

gigayear

--Connel MacKenzie 19:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I found good usage of this (and megayear) in sites regarding astronomy and geology. 2 examples added to gigayear.--Dmol 18:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I added cites from two books and one from the journal of the Royal Society. Cynewulf 18:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

megayear

--Connel MacKenzie 19:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See note above re gigayear.--Dmol 18:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Cited. Cynewulf 18:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

hed

--Connel MacKenzie 19:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Widespread journalistic jargon; often seen in phrases like "a-hed", "k-hed", etc. —Ruakh_TALK 17:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

sin bin

Despite my complaining that nothing should ever be tagged "Sum of parts", this is sum of parts (and not an idiom, and not attested.) --Connel MacKenzie 19:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sum of parts? Surely not. To me, a bin is something like the graphic to the right of the RFV notice (or perhaps the one at bin); or occasionally something holding nails at a hardware store, or coal or logs outside a house. I've never seen a player put in any of those. And nor have I seen a sin put in one. --Enginear 21:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this came from w:Big Brother (maybe that just popularized it?), although it sees use in sports (hockey) w:Sin bin. I thought we'd discussed this before somewhere? Seems familiar. Robert Ullmann 22:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, absolutely unguessable from parts. Kappa 02:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, definitely idiomatic as a sporting phrase. Jonathan Webley 20:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I've used this term for the last 30 years. It is in common use, and I have even heard it used in a non-sporting usage on a UK game show as a place where players go when they get a question wrong. (Can't remember name of show).--Dmol 19:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
(PS, later heard is again, the show was "Take It or Leave It".--Dmol 16:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Not the sum of its parts (a bin for throwing sins into?), but definitely idiomatic, and in existence when Big Brother was still in nappies/diapers. — Paul G 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

urban dictionary

Attested in this manner? NPOV??? I may not like it as a resource, but this, I think, is too much. --Connel MacKenzie 19:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Good catch Connel MacKenzie :-) It has hits on g.b.c., though most refer to THE Urban Dictionary (uppercase). Whether or not the current entry is kept, it'd be good to at least have an entry for the website, since the term IS used now by common everyday people. Afterall it's better for us to be descriptivists than prescriptivists :-)

Why are you putting this through RFV when we use it frequently on Wiktionary. It is difficult to state that another word is not suitable because it only lists an urban dictionary as a reference, but then fail to say what an urban dictionary is. Change the def to a better one if you don't like what is there now. NPOV ??? can't even figure out what you are talking about here.--Dmol 19:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think what he's saying is that the term isn't generic.. Urban Dictionary is the name of a specific website. We should certainly have an entry for the proper noun. --Versageek 19:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Although there is a site known as Urban Dictionary, I have marked the entry as a noun and not a proper noun. (Actually I wasn't aware of that site at the time). But consider that it has plurals. If you search for "urban dictionaries", there are thousands of results. A lot are garbage, but there is some good mileage there also. I just had a quick look and there seems to be a lot of noun usage, but I'll go through them in detail later.--Dmol 19:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in hearing what other referents this phrase could have. Cynewulf 20:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It would make more sense to include it if it were an idiom or the meaning wasn't obvious based on the words urban and dictionary. The other problem is the referents. There are not "thousands of results". 113 when doing a phrase search on Google and it removes the results of repeats (such as, comments on a blog quoting the blog's use or replies on forums quoting a post). Looking at some, a lot of those 113 are actually references to urbanditionary.com. News search turns up 0. Like Cynewulf, I'd like to see a few actual and obvious uses of the term that have nothing to do with the site.--Halliburton Shill 21:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

genderquake

--Connel MacKenzie 19:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

bullshidoka

--Connel MacKenzie 19:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This word was used in w:Bullshido, therefore I added it here. However, neither bullshido nor bullshidoka get any Google Book Search results. Furthermore, ordinary Google hits for both are of a trifling number. It seems that neither word meets WT:CFI. As such, both bullshido and bullshidoka ought to be deleted. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 08:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

bullshido

As per bullshidoka. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 08:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

screenager

No. --Connel MacKenzie 19:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

trouser cough

Wikisaurus isn't a problem? --Connel MacKenzie 20:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely heard. I am a little surprised that there are only 2 b.g.c. hits, but I'm not going to go sniffing out more cites myself. --Enginear 21:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

pamphleture

Marketing nonce/gimick? --Connel MacKenzie 20:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

mescalbeans

--Connel MacKenzie 20:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

mescalbean

--Connel MacKenzie 20:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks OK; the page links now to the w:mescalbean article on wikipedia. --EncycloPetey 03:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

bubbe

Grandma? In what dialect? --Connel MacKenzie 08:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be Yinglish. Angr 18:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

February 2007

dish

[sense #7]

1. {{baseball}} (slang) home plate

—This comment was unsigned.

The RFV-sense tag was added by User:RJFJR. DAVilla 22:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Vinay

Is "Indian" an acceptable language entry? (I wouldn't have thought so) SemperBlotto 17:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Besides the more than 200 languages spoken in India, there are hundreds of Amerindian languages that Americans would call "Indian". --EncycloPetey 18:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Would WT:TR except apparently resolved. Marked as English by an anon after nolang notice. DAVilla 22:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ffreinc' and others

So, is there a consensus on the Brithenig language? It's a constructed language, but it does have an ISO code. CFI states that we're undecided on this one. Is this the time to make a decision, or should we just leave it for the time being. Some other words in this language include can as ag dew sei pyramid cant caer dagar deserth destruithiwn fodka fideo ffyr Ffreinc' ffulyer ffradr achelerar arth aer yn llefeg', among others. Cerealkiller13 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We've included some constructed languages. Most of these seem to fall in a category of artificial languages designed for easier communication (e.g. Esperanto, Ido, Novial, Interlingua, Interlingue). We also have a smaller number of words in Klingon, Quenya, and Sindarin. This is the first I've encountered other languages deisgned for fictional purposes, and I don't think I'd want to see them included. Klingon &c. are at least used in a wide enough fan base with significant enough popularity that I had heard of them before working on Wikipedia, and have seen books, tapes, and the like promoting their use. I think any other such fictional language would need to be demonstrated as viable for inclusion, and we ought to draft some sort of criterion to judge such cases. --EncycloPetey 02:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Klingon is legit? I guess I'd better stop deleting it then. DAVilla 17:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It's legit, but potentially has copyvio problems, since most of the words are defined in copyrighted dictionaries. --EncycloPetey 19:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've started a discussion page on the BP concerning this and other constructed languages. I suppose time will tell if it gets any action. Cerealkiller13 17:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

We discussed these two or three years ago and the decision was to allow the traditional conlangs (those that were relatively well-known prior to 1950 (Esperanto, Ido, Volapük, Interlingua, Novial, and a few others), but not to allow any of the newer ones (such as Brithenig) or any of the ones created for book- or motion-picture series, such as Quenya, Klingon, Romulan, etc. —Stephen 07:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

kriki

This is another sort of iffy one. It's a language with a population of 40, second language only. It does have an ISO [17]. Should I keep bringing these weird languages here? Is there a better place for stuff like this, or should I just leave these things alone? Cerealkiller13 20:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You tick off the one guy who's entering these, and what are the chances that one of the other 39 would have even heard of Wiktionary, let alone want to contribute? DAVilla 17:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It may be a rare language, but if it's "real", has an ISO code an someone's willing to enter them, I say let them. --EncycloPetey 02:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll leave them be. Cerealkiller13 17:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Just adding my two cents although the discussion seems to be settled already. Even though languages of this type are/were only used by a very small number of people, I think it is worthy of inclusion for future historical research. Wiktionary will eventually become a major archive of language developement and for this reason we should (within reason) take whatever is out there.--Dmol 16:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

alphmegamia

I'm having trouble finding this one anywhere but Wiktionary mirrors. Dmcdevit 01:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

micrology

This sense: That part of science which treats of microscopic objects, or depends on microscopic observation. As far as I know, that area is called microscopy. --EncycloPetey 04:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, the OED gives its second meaning as "Rare - microscopy" SemperBlotto 09:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Iudaeus

Supposed to be an English noun (with the adjectival meaning of Jewish) - plural is wrong. I think it is Latin, but it is not in my dictionary. SemperBlotto 22:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Mine has it, and I've cleaned up the article, and welcomed our new friend and explained the proper usage of L2 headers. Someone should double-check and perhaps expand the article, as my knowledge of Latin is quite miniscule. Cerealkiller13 23:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The only use I'm finding in Latin has this as a noun rather than an adjective; the adjective form I find is Iudaeicus/Iudaicus. --EncycloPetey 01:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's listed as an adjective in my dictionary. However, in the English section, the masculine and feminine forms are listed under Jew and Jewess. I'm guessing it's an adjective that has a lot of substantive usage. So, I suppose it should be listed as both adjective and noun. I'll add that, but please feel free to add inflection and anything else. My knowledge level of Latin would prohibit such an undertaking. I have to imagine this comes from Ἰουδαῖος, I wish I had some proof. Cerealkiller13 01:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What dictionary do you have? I'm always interested in expanding my ability to look up Latin words. --EncycloPetey 02:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be technical, I don't have any Latin dictionaries. But, my roommate has The New College Latin & English Dictionary by John Traupman, here's a B&N link [18]. Cerealkiller13 02:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Eww... the blue-and-green Bantam paperback. I don't own this one on purpose. I'd be very suspicious then of this definition. It doesn't appear In Lewis & Short or in Feyerabend or in Calepinus. In fact the only place I can find it (now that I'm doing an exhaustive search of my Latin dictionaries) is Cassell's, which is the only one of them that doesn't provide source citations. --EncycloPetey 03:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Eww? Wow, I didn't realize that dictionary I've been using was so putrid :). I trust your handle on what's respectable and otherwise in the world of Latin. If you feel the adjectival sense should be removed, please feel free to do so. Out of curiousity, what's the premier lexicon, the Latin counterpart of the LSJ? Cerealkiller13 03:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The big edition of Lewis & Short's A Latin Dictionary, published by Oxford is the standard, though it has some drawbacks. The Wikipedia article does a good enough job of describing the book that I won't say more here. Their article also links the on-line searchable version, which is very useful since L&S is only organized as Latin to English. There is a smaller edition available that trims down the information (particularly by reducing quotations). I find that Feyerabend is really useful too, since it includes an English-Latin section and contains some later Latin that isn't found in the Classical dictionaries. Feyerabend's dictionary has been re-edited and is in print (I found a pocket-sized soft cover edition by Barnes & Noble ISBN 0-7607-4846-2) for cheap - only $10! compared to the $100+ for L&S. If you want to splurge, get a copy of Calepinus. The book was originally published in the 15th century, and various editions have been reissued ever since. Of course, you'd need to purchase this through an antiquarian bookseller, but it can be worth it. There's a lot more medieval Latin included than in most modern Latin dictionaries, but the real value is that most entries list the equivalents and definition in Hebrew, Ancient Greek, French, German, Italian, Spanish, and English, as well as providing a Latin definition. It's not cheap of course, but there are copies readily available out there. --EncycloPetey 04:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I think I'll probably get that $10 one that you mentioned, as I don't really know Latin and don't plan on learning it for a number of years, and I would prefer to devote most of my meager free change to Greek. However, my roommate does know Latin, and since A. Greek and Latin are so intertwined, I figure it'd be good to have something (especially if that Bantam is as bad as your gagging seems to imply). Thanks again. Cerealkiller13 04:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:ARchar

No part of speech is given. The definition is "mi". --EncycloPetey 21:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It’s an Arabic pronoun. —Stephen 07:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

orchidelirium

At face value, this is spam (linking to [www.orchidelirium.com/]). I cannot find it in the OED, Webster's etc, though its definition is a real phenomenon, akin to tulipmania. So, can we verify this or does it get an orchidectomy? --EncycloPetey 08:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the definition and removed the link. There is some evidence out there that this is a real word, for example this Telegraph article uses the term (after defining it earlier on). [19]

In the surreal demi-monde of orchidelirium, such plants are impostors. Only the blooms raised by nature can be considered authentic. Kappa 08:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have guessed at a plural, and added a quotation from Google books (though it didn't point me at the page, so I haven't found the full sentence). SemperBlotto 08:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Enterprise Feedback Management

This reads like spam. I might be able to find exactly three cites for this but probably no more. If this is going to be integrated into NS0 it'll need a complete rewrite.

Should I bother? Cynewulf 01:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

parados

The sense of a song sung oupon the entrance of a Greek chorus. There was a time when I owned a book that would have had this term (or not), but sadly I no longer own that book and can't recall whether this is the correct term. Even if it is the correct term, it may apply only to comedies and not tragedies (the dramatic jargon is very specialized). It isn't in the OED or in Webster's. Some Google book hits retrieve Greek drama books, but the limited quotations that come back do not provide the needed context. --EncycloPetey 05:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

A journal search turns up plenty of cites, like this one (about a tragedy):

"Here the two dramas diverge a little, for Milton at this point concludes his parados, or preliminary dialogue between the hero and the chorus, but Aeschylus adds a brief discussion of other matters for which the story of Samson can afford no parallel."

Wilmon Brewer, "Two Athenian Models for Samson Agonistes," PMLA, Vol. 42, No. 4., 1927. Dmcdevit 06:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin

Looks doubtful. Google Books, anyone? --Takanatsu the Frippant 10:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I verified it not long after you added the RFV tag; it now has three citations. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 11:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

…but it’s specifically an adjectival form, not an alternative spelling. Widsith 12:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

…and the cites for the non-hyphenated version are all nounal (if that’s a word), so I’ve been bold and separated them. Am I up to date that we now use “Noun” and “Adjective” as POS headers, rather than “Idiom” or “Noun phrase” or “Adjective phrase”? --Enginear 21:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your revisions seem correct. How does counting angels on pinheads come into this? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 01:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

…apart from my error which you corrected, for which thanks; it’s a use which some might want to see — more relevant than some web-sites’ “those who searched for… also searched for…” — but if you don’t think it’s relevant enough, I’m not fussed if it goes. --Enginear 21:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Que‽ Sorry, but I can’t understand your last post; could you please explain what you meant? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I was answering your question on the assumption that you meant "Why is counting angels... included in the See also?" If you meant "Should the POS header for counting angels... be Noun?", then yes I think it should, but it hadn't been directly mentioned and, to be honest, I'm not totally certain it acts as a noun -- my grammar is somewhat rusty -- so I didn't change it. --Enginear 20:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the latter; and yes, it acts as a noun. I have changed the “Idiom” section title thereïn unto “Noun”. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 02:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be count angels on pinheads? DAVilla 14:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn’t that make it a verb? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would. "Counting" would then be a gerund derived from it, which can be used as a noun. But that's not the motivation. The title is supposed to be shortened, and removing the -ing accomplishes that. The progressive form would then be a hard redirect. DAVilla 18:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

OK; I see. I checked, and count angels on pinheads, does meet WT:CFI; I’ll create a thrice-cited entry for it tomorrow. Just one question: what happens to the citations præsently at counting angels on pinheads; where do they go? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 18:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Idioms are the main exception to the "no redirects" rule. On the rare occasion that an idiom does overlap with another language, the meanings are borrowed from one language to the other, and the idiomatic defintions hold, unlikely to vary. So the other (closest) forms of the idiom are supposed to redirect to the most common idiom. --Connel MacKenzie 23:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that I understand, but where do the citations that are already at counting angels on pinheads go if that entry is to become a redirect? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 05:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I took a guess and copied the citations from counting angels on pinheads to a subsection in count angels on pinheads; I hope that this is acceptable. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 05:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. DAVilla 09:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have edited counting angels on pinheads so that it now redirects to count angels on pinheads. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 13:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Nkhukutemwa

Any takers? Needs formatting and trimming if OK. SemperBlotto 15:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Formatted, cleaned up, and moved to nkhukutemwa. —Stephen 10:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

gobbler

The second term, which is An electronic kitchen appliance that pulverises food waste that has gone down the sink. --Gobbler 18:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've not heard that in UK, but then the appliance is quite uncommon here, so it's not surprising if it hasn't developed a nickname. We normally call them waste disposal units. --Enginear 19:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The nickname, the definition, and the use of the word "pulverizes" all seem British to me. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this is a nickname for a garbage disposal unit that has developed in Britain. But even so, it needs to be clarified that "gobbler" is not a technical term, also the use of the word "pulverize" seems terribly out of place to me.Randy6767 19:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If you check out the entry's initial edit, you will see that the sense was added by User:Wonderfool (aka Expurgator), whose entries were frequently rather wonderful flights of fancy, eg WT:-)#rambling and WT:-)#Expanded, although others were "normal". So you are right to guess it was a British entry, but that does not necessarily make it correct. It might be a British nickname, or then again it might not. Certainly, in 30 yrs in the British building industry, I do not recall hearing it, and the top 100 b.g.c. hits for gobbler -turkey didn't have a single hit matching this definition, so it's not common. --Enginear 20:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems uncitable, therefor delete. Randy6767 20:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Shall I do the honors? --deleted Randy6767 22:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any usage of this word in that sense (save the fifty Wiktionary mirrors). However, the search is complicated by the fact that any search of "gobbler" and "appliance" brings up "energy gobbler." So the word may well exist in that form, but it'll be nigh impossible to find. I've cleared #2. If anyone does find anything, feel free to reinstate it. This probably was one of Wonderfool's more......interesting entries (rambling was hilarious). Atelaes 22:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

paramedicine

I did a quick search, and the word seems to be in usage, but the primary usage seems to be the practice of being a paramedic. There were some quotes that seemed to be vaguely related to what is given in the entry, as well as some other stuff. In any case, it will need to be cleaned up and moved to paramedicine, I imagine. Atelaes 00:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

gradatim

“Step by step; methodically.” Kappa 03:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if this has anything to do with “Gradatim Ferociter”, the slogan of Blue Origin (the company that’s supposedly going to start running consumer space flights? The Latin checks out, but I don’t know if it’s really a part of English. Although, I imagine Doremítzwr will come up with three quotes as quickly as you can say, “gradatim”. Atelaes 03:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There are very many hits on Google books, but almost all are Latin texts. The few in English are just translating the word for apothecaries or students. e.g. from “Dictionary of Latin Synonymes: For the Use of Schools and Private Students” — Gradatim, step by step, and gradually, signifies slowly one thing or act after the other, in measured points of rest or stops. SemperBlotto 11:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but it took me a little longer than <1 second to verify gradatim! ☺   I found an excellent citation from the 1650s — which means that 350 years separate the oldest and newest quotations! I also decided to add a poem of the title “Gradatim”, to add a little colour (well, you know what I mean) to the entry. It took a while to get the indentation right! Enjoy. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if anyone is going to put insanely obscure words into Wiktionary, I’m glad it’s you, Doremitzwr, who is so persistent in finding sources. I killed the poem, as beatiful as it was, as such a thing does not belong in a dictionary. If you like, I think it would be highly appropriate for Wikisource, as I have to imagine it’s out of copyright, the author having kicked it in 1881. I also added the Latin, as the more common usage (even in English, oddly) seems to be the Latin usage. Atelaes 21:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm citation #2 appears to be someone discussing (Isaac Newton’s?) Latin [20], not using the term in English, and #3 appears to be discussing some German (?) music terminology… [21]. However that poem might be worth counting as a citation — don’t need all of it. Kappa 01:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Atelaes, for the kind compliment. Fair enough in re the deletion of the poem; it can now be found here.

Unfortunately, Kappa, I do not know the date of the poem, but I’ll look again — I at least know that it was written in the 18^th century. As for the requisite third citation, I will be more careful in my selection thereof. Gradatim is a rather difficult word to verify! † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 02:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that it’s verified now. Of the seven citations now provided, four, perhaps five, are certainly valid. Would eveyone agree? I have also added a Latin citation, and have ascertained the date of the poem as 1872 (so I was wrong to say that it was written in the 19^th century). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 23:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And a nice quote wth suitably precise context: --EncycloPetey 01:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• 1898 — The High History of the Holy Graal, Introduction (translated from the 13th century French by Sebastian Evan)

  Now, a platter, broad and somewhat deep, is called in French "gradalis" or "gradale", wherein costly meats with their sauce are wont to be set before rich folk by degrees ("gradatim") one morsel after another in divers orders...

Kudos for the excellent quotation. I have made some improvements thereunto (see mine edit summaries). So, that leaves us with eight interesting citations; a job well done! † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 02:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have information about the original author, I'd share that with sources on Wikisource. The translation there is identified as "author unknown". --EncycloPetey 02:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I’ll do that. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 02:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

beer parlor

Bars exist in America, not beer parlors (nor beer parlours.) Haven't we been through this, before, for this one? --Connel MacKenzie 04:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Bars, saloons, lounges, joints, watering holes, holes, dumps, but never heard heer parlor. Probably a marketing term some bars are using to try to distinguish themselves from the others.--Halliburton Shill 06:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Added some quotations from Google books - seems to be more Canada than US. SemperBlotto 11:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: The same contributor entered beer parlour, but added this as the (impossible) US variant. In Canada, is this considered a typo of beer parlour? --Connel MacKenzie 18:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hang on! In Britain we have pubs, (or under previous licencing regulations sometimes beer houses), but NOT beer parlours. The "posh" bar in a pub with several (rare nowadays) was usually called the saloon, and occasionally the parlour but never, AFAIK, at least in my lifetime, the beer parlour.

Looking at b.g.c., there are beer parlor hits from US Congress, a book on early interaction between native Americans and settlers, etc, 625 hits in all. Meanwhile there are only 345 hits for beer parlour and many of them Canadian. --Enginear 21:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Crime and Punishment is Canadian?  :-) FWIW, I've never heard either beer parlor nor beer parlour outside of Wiktionary. --Connel MacKenzie 23:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, neither have I. Well, I said many, not all, but thereagain I believe Canada's closer to Russia than UK is, and Penguin is US owned :-). --Enginear 13:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

quazzy

Possibly a protologism, possibly slang. Jonathan Webley 07:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

BYODKM

A phrase used by Steve Jobs to publicize Mac Mini, so it gets a lot of Google hits and print verification [22], but I'm not sure if there is enough independent usage for inclusion. Dmcdevit 08:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It is bilge and probably belongs on that protologisms list thingy.--Williamsayers79 09:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

fuck off

The masturbate sense, i'm not convinced, needs cites if it is to survive.--Williamsayers79 16:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. In act, the only sense I've ever heard it used in, is the first. I could understand the others developing, though the third sense is really limited to fuck around, which would also be more fitting for the masturbation sense (if there is one).--Halliburton Shill 01:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

eroteme

Says it is English - then says it is Latin. Any takers? SemperBlotto 22:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't find it in Classical Latin (which is hardly surprising) or in English, but it is etymologically plausible. The OED has a pair of obscure words in rhetoric (erotema / erotesis and erotetic) which pertain to figure of speech using questioning. These words are derived from "modern" Latin from Greek roots. The doubt I have is that the word eroteme ends in -e, which is typical of Latin adverbs rather than nouns. --EncycloPetey 01:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Found an 1874 English citation:

• 1874 — Goold Brown (revised by Henry Kiddle), The Institutes of English Grammar, Methodically Arranged, p 256

  The Eroteme, or Note of Interrogation, is used to dsignate a question.

The examples provided within the section display a question mark. --EncycloPetey 01:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

disection

The first sense, "cutting into exactly two pieces." I'm not finding this in common dictionaries; perhaps it's confused with bisection? Dmcdevit 23:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably. Looking at the edit history, I see that this was transwikied from Wikipedia, where the "two pieces" bit seems to have been a kind of etymology rather than a definition. --EncycloPetey 01:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably confusing bisection with dissection. bd2412 T 03:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and on the spelling as dissection. Per the 8th Ed. of the Penguin Dictionary of Biology, 1990, there's also a microdissection and definitions use dissect.--Halliburton Shill 07:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

protonym

"A protologism created for an unprecedented invention, discovery, concept or other atypical phenomena and yet to be published. " Google books does not support this definition, seems to be more like "something which gave its name to something else". [23] Kappa 07:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This article seems close. --Joe Webster 07:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The definition you found sounds more like an eponym. --Joe Webster 06:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

ban-

The language header says this is English, but all the examples are in either Irish or Scottish Gaelic (I'm not sure which). --EncycloPetey 05:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The examples are in Scottish Gaelic. I'll change the language header. Angr 00:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

acucullophilia

--Connel MacKenzie 20:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Google's got plenty of hits, it's a sexual term and just about all of the hits are used exactly as it's used here. keep it. Randy6767 03:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, of the google hits we use, I see zero. Which is a pretty good indication it is slang, far below our threshold. --Connel MacKenzie 23:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

amnesia

For the second sense: "A defect of speech, from cerebral disease or trauma, in which the patient substitutes wrong words or names in the place of those he wishes to employ." Which sounds suspiciously like the person who created the article meant "aphasia" -- perhaps specifically a confusion of Wernicke's aphasia with Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome? -- Keffy 01:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like an effect of cerebral palsy to me. ~ Oh by the way there's something wrong with the tea room I already brought it up in the GP no one has responded. Randy6767 02:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

hear, hear

[here, here] Is this a spelling mistake? Shouldn't it be hear hear? SemperBlotto 08:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Straight Dope agrees with you, The correct term is, "hear, hear!" It is an abbreviation for "hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!" I'll see if I can find some more verifiable quotes.--Dmol 11:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Delete "here, here". A search at Google books makes it obvious. "here here" finds child-like quotes of things like "it's here here here here". "hear hear" returns results from books on speeches. Project Gutenberg's full text search returns no results for "here, here" and over a 1,000 for "hear, hear".--Halliburton Shill 16:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved, struck. DAVilla 18:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

tato

Ancient British? -- Beobach972 22:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Side note: why does wiktionary keep blocking me from writing on this page, saying something about "blogs" at "myspace" being blocked? I haven't said a word about myspace. -- Beobach972 22:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahah, some-one said as much above... I have broken the link to fix the problem. -- Beobach972 22:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

delete section. Not sure why this was put in. I've seen a number of "Ancient British" attributions pop up in the past few days, all from User 212.32.97.227. There's no such language and the examples I've seen were complete tosh, such as an "Ancient British" origin for the word apple, which has a clear Germanic etymology. --EncycloPetey 22:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

comatic

This seems to be a real word but is "in a state of coma" one of its meanings? or were they thinking of comatose? Kappa 00:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have replaced it with the correct meanings from optics and astronomy. SemperBlotto 08:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

E+

I have never heard of a school that gave a mark of "E+" to students. --EncycloPetey 01:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of these marking systems deserve inclusion. They are not universal, our state system uses a numerical system - 1 to 7 accumulated over 4 semesters. So we then add all 28 possibilities. I don't think so.--Dmol 16:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Universality of use is not a requirement; however, meeting the CFI is. bd2412 T 03:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

E-

I have never heard of a school that gave a mark of "E-" to students. --EncycloPetey 01:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

F-

I have never heard of a school that gave a mark of "F-" to students. I have only heard this expression used as a joke. --EncycloPetey 01:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, but still a usage. I have heard it used in the joking sense plenty, "F-" work representing the worst possible work. bd2412 T 16:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Impossible to search for "F-" in Google, but a book search for "F-minus" yeilded the following:

Andrew Gumbel, Steal This Vote: Dirty Elections and the Rotten History of Democracy in America (2005) p. 264:

A conservative watchdog group concerned about the integrity of the electoral process, the Free Congress Foundation, later did an audit of new voting systems around the country and deemed Georgia's to be the worst, giving it an F-minus grade.

Lawrence Sutin, Divine Invasions: A Life of Philip K. Dick (2005) p. 46:

...he tried to cheer her up by painting a portrait of himself as the ultimate fuck-up: "It was super hard for me in high school. I got an F minus on a geometry test.

Matt Haig, Brand Failures: The Truth About the 100 Biggest Branding Mistakes of All Time (2003) p. 211:

What you've got now is a company that went from an A- plus to an F-minus. And now it's going back to a B.

Dean M. Sagar, Franchising in the U.S. Economy: Prospects and Problems (1990) p. 27:

Is that an A plus for New York, or is that an F minus?

National Capital Area--drug Trafficking: Joint Oversight Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Fiscal Affairs and Health (1988) p. 69.

It seems to me that this administration ought to be given an F, if we are talking about grades here, on its war on drugs, an F, in fact, an F minus.

bd2412 T 19:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In light of the above, I've created F minus - redirect F- there? bd2412 T 03:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

انگلیسی

Entry says "who knows what's going to happen" and edit history declares this to be a test - is it anything at all? Gibberish, or an Arabic word needing a definition? bd2412 T 03:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Struck; good definition added by a trusted contributor. bd2412 T 16:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

boulderdash

Atelaes 06:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Tosh, erratum (or, in the spirit of the entry, Tosherado). None of the 11 b.g.c. hits support the definition. The name is used in the names of a book and a videogame, and is a possible misspelling, but nothing which meets CFI. --Enginear 22:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a misspelling based on pronunciation of balderdash. I often hear it pronounced as bolder-dash. Maybe clear and redirect? Add an alternative pronunciation if necessary.--Halliburton Shill 05:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

à la grecque

Should this be à la Grecque? (needs formatting) SemperBlotto 08:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No. French doesn't use capitals for languages, nor for the adjectives derived from country names. "grecque" is the feminine version of the adjective "grec", i.e. "Greek", and à la grecque means, as stated, "in the Greek style". Paul Willocx 16:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A WT:TR issue, now resolved and struck. DAVilla 22:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

truthiness

Yes, I know ...

This was discussed a year ago, and generally considered to have failed. Now it has been a year, current citations span about 2 years, and there are numerous uses that don't directly reference Colbert.

There is another point, which I made in the Tea Room: If it were not for the Colbert usage, this entry would pass CFI easily as a rare, archaic, but attested usage (with OED, citations).

Seems to me this is at the point where it should pass. What say you? Robert Ullmann

The word itself should pass, as the archaism. Let's do the senses separately. Cynewulf 15:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Which makes the question: should the Colbert sense be listed as a sense, or as a note on the current humourous usage? Robert Ullmann 15:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with sense verification. The 1st and 2nd sense at the moment should be merged until there's evidence that a new sense is developing. The 2nd is actually closer to how Colbert defines the term. On the April 30, 2006 60 Minutes interview, when asked to define it, he said: "What you want the facts to be as opposed to what the facts are. What feels like the right answer as opposed to what reality will support." Merriam-Webster also provides similar definitions in naming it the 2006 word of the year. Keep in mind that even though the origin is comedic, it's taken and used as seriously as fraud or fake or lie. For more references including a premade link to current news references that use truthiness without Colbert, see Talk:truthiness.--Halliburton Shill 19:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the out-of-process deletion last night (see comments in WT:TR.) I do believe the comedian usage of the term should still be considered vandalism, since that was the point of each of the comedy skits (vandalism) in the first place. And, indeed, each episode of the show did result in quite a bit of said vandalism. --Connel MacKenzie 15:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Great points raised by everyone :-) We can all agree that a dictionary which is out of touch with the language people actually use, isn't worth much.. so.. since the word is used in the Colbert sense quite widely now, it's definitely a great addition to Wiktionary :-) Compare with things like embiggen, amscray, brillig..  :-) — This unsigned comment was added by Language Lover (talk • contribs).

I've taken the liberty of making the two senses rather more distinct, as I don't think that the one evolved into the other, but rather that the second is a completely new word, with no connections to the first, save being a descendant of truth. Atelaes 05:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"truthiness" - Merriam-Webster's #1 Word of the Year for 2006

Merriam-Webster's #1 Word of the Year for 2006 based on votes from visitors to our Web site:

1. truthiness (noun) 1 : "truth that comes from the gut, not books" (Stephen Colbert, Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report," October 2005) 2 : "the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true" (American Dialect Society, January 2006)

Can I point out that the reason for "truthiness" being honored with word of the year was that it got the most votes on their website? That is certainly not a relevant method for determining inclusion here... If we chose words that way exicort might have won it a few times now. - [The]DaveRoss 15:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course. It's simply 1 indication of popularity and use. In this case, one of many. I wouldn't say it's irrelevant or comparable to exi. That word doesn't appear anywhere on this year's or previous MW lists.--Halliburton Shill 03:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Road definitions of multiplex, duplex, and triplex

Is it Wiktionary's goal to include neologistic uses that are only used in online hobbyist communities? If so, please reject this request. (See [24] for what brought me here; Daniel Case is attempting to get "major dictionary publishers" to use the neologisms so they can be used in Wikipedia articles.) --NE2 23:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Relevant quote:

• I'm going to live with "concurrency" for now while I write letters to the major dictionary publishers urging them to include this meaning. (I've already made the appropriate wiktionary edits to multiplex, duplex and triplex, but since we don't consider Wiktionary acceptable as a source for non-neologism status (although it would pass its criteria for inclusion), it won't have any affect. Still, lexicographical reform has to start somewhere. [...] Daniel Case 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Admitted neologism by contributor. RfV failed. I'm removing the senses. If someone comes back with the appropriate print citations we can reconsider, but these are just wikipedia neologisms being pushed. (I don't believe the "roadgeek common usage" any more than I believe Eddie's friends... ;-) Only google seem to be wikipedia. I added a note to user's talk page to come back with print citations spanning two years; I think it will be a while. Anyone think this is too abrupt? Robert Ullmann 13:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that wiktionary isn't "acceptable as a source for non-neologism status". Clearly someone thinks we should be doing better? Robert Ullmann 13:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

They are well-used on Usenet; is that suitable, or is print required? --NE2 16:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In practice three Usenet cites are too sketchy to count for attestation, even from writers who use their full names. A citation in print or even an additional reference as mention in print would help round out the case. DAVilla 21:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

nem con

English? --Connel MacKenzie 04:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• It is an abbreviation of a Latin phrase used extensively without quotation marks in English language sentences. That makes it English in my book. I have cleaned it up, removed the copyvio from dict.die.net and added a couple of quotations from Google books. (Also took the liberty of removing the RfV!) SemperBlotto 10:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not even tagged with Category:English borrowed words?  :-) Any chance someone could add the Latin? --Connel MacKenzie 10:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Added the two Latin words to the best of my limited ability. SemperBlotto 10:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Pretty good job, but nemine is a pronoun (I've fixed that). I'd do more, but need to figure out how to format all the pronouns as per the BP discussion. --EncycloPetey 15:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I created nemine contradicente (with citations spanning 381 years) and changed nem con and nem. con. into abbreviation entries. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for adding these in the three days since I used the abbreviation at WT:TR#anarchy again at 12:44, 10 February 2007. When I saw it red-linked, I intended to add it to my to do list, but before I even added it to the list, you had entered it and added some cites! --Enginear 20:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'd just like to say "Wow!" --Connel MacKenzie 06:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

do

For these senses:

• To be exhausted: Is this only ever used as the past participle "done"? If so, move to "done"; if not, give examples that use the present tense as well.
• To be in jail: This is "do time" and should be moved there. — Paul G 14:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

  Concur with both assessments. --EncycloPetey 15:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

  Cross-referenced by appropriate "See also"s at do, of course. --Enginear 20:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

spunk bucket

B.g.c. has two "slang" dictionaries, no use. {{nosecondary}} --Connel MacKenzie 17:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've heard of this term. It is highly objectionable. --Evrik 20:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

103 hits on Google Groups. Usenetters like their insults. ;-) —Ruakh_TALK 18:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

pis

[Irish] Normally this word means "pea" in Irish; it is listed as also being a slang word for vagina. This second definition requires verification. Angr 20:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

ਪੁਸਤਕਾਲਾ

Language is Panjabi - is that OK, or should it be Punjabi? SemperBlotto 08:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Both are correct, but Punjabi is usual. Fixed. —Stephen 22:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

castello

English entry only. Any takers? SemperBlotto 11:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are some uses:

• pear and prosciutto salad with castello toasts
• Well, hello stranger "Try the home made gnocchi with white castello cheese."
• HomeShop product search for castello
• EzyShop gourmet cheese category
• Soft, Ripened Cheeses

Ralmin 23:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

ECL

Sorry to nominate an acronym, but "East Coast Love"? Is that supposed to be a euphemism for violence? --Connel MacKenzie 11:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

P/N

An abbreviation for part number. Is this is a correctly formatted heading, or does PN suffice? And anyways, shouldn't it be P.N.? Jonathan Webley 13:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it as P/N. I cleaned up the format, using POS: Initialism (not sure that is correct since it has a slash). I'd keep it. RJFJR 15:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw a few examples of P/N today in a warehouse at work. Seems common enough.--Dmol 14:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I object to an entry in the main namespace with a "/" in the entry title, this certainly seems to be in widespread use (with the slash.) --Connel MacKenzie 06:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Casita

I've just found the following on Zigzig20s's talk page:

I took a look at your page Casita

I did some spanish language googling and I found nothing on these "Casitas" that you wrote about.

Quite literally it means "little house" , its a diminutive form, or "cute house" or something along that manner.

So I think it should be not capitalized and not a proper noun.

Bearingbreaker92 01:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The point about capitalisation makes sense; are there any more citations we could add that demonstrate the capitalisation or lack of it? — Paul G 15:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually Tim Cresswell uses both. zigzig20s 16:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

scrape

Senses: abortion, nest. --Connel MacKenzie 16:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen both. OED2+ has scrape as slang for an abortion by D and C since 1968 and as a nest on the ground used by some varieties of birds since 1942 or possibly earlier. B.g.c. for pregnant "a scrape" gives 103 hits, with at least three clearly using the word in the intended sense without surrounding it in quotes, and b.g.c. for bird egg scrape gives 618 hits with several in the first 30 looking good. --Enginear 21:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

E

English Noun Sense 3 - as a failing grade below a D-. Note that we have E+ and E- on RfV above. bd2412 T 03:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

E is also used to mean Excellent. One of the reasons it is less often used as a failing grade. In general I think these things should be just identified as grades; E, E- and E+ are used in financial securities grading. The (approximate) range AA to F with + and - and additional letters are used to grade lots of things. (Kenya AA, which I am drinking right now ;-) Robert Ullmann 08:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point (but showing such would not support the RfV'd sense). bd2412 T 03:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Jonkers

Unformated entry says, "slang term", "someone who teases another in a silly manner, is ridiculous and harebrained". No language statement. Could exist here as a proper noun, as it seems common as a family name.--Dmol 20:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense deleted, thanks for re-entering as a surname. --Connel MacKenzie 20:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

BOCTAOE

No evidence of widespread or independent use for this initialism coined by Scott Adams quite recently. Dmcdevit 05:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

defenestrate

The second sense, "To stop using the Windows operating system". This was added by an anon months ago, and seems suspect. It's hard to tell because "windows" and "Windows" look the same to a search engine, but I'm not finding print sources to verify it. Dmcdevit 09:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Googling for the words defenestrate and microsoft gives 13.8k hits. The first few answers seem to indicate the definition in question. But some further down said that Windows might persuade the user to defenestrate herself or the computer! —Saltmarsh 09:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This word was probably created for humorous effect, since it’s from Latin fenestra (window). —Stephen 23:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Is /. considered "durably archived"?  :-) --Connel MacKenzie 06:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I found three citations and a reference to works that are in print (or at least associated with print media) and added them. I took the liberty of removing the rfv tag, but I'm willing to hear that the standard is not yet reached. I also came across another meaning, but only once or twice: to close a window to shut down an errant process on a computer. Ben 12:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

constructal

Is this a protologism, or does it meet CFI? 12:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The earliest cite I have found which matches the definition is from 1997 (by Prof Bejan, which supports the etymology) and b.g.c. shows it has been used in text books by various other people since, considerably more than the "three independent uses over more than one year" needed to meet CFI. (It also appears, mainly prior to 1997, as a scanno, and possibly as a trade name for an aluminium alloy.) --Enginear 13:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Clown head

Was tagged as a hoax on WpA, doesn't seem likely to be useful here, also is not verified. 68.39.174.238 01:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

arathi

A World-of-Warcraft derived term for marijuana? bd2412 T 03:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I found some uses of the word in regards to something in Kenya (a people group, perhaps?). Robert might know about this. I also found a use of the word connected in some way to Indian mysticism (some sort of ritual, I believe). I admittedly didn't take the time to do a terribly involved search. In any case, the article as it stands should be deleted. Atelaes 04:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

veer

Noun #2, Intransitive Verb #5 "a lie", "to lie" (paraphased here) - no obvious mainstream usage for these senses, maybe colliquial. --Versageek 04:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

abhorors

Very few Google-hits (link), most of them seemingly Wiktionary-derived. Gets no b.g.c. hits (link). Likewise for "abhoror", of which it's supposedly the plural. I'm guessing this is a misspelling of "abhorers", though that doesn't get many hits, either. "abhorrers". —Ruakh_TALK 05:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC) and 18:40, 16 February (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "the abhorring [ones]?" --Joe Webster 07:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, neither abhorer nor abhoror are in OED2+. --Enginear 11:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but -er is a productive suffix in English (i.e., it is not confined to existing words, but can be used to make new ones), and it can be added to any English verb. Most dictionaries only define those -er words that have a meaning that cannot be deduced from the verb. —Stephen 16:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well then, FWIW, neither ABHORER nor ABHOROR is in the U.S. National Scrabble Association's Official Club and Tournament Word List, Second Edition, which does list such forms separately (and even lists inflected forms separately). How's that? :-) —Ruakh_TALK 17:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

And — you'd be surprised. The OED2 defines shader as "rare. One who or something which shades (in various senses of the verb)." —Ruakh_TALK 17:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It lists the -er form of every English verb? I don’t believe that. Every English verb can take the -er, and if your reference doesn’t have "abhorrer", then it does not list all such forms. —Stephen 17:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the OED's criterion is that it will only include words whose use has actually been documented; for example, it does include abhorrer. *fixes above comment* It's all well and good to say that -er is productive and can be added to any verb, but that doesn't mean that <verb>er is actually an existent word for all verbs. And for some words, such as edit, it's considered an error to add -er (since edit is a backformation from editor). —Ruakh_TALK 18:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It is almost certain that abhorors is a misspelling of abhorrers (which I have just created, as well as sprucing up the entry for the singular unto which it links). Move abhorors unto WT:RfD? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 22:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No need. It can be deleted from here (see top of page) once a month has passed. We leave words here that long, in case one of the editors who logs on only occasionally knows of cites of which we are not aware. --Enginear 19:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

floride

I'm pretty sure this is just a typo for fluoride. —Ruakh_TALK 21:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• "floride and chemistry" gets over 200 Google books hits - either a fairly common misspelling or a genuine alternate spelling. Also, note that Floride is French for Florida. bd2412 T 22:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The English word is a common misspelling. Besides that, flouride is another common misspelling. —Stephen 23:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Misspelling. Unless they'd like to try redefining it. Google news produced 0 floride toothpaste hits to 91 fluoride toothpaste hits. Also 0 news hits for floride alone. I'm starting to wonder how reliable Google Books beta is.--Halliburton Shill 19:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

kazillionaire

Even with the citation provided, I don't see this as a legitimate word. It's just a construction of (random syllable)-zillionare. bd2412 T 02:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really random. It’s the Common Germanic nominalizing prefix for forming collective nouns out of other substantives (Dutch and German ge-), and which also imparts a sense of perfectiveness or with intensifying force (Old English ge-, y-, as in yclept, ywis, yklad), and still found in Modern English in such words as ker-plop, ka-pow, a-like, a-ware; plus zillion/jillion plus -aire. —Stephen 04:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you're point, tho I've heard bazillionaire and gazillionaire much more extensively, but wouldn't count those as real words either. But if this stays, they should likely be added. bd2412 T 04:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've heard zillionaire even more, but that's not added. They're all child words. I haven't heard or used them pretty much since I was a kid. Never heard the ba- version tho. Maybe they qualify for something along the line of a puerile joke.--Halliburton Shill 19:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we've got mommy and doggy, and have defined them with reference to children. I'm just wondering whether this is really a "word", as opposed to a sort of nonce construction that sounds like a word. bd2412 T 20:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have seen footage of HM Queen Elizabeth II call her late mother “mummy” — these are not “children’s words”, they are terms of endearment — like “poppet”, and I’ve never heard a child use that word. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 22:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I hardly see kazillionaire as a term of endearment. If not a "children's word" it is certainly a highly informal construction (hence my reference to it as a possible nonce word), and not one you would expect to be used in any serious setting. bd2412 T 23:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is very informal. I was merely criticising the confusing “children” tag found at mommy — informal is much better. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 01:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not picky as to tagging it as a child or informal word. It should be tagged in some way that lets users know its use in the same way other words get marked archaic, dialectal, slang, etc. Looking at lexicons, informal and metasyntactic seem to cover it best. Keep in mind that there's already a tag for text messaging, but nothing for children, yet you're not going to hear an adult talking about a pretty birdy and how they want a horsey for a birthday gift.--Halliburton Shill 05:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it not the case that these are infantalistic words taught to children by adults, the latter of which believing that such words are “cute” when used by children? I have heard adults (well, older teenagers) use both birdy and horsey — only informally and when expressing affection (yes, that exact phrase, “pretty birdy”). The text messaging tag is totally different — such words as txtspk arose from a desire for œconomy of both dialing time and phone credit (the latter of which was also the motivation behind telegraph abbreviations, such as thô). The “children” tag is really confusing — does it mean that the word ought to be used by children, with children, about children (applicable in some cases) — does it mean that the word is an illiteracy, or that it expresses affection — how informal does the situation have to be so that such usage in acceptable, does the company matter — is such a speech trait shared by all children, or just some regions’? Then you get the really broad questions such as “what, or how old, is a child?”… † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 11:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

How about just tagging as {{slang}}? RJFJR 15:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems reasonable enough, and a lot less ambiguous. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "childish" would be a better tag than "children"? —Ruakh_TALK 17:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd take "childish" over "slang" at any rate - and I still doubt that kazillionaire is any more of a word than, say, "kachunk". bd2412 T 05:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

chocha

English or Spanish? SemperBlotto 08:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely Spanish; possibly English as well, depending on your definitions. Like many Spanish nouns (and interjections, for that matter), it sees use in U.S. English contexts, but as far as I can tell, it is never intended to be taken as an English word per se. (Compare chico, ese, hasta la vista; all are Spanish terms used occasionally in U.S. English contexts. The entires for the former two only list them as Spanish; the entry for the last one only lists it as English.) I think a good argument can be made for listing such terms as English: for one thing, if we don't do so, what do we do with no problemo, which is not real Spanish? I'm assuming we don't want "Mock Spanish" to be a language category. Also, giving them as English as well lets us explain the nuances of their uses in English contexts. (Hasta la vista is definitely used differently in U.S. English contexts from how it's used in Spanish contexts; the other ones less so, but it's good to be versatile.) —Ruakh_TALK 08:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It's in the RAE, though its primary meaning in Spanish is woodcock (the bird). --EncycloPetey 05:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the RAE actually gives a number of senses for it.^[link] The question is, is it an English word (as it was until recently labeled)? I think a case can be made. (Maybe this is better suited to WT:BP than to WT:RFV, though.) —Ruakh_TALK 07:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Amrita Nadi

A concept from a new religious movement which has (according to Wikipedia) 2,000 members. It has plenty of book hits, but I don't know if it'll pass independence. Any thoughts? Atelaes 09:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Strangely, the wp article for the "new religious movement", which is linked to the article, does not mention the phrase, or either of its component words. However, the movement does appear to be interested in yoga, and some of the book hits do show that this describes a yoga concept, so perhaps it's indirectly connected.

Also, I wouldn't say plenty of book hits -- certainly not for the sense defined. I can only see four for which a text view is available and which may be usage of the capitalised version (and there are three lowercase hits which may be for the same term). None of these hits appear at first sight to refer to the claimed religious movement, although I have not looked carefully.

It needs someone familiar with yoga to determine if the second half of the definition is appropriate (or if it can be made less woolly) and has at least three cites. Meanwhile, I'll change the first part to refer to yoga rather than new religious movement and see what happens. --Enginear 19:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly seems to meet the CFI:

Christian Von Nidda, Our Secret Planet (2005) p. 90:

From the nasal cavity the white elixer passes down a secret channel called amrita-nadi and is then distributed throughout the body, with the majority ending up in the brain.

David Frawley, Tantric Yoga and the Wisdom Goddesses: spiritual secrets of Ayurda (1996) p. 173:

It is called Amrita Nadi, the "immortal channel," or Atma Nadi, "the channel of the Self.

G. V. Subbaramayya, Sri Ramana Reminiscences (1979) p. 101:

Nadi or Amrita Nadi.

G. Krishna, Guṇṭūru Lakṣmīkāntamu, Nayana: Kavyakantha Vasishtha Ganapati Muni : Biography (1978) p. 97:

...(the nerve-knot behind the centre of the eyebrows) leading the aspirant to the heart centre through the Amrita Nadi.

Cuttān̲anta Pāratiyār, Secrets of Sama Yoga;: An Elaborate Treatise on the Yoga of Vedic Seers. (1970) p.113:

The top is connected with the heart by a mystic Nadi called Amrita Nadi.

--bd2412 T 15:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Would someone be able to give it a discernable definition? As it stands, I think it rather opaque. Atelaes 05:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, in yogic belief a metaphysical channel that connects certain vital areas of the human body. bd2412 T 17:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

randomnity

Zero Google Book Search hits. Misspelling of randomity? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

randominity

Previously deleted, but finding a citation encouraged me to reädd it. Sent to RFV as I only saw one citation (not that I looked very far). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 18:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Finished. DAVilla 18:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Since all but one of the quotations is from Usenet, do the quotations count as "durably archived"? The usual term in literature is randomness. --EncycloPetey 17:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

aequeosalinocalcalinoceraceoaluminosocupreovitriolic

Multiple independent uses? Kappa 05:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean my spa and bath plumbers are post-neuroelectroaequeosalinocalcalinoceraceoaluminosocupreovitriolicists?--Halliburton Shill 19:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

gaybor

A gay neighbor? bd2412 T 05:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Gaybor is a valid surname. But this is a protologism at best. Deleted (and the plural) SemperBlotto 10:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

gaybors

Gay neighbors? bd2412 T 05:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

vatrain

"A breast pocket on a shirt." ? Kappa 07:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Utter tosh (nicely formatted though) - deleted SemperBlotto 10:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Aegir and Ran's hall

Never heard of this mythological place; no Google Book hits. bd2412 T 01:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If it exists, then it’s misspelt — it should be Ægir and Rán’s hall. However, as it is no more than the sum of its parts, it ought to be deleted. Entries for Ægir, Rán, and whatever their hall is called (they are husband and wife) would be fine though. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 01:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No real definition, just a rambling essay - deleted SemperBlotto 10:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

acroama

Imported from Wikipedia; needs verification. Dmcdevit 01:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, OED2+ has it as a non-naturalised English word with totally different meanings to the one we have (approximately: rhetorical discourse or esoteric doctrines). However, some references from b.g.c. do seem to support the claimed usage in Ancient Latin. --Enginear 17:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've verified the Latin defintion from my dictionaries and fixed the Transwiki:acroama entry to look like the Latin entry we should have, but I'm still unclear on exactly how to go about merging with the existing acroama article so as to preserve the edit histories of both. I'll give it a shot...merged --EncycloPetey 17:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Twink MMORPG is innaccurate.

Content moved to twink thread above. --Enginear 18:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

cognician

Legitimate-sounding word, but only 263 google hits, most of which didn't seem promising. --EncycloPetey 03:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Protologism at best - deleted SemperBlotto 10:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• This has been added again with a reference of "various dictionaries" - well, it certainly isn't in the OED. SemperBlotto 08:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

αρχι

Should this be a redirect - a misspelling of αρχή / ἀρχή. —Saltmarsh 07:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this was intended as a prefix, which is covered at ἀρχ-. Although, perhaps the entry should really be at ἀρχι-. I'll take a look at some of the words with this prefix and find out if they all have the iota. Once I figure out the final name for the prefix, I'll fix all the articles αρχι links to and delete it. Atelaes 08:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As it turns out, ἀρχι- was in fact the way to go. I've fixed all the entries, linking them to the proper places. αρχι has been deleted. Atelaes 23:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Animadvertere

In Latin, "the second principal part of the transitive verb "to notice." Needs verification. Dmcdevit 18:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is correct ("second part" = "infinitive"). Plenty of use and mention/definition in b.g.c.. I'm not au fait with the Latin templates, but I think it was recently agreed that we would put the main Latin verb entries under the 1ps present, eg animadverto, rather than under the infinitives. Also, if the etymologies follow the English pattern, we would say "from animus+ad+verto" rather than refer to the roots, but perhaps they don't. --Enginear 19:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

antwacky

Appears in the Dictionary of Slang, can anyone verify it? Dmcdevit 18:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

woolgar

This is called a noun, but defined as a verb. I can't find relevant hits becuase of the surname returns when I google. --EncycloPetey 23:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Google searches for verb-y uses don't pull anything up; to woolgar and woolgars both get very few hits, none verb-seeming, and neither woolgared nor woolgarred gets even a single hit. —Ruakh_TALK 04:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted - with no citations, and only three suspicious comments made mere moments after the page was put up for RfV (all by users who created an account solely to comment on the one word). --EncycloPetey 00:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

puellal

English: "Characteristic of, or pertaining to, a girl or girls". Kappa 03:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• OED has puellile and puellular with this meaning. SemperBlotto 08:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant puellile (which I have created and thrice-cited). I needed that adjective for dreamchild, knew it was based on the root of the Latin puella, but forgot what form it took. Uses of puellal have been changed to puellile. I suggest deleting the former as an unverifiable typo. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

OK deleted. Unfortunately I think you have at best one good citation for puellile... Kappa 17:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

puerile

English: "Characteristic of, or pertaining to, a boy or boys." Kappa 03:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The OED confirms that definition exists in English. --EncycloPetey 04:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe them. Kappa 04:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful to note that the OED also notes this usage as rare/depreciative, as it should probably be noted in our dictionary. Atelaes 04:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you might be confused about something; rare and depreciative are completely different things, and the OED is applying them to different senses here. (Rare means that a sense is not common; depreciative means that a sense is negative/derogatory/insulting. Note that depreciative is unrelated to deprecated, which might be what you're thinking of, though it is rather similar in sense to deprecating.) —Ruakh_TALK 04:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; the OED makes a point of saying "boy or child", and it's not obvious that any of its cites are truly boy-specific in the way that our definition #1 suggests. —Ruakh_TALK 04:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

OED2+ goes on to say ...boyish.... I certainly have seen it used in that sense (as it clearly is in some of the new cites. This is the use that OED marks rare, and compared with the depreciative use as childish that is probably correct. But it does exist and is still used. --Enginear 21:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the OED doesn't have any boy-specific sense; one of the senses may have a slightly leaning toward boys, but I think it's a stretch to say that the word can specifically mean "boy-like" as opposed to "girl-like". —Ruakh_TALK 21:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

And my point was that, though the OED implies, intentionally or otherwise, by using the word child in its sense 1, that puerile might sometimes be used of girls, it also specifically adds boy and boylike, and specifically does not mention girl or girllike. In our 2002 cite, it is important that boylike, rather than childlike or girllike is understood. I suspect that the only time puerile is used in this sense of girls, is when referring to a mixed group of children, as perhaps the 1948 cite (although without further context it is hard to tell). That is, it has the same degree of sex-specificity as words like men, actors, and indeed, if I remember correctly, the Latin pueri (plural of puer) and puerilis. Perhaps, adding "or to children generally" to the end of the definition (after "cf. puellile") would be appropriate. --Enginear 23:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I suspect this comes from the fact that (in the past) literate people were trained in Latin, where the word puer "boy" would have been the obvious referent. The word puerile thus meant "like a boy". --EncycloPetey 22:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. (Sorry for the late reply; I somehow didn't notice your comment until now.) —Ruakh_TALK 22:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone may also want to copyedit the exampes there, they seem to be cut and pasted from somewhere that uses an interesting character for their 's'. - [The]DaveRoss 15:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The character to which you refer, ‘ſ’, is a long s, an archaïc form of the letter ‘s’, used in its stead everywhere except for at the end of words, and in instances of ‘ss’ (written ‘ſs’; from which combination evolved the German ‘ß’). If you were to read the cited text, you will find that I quoted it literatim. We are not supposed to “copyedit” cited sources.

I have added eight citations to this usage. At least five absolutely unambiguously show the usage. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, German ß did not evolve from strictly from "ss". It evolved from "sz" as well. See the Wikipedia article on ß. --EncycloPetey 22:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know the ſ was available in our fonts, but it clearly is. What's the simplest way of typing it (other than cut and paste as I have just done)? --Enginear 21:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's U+017F, so ſ or ſ works. If we want something easier to remember, we could always create a {{long s}} or something. —Ruakh_TALK 21:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Enginear 23:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

sexile

Protologism? Verb forms seem wrong. SemperBlotto 15:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not a protologism; it's very widespread slang at colleges in the U.S. I've fixed the verb forms. —Ruakh_TALK 18:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A quick skim-through of the b.g.c. results pulls up a number of uses in the relevant sense, including "Girls sexile each other!" (2005; emphasis in original), "We promised to never 'sexile' each other (kick your roommate out of the room for the purposes of hooking up)." (2004), "'I'm a sexile for the next few hours.'" (2005; though I guess that's technically a slightly different sense, seeing as it's a noun), "Be respectful to your roommate. Do not 'sexile' them or be unaccommodating to their customs and culture." (2001). (It also pulls up a number of mentions confirming the definition.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

De-striking this, as I struck it prematurely. (Sorry.) The article now has three cites, 2000–2006, all from b.g.c. —Ruakh_TALK 15:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

nanophilia

Seems that it has been used as described at least once but more than that? I also may have some usage meaning "a fondness for nanotechnology" as seen in a few other places. - [The]DaveRoss 15:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think that its only real usage is in terms of nanotechnology. I have changed the definition and added a quote from Google books. SemperBlotto 15:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

buy

Sense "to die": the example suggests this it actually an idiom "to buy it". If so, move it to there, along with the translations, and add "buy it" to the derived terms. — Paul G 17:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this only occurs as "bought it" and maybe "has bought it". Kappa 17:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. He "bought it" is not unknown, but difficult to find cites with this usage.--Dmol 18:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think bought it existed in WW1, certainly was common in WW2, and seems to still be used during Korea, Vietnam and the Lebanon civil war. There seem to be about four b.g.c. cites of that usage, and several more mentions, in the top 100 here. I'm sure it was well used in the Biggles books, but google don't seem to have digitised them yet. --Enginear 22:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

chocker

Was respelled as "chockers/chock-a-block". Is this "chocker" or "chockers"? If the latter, move it there; if the former, correct the respelling. — Paul G 17:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have put back the spelling to cocker, which is how I have always used it. Chockers does exist, but seems less common. Added well known quote.--Dmol 18:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

guff

Sense: "English person(s)". Is this singular or collective? The former would require "an English person" and the latter "English people". — Paul G 17:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

cerca trova

Needs citations to show this is actually used in conversation or writing and not just something in a painting or on a flag. May also need a comma ("cerca, trova"). Then needs cleaning up and formatting. — Paul G 15:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't find it in any of the books of Italian proverbs on Google Books. The closest that I could find is chi cerca trova - he who seeks shall find. SemperBlotto 12:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

creamest

"Superlative form of cream." Kappa 17:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And the comparative form. They both sound wrong as color descriptors. I suppose it's possible. Purple has purpler and purplest. Yellow doesn't have either -er or -est, just yellowish. Cyan is just cyan.--Halliburton Shill 22:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No, creamy is the adjective with creamier and creamiest as the comparative and superlative forms. --EncycloPetey 23:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The adjective cream, for speakers who have it, means cream-colored; creamy is quite different. Nonetheless, creamest gets no b.g.c. hits (well, technically it gets two, but one is a scanno for greatest, and the other is the archaic informal second-person singular present of to cream), so it doesn't seem to be a comparable adjective. —Ruakh_TALK 03:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've heard yellower and yellowest, and both do very well in Google Books hits. Creamest, however, gets none. The archaic form to which Ruakh refers is a mis-scan of "screamest". bd2412 T 04:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So, should the entry be changed to define the word as a form of the verb to cream? -- Beobach972 18:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? There does not appear to be any such archaic form. What Ruakh read as an archaic form was actually a scanno. bd2412 T 11:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to add archaic forms which can't be attested. Kappa 09:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I plead guilty, I done it! - but I have 2 cream (coloured) plates and this one is creamer than that (sounds OK to me) AND my sister has one which is creamest of all!

From Google: (1)Perhaps the creamest of all the paint sticks, Sennelier sticks are made from the finest selected pure pigments, mineral waxes and vegtable oils to give the easiest application. BUT this seems a rarity: most uses 3000+ seem to mean creamiest - perhaps enough occurences for it to be a synonym? —Saltmarsh 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

More likely a typo. bd2412 T 17:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

м-м-да

Does this really exist in Russian, or is it just a nonce word, like "yeees" (for "yes") in English? — Paul G 18:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not only quite common, it is a standard format as seen in many such terms, such as тс-с-с, ш-ш-ш, м-м-м, э-э-э, ай-ай-ай, and бр-р. —Stephen 17:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

smelly

Noun senses (which had been commented out):

• One who sits in the back of the classroom due to lack of hygiene.
• A noticable, usually unpleaseant or putrid odor.

— Paul G 18:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My first reaction is, never heard it used like that before. I think I've heard stinky used like that.--Halliburton Shill 22:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My first reaction was a far off memory of "Who's done a smelly?", but most of you will be relieved to hear that there are no b.g.c. hits for "done a smelly" or "do a smelly", and none with "...stinky" either, so perhaps they were false memories! --Enginear 22:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

American Heritage has an idiom entry like that: make/raise a stink--Halliburton Shill 22:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

We already had make a stink, I've copied it to raise a stink. I don't think they means the same as make a smell though. Kappa 22:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The British toiletries one is also tagged rfv. These (all three) fail, right? --Connel MacKenzie 17:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have the feeling the British toiletries sense is only used in the plural. Kappa 18:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

alvinolagnia

Stomach fetish. Can anyone find any good cites for this? Might be just a word constructed from the Latin roots without actual wide use. Dmcdevit 04:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Apoth

Appears legitimate, if widespread use can be confirmed. Needs some verification. Dmcdevit 05:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This was here last year, and was deleted in May 06 due to agreement that it is a misspelling of apeth. I have just re-checked, since there are now many more books on b.g.c. than there were then, but amongst the thousands of hits as an abbreviation of apothecary (and its equivalents in several different languages) I didn't spot a single one with the proposed definition. I also specifically checked for daft apoth and got no hits. Apeth has been verified in the required senses (and is still current in Lancashire in the 21st century, 22 years after (decimal) halfpennies were withdrawn from circulation). --Enginear 18:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

piča

The translations given are not equivalent - one is taboo slang, one is the medical term. It's unlikely that the word has both registers. Could someone check which is appropriate? From the examples given, it looks like it should be the slang word, maybe with the medical term as a gloss to distinguish the meaning. — Paul G 09:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Piča is an alternative spelling of píča.  It is a vulgar word, much closer to the English cunt than the other definitions given (vulva or external female genitalia, which is how it is defined in the Czech version of Wiktionary), but the others are equally valid, especially if you're looking to translate this vulgar word into English without using something vulgar. — V-ball 12:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not how translation works. If píča corresponds to English "cunt", then that is how it must be translated. It is important to make translations match in register; the English user must be made to understand that the word is taboo slang in Czech. Giving a non-taboo translation as well is misleading, and may lead to an English speaker thinking that the word is acceptable for use in polite company, when it clearly is not. (This is another good reason why we should have disclaimer somewhere, incidentally.)

If the English user wants a non-taboo alternative, they should look in the synonyms section of cunt. Both pages have now been updated accordingly. — Paul G 16:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree: we are defining the word in English, not giving a translation. Certainly it is good to provide equivalent taboo word(s), but also we should be providing the proper definition. The vulgar/taboo tags are required and sufficient. If I am looking up the Czech word to see what it means, I looking for, and want to know: "taboo word meaning vulva". The English taboo equivalents are less informative, especially if I am not a native speaker of English. If they are to be included, then they themselves must be clearly tagged as taboo:

1. Template:italbrac cunt Template:italbrac, pussy Template:italbrac; vulva, external female genitalia

otherwise someone will get the idea that "cunt" is the ordinary English definition of the word. Robert Ullmann 16:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Paul on this. It's a translation, not a definition. Widsith 17:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary main page: "This is the English Wiktionary: it aims to describe all words of all languages, with definitions and descriptions in English only." [emphasis mine] This is the core of what we do: defining the words in English. Robert Ullmann 17:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a semantic issue, surely - call them what you like, but foreign words are by established practice treated very differently from English ones. Otherwise French chien would read, ‘a domesticated member of the genus Canis’, whereas in fact is just says ‘dog’. Widsith 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

For better or for worse, the precedent has surely been translation instead of definition. Atelaes 18:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Although, perhaps we could do a bit of both:

1. vulgar term for female genitalia: pussy, cunt.

Atelaes 18:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's the best approach. —Ruakh_TALK 19:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I would modify Atelaes' suggestion slightly, by inverting the order:

1. pussy, cunt (vulgar term for female genitalia)

This puts the concise translation up front, followed by a longer clarifying gloss. --EncycloPetey 19:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with doing a bit of both -- the reason we talk about Canis on dog is that we can't say "dog. n. 1. dog"; we can talk about chien in terms of dog though. If there are exact translations possible for the same referent with the same connotations and other factors then these should be listed, but we shouldn't restrict non-English entries to only translations. Cynewulf 19:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

For English words, we give definitions; for words in foreign languages, it’s translations. Proper translation tries to keep the same semantic register wherever possible. I had already fixed the piča entry before this discussion began. —Stephen 07:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I for one disagree with both Robert and Stephen in that there is some hard and fast rule that we necessarily need to stick to. We should do whatever is most useful. Certainly an English word will often capture the full flavor of a foreign word, and if so, that should be taken, as the briefest option. However, if a foreign word has semantic connotations that are not captured in an English word, a definition should not be considered unlawful. Atelaes 08:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course there are some words for which there are no good translations ... in particular, words relating to culture, dress and cuisine. I am a professional translator (retired) and this is a common problem that we deal with daily in translation work. Such words usually require some explanation. For most words, however, including piča, we have English equivalents that are a very close fit, not only in meaning but in register. —Stephen 11:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify existing Wiktionary policy (which you'll find in WS:ELE): whatever the front page might say, we give English translations in entries for foreign words, not definitions, and where the translation is ambiguous because the English word has more than one meaning, we add a gloss. So, since both "cunt" and "pussy" have more than one meaning in English, the correct treatment is the following:

1. cunt, pussy (female genitalia)

Stephen makes some good points above. A translator wanting to translate a sentence containing the the word "piča" and using "external female genitalia" because that's all they found in Wiktionary would not be in a job for very long. — Paul G 12:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no contradiction between definition and translation. Words must be defined, whatever their language. But a translation, besides being best for translators, is also, most often, the clearest and simplest possible definition (except for English words, of course). However, this translation should almost always be followed by a gloss, because most English words have more than one meaning, or might get new meanings in the future. Lmaltier 18:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

belief

"(deprecated template usage) A wishing of case or circumstance to be true (be + 'lief' --> be + wished)."

Huh? Kappa 04:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's cleverly done, but I suspect it might be satirical. A possible candidate for WT:BJAODN? RobbieG 13:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. —Ruakh_TALK 01:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Indi

Common misspelling typo? --Connel MacKenzie 06:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

rent

A claim is made that "rent" can be used in spoken language for the past tense and past participle of "to rent". Any evidence for this, or is this just an error (like "text" being used as the past tense of "to text" instead of "texted", as if the infinitive were "to tex", as in "I text you my address yesterday.")? — Paul G 16:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

midnight chow

Any takers? US? Needs formatting. SemperBlotto 16:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it’s informal military language. Formatted. —Stephen 07:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

whig

Claimed to be a variant of wig - any evidence for this? Citations? Extant, archaic or obsolete? — Paul G 17:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This sense not in OED2+. --Enginear 22:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hunted about on Google, doesn't even seem to be an erroneous spelling. It is certainly an intentional misspelling, with various political references. And there is Hound Dog Taylor's Give me back my whig. (Not. It is really spelled "wig" ;-) Robert Ullmann 22:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

whing

"Alternative spelling of wing" - assertion made with no evidence given and no qualification as to of which sense(s) this applies to. — Paul G 17:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This sense not in OED2+. --Enginear 22:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Added quotes. And it is in the OED (along with whyng, whynge and other crazy things). --Ptcamn 18:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, don't know how I missed it. --Enginear 19:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

intrusive thought

Classic nonce. --Connel MacKenzie 19:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

But not 400 nonces! But I suggest it is an obvious, and commonly used meaning, rather than idiomatic, so if this were RFD... --Enginear 22:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Enginear. A frequently used compound, but not idiomatic or nonce. I vote for intrusive overdocumentation and a delete.--Halliburton Shill 21:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

goori

Not capitalized and a misspelling? --Connel MacKenzie 19:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably should be capitalized, but how is it a misspelling? --Ptcamn 18:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Not capitalized in the book cited. The author worked closely with the people in question apparently, so might be presumed to know. It seems spelling goorie is also used, google for some organizations around Kempsey using that (and which suggests the definition should probably be expanded to include mid north NSW, but would like an actual reference on that). — Kevin Ryde 01:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

epimyth

Move to -)? --Connel MacKenzie 19:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I get 34 b.g.c. hits that all seem to use it seriously. It looks like a neologism. --EncycloPetey 19:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah, this has been around for a while. It's definitely a real word. Widsith 19:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Some citations:

1. Jerold C. Frakes, Early Yiddish Texts 1100-1750: With Introduction and Commentary (2004) p. 750:

   [T]he first five fables follow a different sequence in the two texts, which causes a logical problem in the epimyth to fable no. 6 in Wallich's collection; and tale no. 35 from the earlier collection is omitted by Moses Wallich.

   Edward W. Wheatley, Mastering Aesop: medieval education, Chaucer and his followers (2000) p. 227:

   [P]resumably the “man of education” did not reproduce the epimyth of the fable, which warns that one should always anticipate the result of one's actions.

   Reb Moshe Walich, Book of Fables: The Yiddish Fable Collection of Reb Moshe Wallich, Frankfurt Am Main, 1697 (1994) p. 19:

   In principle each fable in the collection is divided into two parts: the narrative itself, followed by an explicit moral or epimyth.

   ...

   In most of the fables the length of the epimyth ranges between six and twelve lines.

   Daniele Vare, The Quarterly Review (1934) p. 448:

   [I]t is the Odyssean episode with a Christian epimyth.

   William Fleming, Henry Calderwood, A Vocabulary of the Philosophical Sciences (1881) p. 664:

   The epimyth, coming after the fable, the moral.

bd2412 T 00:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian fraction

--Connel MacKenzie 19:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to search hard to find good citations, but this is a real computational method attributed to Egyptian mathematicians. I can't say whether the name of the method is consistent, though. This looks more like part of a Wikipedia article; all we need is the term unit fraction for a fraction with a numerator of 1. --EncycloPetey 19:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much Connel MacKenzie for rfv'ing this, because in researching it, I found that there's actually another sense used by some authors which I was not aware of. I'll add that to the entry. Thanks a ton, thanks to you I have learned a little more about my world!!! :D Anyway, the following books witness that the word is a great addition to Wiktionary.

1997: "Numbers and geometry", p. 3. John Stillwell. As another example, an Egyptian fraction for ${\frac {3}{5}}$ is ${\frac {1}{2}}+{\frac {1}{10}}$. (emphasis mine)

2000: "Mathematica in Action", p. 322. Stan. Wagon. Thus we will use the term Egyptian fraction to refer to a representation as a sum of distinct unit fractions. (emphasis theirs)

(Date not known by b.g.c): "Kendall/Hunt Pre-algebra Teacher Guide", p. 80. (Author not known by b.g.c) Challenge a classmate to an Egyptian fraction duel. (emphasis mine)

2006: "Real Infinite Series", p. 81. Daniel D. Bonar, Michael J Khoury. Express 2/5 as a finite selective sum of the harmonic series (i.e., as an Egyptian fraction). (emphasis mine)

—This unsigned comment was added by Language Lover (talk • contribs).

Mathematical vocabulary is something I have spent a lot of time studying. One of my mathematics dictionaries gives:

• "a fraction of the form 1/n" (Dictionary of Mathematics, Borowski and Borwein, Collins, 1989); this is generally a reliable resource)

Interestingly, I don't find it in either of my other mathematics dictionaries, nor in the OED (second edition), nor in Chambers, but definitely exists. A couple of points, though:

• As EncycloPetey hints at, "unit fraction" is probably the more commonly used term among mathematicians (and is more understandable); "Egyptian fraction" probably appeals more to schoolchildren learning fractions.
• The Egyptians used only unit fractions and 2/3, but the term "Egyptian fraction" does not include 2/3. — Paul G 08:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is very interesting. I've never looked in "math dictionaries" (and only had a vague notion that such things even existed)... most my math lexicon comes from lectures and textbooks (I'm a math doctoral student). I find it very interesting to see how much dispute there is over something I thought was pretty much agreed on. Well, I could be wrong, but I think Borowski and Collins aren't giving the full sense (they can be forgiven, of course, since their dictionary was written over 15 years ago). See w:Egyptian fraction (which, btw, I had no hand in writing), which doesn't mention the "unit fraction" synonym sense at all (and which, incidentally, contains copious links and references dispelling any ghost of a thought that this word isn't proper English)  :-)

unit fraction would not be a synonym of Egyptian fraction. An Egyptian fraction would be a sum of unit fractions. At least, all the sources I've seen so far use it that way, if they use it at all. --EncycloPetey 04:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there are two definitions in existence. One is indeed a synonym of "unit fraction", and the other is a sum of unit fractions. — Paul G 12:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I'm coming to doubt my own beliefs now. Wikipedia has only the "sum of unit fractions" sense, while my maths dictionary has only the "unit fraction" sense. I've asked about it over at Wikipedia as no doubt they have done more research there than we have. — Paul G 13:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia asked me to give my references. I have only one — the one I have given here. They have a stack of references with the "sum of unit fractions" sense, and so does the Mathworld article. See my response on the Wikipedia discussion page. It looks like my reference is probably wrong, in the absence of any other references. The authors don't say where they got their definition from - it could just be that's what they thought it meant and that they didn't bother to check.

My copy of Borowski and Borwein is the first edition. Does anyone have a later edition (either of their own, or that they could look at in a bookshop or library) that they could check to see if the definition has been updated? — Paul G 18:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A books.google.com search does show some authors using your sense. Which surprised me when I saw it :-) I absolutely love the quirks of English!! :D So don't feel bad, your sense seems to also be attested, just much less frequently. Thanks for all the work you've been doing for this entry, you are truly a great wiktionary contributor :-) Signed, Language Lover

bluesnarfing

--Connel MacKenzie 19:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

(and next) Real term, no trouble finding independent references. The 'pedia article w:Bluesnarfing is also unsourced. May be a neo though. I've seen and heard it, but only very recently. Robert Ullmann 22:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it in newspapers. B.g.c. has [18 hits from 2004 on. --Enginear 22:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

bluesnarf

--Connel MacKenzie 19:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

goosefoots

Listed as plural of goosefoot - is it really? --Connel MacKenzie 19:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Google search turns up both goosefoots and goosefeet with roughly equal frequency. My own books tend to use the scientific name of the plant, so I don't have any print examples of the plural for the common name (at least that I can find). --EncycloPetey 20:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The Random House gives only goosefoots as the plural of the plant called goosefoot. I think the feet of geese will be written in two words: goose feet. —Stephen 20:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The plural goosefoots is also used on Wikipedia: "Chenopodium is a genus of about 150 species of flowering plants, known generically as the Goosefoots." —Stephen 20:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of b.g.c. cites. --Enginear 22:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

whop

Sense "to turn suddenly". — Paul G 07:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. —Ruakh_TALK 01:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

mash

Sense "A bad, usually mentally deficient person, who often misses the point." - needs evidence; also POV. — Paul G 09:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

timeout

As a verb, surely this can't be inflected as given ("timeouts", "timeouting", "timeouted") but rather as "times out", etc. This suggests that "timeout" should really be written as "time out" only. — Paul G 15:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Resolved: this is a phrasal verb. "Time out" is the verb; "time-out" (or "timeout") is the noun. Content moved around accordingly. — Paul G 15:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

agastopia

1 BGC result; most Google results are Wiktionary mirrors. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Also found on Worthless Word for the Day -- http://home.comcast.net/~wwftd/abc.htm

apodyopsis

0 BGC results; 84 Google results. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 16:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

wold

Yes, yes, we all know that wold now has the opposite of its original meaning... but as the definition was already there, I decided to request verification for it rather than simply alter it, in case anybody can find obscure instances (presumable in very old sources) of this word being used to mean forest. Beobach972 18:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Forest is the first definition in the OED (as obsolete). Expanded a little. SemperBlotto 10:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  The problem with finding cites may be that the spelling was only regularised at about the time the wood sense was becoming obsolete -- OED cites wealdo, walde, waldes, waldis, wald, and walda in the obsolete sense of wold at various times from 786 to 13??, but does not cite the exact spelling wold in any sense before 1205 (as plural wolden) or 1220. --Enginear 20:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

determiner

First sense as "a grammatical class of words". The only reference given on the page (the Cambrdige Grammar of the English Language) explicitly refutes this definition, reserving determinative as the term for the class of words and using determiner solely for the grammatical function (regardless of the part of speech). --EncycloPetey 19:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The CGEL has to explicitly deny they're working with that definition, because if they didn't, most linguists reading would assume that's exactly what they meant. The entire distinction between the "class of words" sense and the "function" sense only makes sense within certain approaches to grammatical description. Even among people who make the distinction, the RFV'd sense is probably the more common.

(I'll also go add the too-obvious literal/compositional sense.) -- Keffy 20:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please comment then in the corresponding BP discussion (Determiner vs Determinative), as I don't have the background to make the evaluation from anything other than the CGEL discussion (since that's all I have on "dtereminers"). If "determiner" is the usual term in use by linguists, then that's what we should use. --EncycloPetey 20:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I find this curious regarding the "too-obvious literal" sense. It's not in Roget's or Oxford's thesari. Both MW and Cambridge dictionaries only list the "specialzed" grammar sense. Google news returns only 19 uses, the oldest being a 1/30 article mocking a certain presidential "decider". I think the proper term here is determinant, which returns about 633.--Halliburton Shill 10:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Collins Word Exchange: determiner noun 1. a word, such as a number, article, personal pronoun, that determines (limits) the meaning of a noun phrase, e.g. their in `their black cat'.

Encarta online: de·ter·min·er (plural de·ter·min·ers) noun Definition: 1. word that determines noun use: a word that appears before any descriptive adjective and decides the kind of reference that a noun has, e.g. "a," "the," "this," "each," "some," "either," "my," and "your"

M-W online: Main Entry: de·ter·min·er Pronunciation: -'t&r-m&-n&r Function: noun : one that determines : as ... b : a word (as an article, possessive, demonstrative, or quantifier) that makes specific the denotation of a noun phrase

— Hippietrail 20:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

tactictism

The magic zero b.g.c and zero Project Gutenberg hits. --Connel MacKenzie 02:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a typo for tacticism, which does get a number of b.g.c. hits? It seems that tacticism means something like "focus on tactics" or "tactics-orientation", though, which isn't the sense given here for tactictism. —Ruakh_TALK 07:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Durr

Surname perhaps, but b.g.c. does not seem to support this "definition." --Connel MacKenzie 04:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

SNEEZLEWRATH

Sneezlewrath is a real word. Yet it was deleted by the nefarious administrator dude dude. For example I use it and so do people in my school. I don't see how my article was bad. Gosh! —This unsigned comment was added by Ruler of the Universe (talk • contribs) 04:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

• Say, have you heard of Urban Dictionary? They would love for you to add your word there. Here, however, we should keep deleted forever. bd2412 T 04:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes sorry dude, just because this word is in your guys's vocabulary at school doesn't mean it passes our nefarious criteria for inclusion. Kappa 10:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting word, I think it would be a good project for you and your school to try and force it into the language. That means, write some books over a period of years which use the word. In the meantime we have little choice but to turn it down because it's not very widely known outside your school. But thanks anyway and good luck!! :D —This unsigned comment was added by Language Lover (talk • contribs) 05:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

detente bala

Not in RAE. --Connel MacKenzie 06:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is: http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltGUIBusUsual?LEMA=detente. BTW, Wikipedia has a cleaner article on the phrase: w:Detente bala. —Ruakh_TALK 07:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I missed that. --EncycloPetey 07:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

supply

Disputing adjective and adverb senses, (comparative more supply, superlative most supply). I can't imagine having supply as an adjective, surely it's a noun modifier, like car in car park. Same with adverb, how can it be comparitive or superlative. --Dmol 00:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is only a verb or a noun. Fixed. —Stephen 01:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Adjective sense is just wrong - knee is not adjective just because I can see a knee doctor. However, regarding the adjective, I can see how someone might take poetic license and render supplely as, perhaps supp'ly (and I can see how the apostrophe might get lost as well). See:

Louis Auchincloss, Skinny Island: More Tales of Manhattan (1987) p. 37:

Itury Griswold Nome, a handsome, lean, blond young man, whose broad shoulders and tall straight build moved supply to his long stride, passed up Fifth Avenue at midday...

See also:

Laurie Beauer, Vocabulary (1998) p.79:

"Supply can be a noun or a verb, but it can also be the adverb corresponding to supple (a word which can also be spelled supplely)."

Henry Watson Fowler, Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1997) p. 587:

"The adverb is supply, not supplely; cf. SUBTLE. It is true that the OED has found more instances in print of -plely than of -ply, & therefore on its historical principles makes supplely the standard form. But the pronounciation is undoubtedly sŭ'plĭ, not sŭ'pul-lĭ, & the long spelling has been due to the wish to distinguish to the eyes from supply (suplI') n. & vb.; such devices are not legitimate except in the last necessity, as with singeing and singing; & it is to be observed that, whereas the -e- in singeing selects the right of two possible pronounciations, the -le- in supplely suggests a wrong one."

Cheers! bd2412 T 14:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, as an adverb of supple, it does exist. It’s the adjective and adverb made from the noun supply that does not. —Stephen 16:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

presumably

"In a presumptuous manner; presuming inappropriately." Kappa 02:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OED2+ has this as the original def, but marks it both obsolete and rare with one 17th C cite, 200 years before their first cite of the modern usage. --Enginear 14:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Tappee

Cameroonian slang: "somewhere between slut and whore." Unfortunately I imagine Cameroonian slang is not very well represented on the internet. Kappa 04:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A Yahoo search brings up a number of senses, although not the Cameroonian one: It seems to be a common name for classes of students at utexas.edu (21 results on a Yahoo search); a widely-copied public domain ebook entitled "Under the Redwoods" by Bret Harte contains a quote with the word:

"Lass time," suggested Li Tee blandly, "me tap tappee.
You no like tap tappee.  You say, alle same dam woodpeckel."

Here's another definition (maybe the one used at utexas.edu): "A Tappee is a person who has been Tapped by Theta Alpha Phi" from stetson.edu. Hope this helps to start us off... 71.128.189.184 (really w:User:JesseW/not_logged_in) 00:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

fridge-googling

Protologism? Wikipedia article looks dodgy. Also Google cooking. Both need formatting. SemperBlotto 08:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do help out - I have been trying to figure out what to do with Fridge-Googling for a while. Feel it belongs somewhere, but no-one seems to know where. Dobbs 22:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Protologism at best. I'd say product placement via viral-words. It belongs deleted. Even the meaning, while not literal, is close enough to the two base terms fridge and googling that it really doesn't need an entry.--Halliburton Shill 19:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 11:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Urban prairie

"a recently-coined term"... I'm not sure if it passes either the one year threshold or widespread use. If so, it needs to be cleaned up. Dmcdevit 09:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The references at the bottom demonstrate that it does, though not all the uses seem to have quite the same sense. Nonetheless, I think this article should be deleted as sum-of-parts: the one common thread in all uses is that all refer to prairies in urban areas. —Ruakh_TALK 16:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

decider

Added (again?) last December. No citations.--Halliburton Shill 10:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is exceptionally common in Ireland. I'll get cites if you want, but even a quick Google search for "decider" and "GAA" will show widespread use.--Dmol 14:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Done - exceptionally common in England as well —Saltmarsh 15:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Looks like someone took care of the deRFVing. A computing sense has been added, but my problem with the entry has been resolved.--Halliburton Shill 06:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

18½ minute gap

Any evidence of this term in independent use? Dmcdevit 08:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• No. This should be deleted. SemperBlotto 13:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  deleted --EncycloPetey 11:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

jamjar

A collection of "tiddlers" (knowledge management). SemperBlotto 18:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:jamjar -- seems jargon specific to one wiki. Cynewulf 19:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

milopascarellis

An unlikely unit of time; no Google hits, no Google books hits. bd2412 T 19:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Nonsense. Deleted SemperBlotto 22:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

what's the crack

Really? bd2412 T 22:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Seems to be an Irish idiom. SemperBlotto 10:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, God love the Irish! bd2412 T 19:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • ...though I've never seen it with this Anglicised spelling -- see discussion at WT:TR#Crack Craic, regional slang in UK and Ireland. --Enginear 21:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

March

bimbler

all google hits for this term are proper nouns (surnames, usernames), nothing with this meaning -Versageek 15:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Same for Google Books. Has already been TOSHed by SB. DAVilla 20:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

twat

Verb - confused with swat. --Connel MacKenzie 06:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dat bitch twatted your ass! ;) Never actually heard in use. Usenet results seem to show it as UK slang for being exhausted or drunk in addition to receiving a beating. Twatting also gets used for emphasis like "that fucking driver". I'll let the UK experts from ye'ole parlour fill in the rest.--Halliburton Shill 20:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ye-es...it's not unheard-of. ‘I twatted him one’ means ‘I hit him’. It's kind of pub slang. Widsith 22:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't pass up on an opportunity to quote from Red Dwarf:

[the crew are discussing a dangerous mutant that has broken onto the ship]

Arnold Rimmer: What are we gonna do?

Dave Lister: Well, I say let's get out there and twat it!

~Red Dwarf Series III episode 3 "Polymorph". RobbieG 13:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

manaja

A gift from 71.140.198.6. bd2412 T 15:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

blululu

Another gift from 71.140.198.6. bd2412 T 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

spookidad

One last gift from 71.140.198.6. bd2412 T 16:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Tipping device

--Connel MacKenzie 18:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounded like something that could come up within an industrial setting and there's apparently a patent that uses the term as defined along with a piano tipper that is more specific and unrelated to emptying anything. The more common usage, as being used in comics and talk appears to be related to "anti-tipping device"s used for cows. Nothing current in the news uses the term. Seems both close enough to the individual term meanings and used too diversely to bother setting up a definition for yet.--Halliburton Shill 20:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Kelvin function

This seems meaningless to me. I believe that a Kelvin function is actually a form of Bessel function (in mathematics - nothing to do with temperature). SemperBlotto 22:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I think we need an expert for this one - lots of Google book hits, none of which shed any light on the meaning of the term for me - e.g.:

Sergej L. Sobolev, Raymond Bonnett, Cubature Formulas and Modern Analysis: An Introduction (1993) p. 164:

Hence it follows immediately that under a rotation of the system of coordinates, an arbitrary Kelvin function passes into a Kelvin function.

B Straughan, R Greve, H Ehrentraut, Continuum Mechanics and Applications in Geophysics and the Environment (2001) p. 313:

kei (.) is a Kelvin function of zero order, which can be derived from the general Bessel function, and whose values are tabulated.

...

The Kelvin function takes the value zero at approximately r = 4L_r, followed by a slight forebuldge (upward displacement) further away from the load.

These bring to my mind a picture of a group of scientists studying a graph, one of whom says, "ah, a Kelvin function," prompting the others to nod and murmer, "yes, yes, of course, Kelvin function. Good show." It does come up in context with a Bessel function a lot. What the heck is a Bessel function? bd2412 T 22:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the definition according as this article [25]. Please could someone review it... --Tohru 04:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

An appreciable effort, but still incomprehensible to me - I have no doubt the phrase is a legitimate subset of Bessel functions, but what do the ber and bei mean? bd2412 T 07:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

For a possible answer to the question, you don't have to bother about the meanings of ber and bei; they are just conventionally used labels for the two functions that are defined in the article, and there are no further assumptions. I modified the definition trying to clarify the point. Personally, I infer that the first two letters "be" might be abbreviated "Bessel", and that the following "r" and "i" probably came from the first letter of "real part" and "imaginary part".

By the way I used to use Bessel functions quite often throughout my graduate course in theoretical physics almost ten years ago. While I remember the Neumann function and the Hankel function as the sister functions, I don't know if I've ever heard of this one. It must be a considerably minor type. --Tohru 10:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

From the MathWorld article, it appears that the Kelvin functions are simply the solutions to the Kelvin differential equation, x²y''+xy'-(ix²+v²)y=0. DAVilla 20:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You can simply say that a Bessel function is a solution of a Bessel differential equation, but meanwhile either a solo Kelvin function ber_n(x), bei_n(x), ker_n(x) or kei_n(x) doesn't satisfy a Kelvin differential equation. Only a particular combination of them like ber_n(x) + i bei_n(x) or ker_n(x) + i kei_n(x) does, according to the article [26]. A more careful treatment than one for Bessel functions is needed here. --Tohru 07:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

To give a simple example, if I were to define a triangular number as a number of the form n(n+1)/2 for integer n, then it would give absolutely no insight at all into why this would ever be of any interest. Explain the significance in English first, and then provide the formulas. DAVilla 19:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the valuable feedbacks. I revised it again taking your suggestion into consideration. I feel it is much improved. --Tohru 02:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

-istic

Is this really a suffix? I can't think of an example that couldn't just be a use of -ic (artistic could be a form of artist rather than art; realistic of realist rather than real...) bd2412 T 03:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand, I think it's a reasonable entry to have, if only because there are at least a few words in -istic that are much more common than their counterparts in -ist and -ism (e.g. "holistic", "heuristic"), and because it's worth noting that -istic is the primary way of adjectivizing nouns in -ist and -ism.

On the other hand, -istic is essentially a collocation of -ist and -ic, so we should apply our usual CFI for phrases: Does it use only specific senses of -ist and -ic? Does it have meaning beyond what its components imply? I'm really not sure.

If we do keep it, its etymology section should certainly mention both its connections to other English suffixes (-ist, -ism, -ic), and its Franco-Greco-Latin roots (-istique, -isticus, -istikos).

—Ruakh_TALK 06:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely keep. —Stephen 15:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Kept, also added -istical and -istically. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could explain the "Franco-Greco-Latin roots (-istique, -isticus, -istikos)." bd2412 T 17:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

wikidom

"The realm of Wiki, including its rules, standards, norms and abnormalities. "

Kappa 16:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

exhaust

Adjective senses - the first would seem to pertain only to exhausted; the second would seem to be just a noun used as a modifier. bd2412 T 22:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

horrible

"A thing that causes horror; a terrifying thing." Kappa 04:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Has to be usable as a noun, otherwise it could not have a plural, without which the well-worn legal reference to a "parade of horribles" could not exist. bd2412 T 18:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Here's a parade of examples of use as a noun in the plural:

Grace Gallatin Seton-Thompson, A Woman Tenderfoot (2005) p. 125:

If it does not appeal to you as one of the horribles in life, try it once.

Owen West, Four Days to Veracruz: A Novel (2003) p. 240:

For all the horribles that his legs and feet endured, they weren't the root cause of his suffering.

Christopher Chambers, A Prayer for Deliverance: An Angela Bivens Thriller (2003) p. 772:

There're tangible horribles out there, honey.

Neil K. Komesar, Law's Limits: The Rule of Law and the Supply and Demand of Rights (2001) p. 51:

Many scholars have demonstrated these horribles and contemplated significant limitations on class actions.

Alastair Scott, Tracks Across Alaska: A Dog Sled Journey (1991) p. 1:

The pot had previously simmered skate wings, cods' heads, whales, pigs' hearts and a long litany of other horribles.

United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, The Genocide Convention: Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate (1982) p. 70:

A lot of the possible horribles conjured up by the people objecting to this convention ignore the plain language of this treaty.

Otis L. Graham, Jr., Toward a Planned Society: from Roosevelt to Nixon (1976) p. 62:

Congressmen talked of tyranny, and other imaginary horribles, and one vigilant member opposed the six administrative assistants on the ground that they would be "theoretical intellectualprofessorial nincompoops."

Ernest Way Elkington, Adrift in New Zealand (1906) p. 241:

I always like to get over the horribles first, so that the good things of life may leave the last impression.

Herman Melville, Moby Dick (1851):

Here's a carcase. I know not all that may be coming, but be it what it will, I'll go to it laughing. Such a waggish leering as lurks in all your horribles!

For what it's worth, there were many other references to "horribles and antiques" or to a literal "parade of horribles", which reference the use of "horribles" to describe people in a procession costumed as horrible things (this sense should be added). bd2412 T 18:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• There's also an NPR interview with John Dean where Dean says "I would raise one horrible after another, and explaining the criminal consequences of what was happening." I can't seem to find a link to this, although I'm sure NPR interview transcripts are durably archived somewhere. bd2412 T 19:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  Aha, he said something very similar on CNN (here's the transcript):

  John Dean: I'm trying to convince him that the criminal behavior that's going on at the White House has to end. And I give him one horrible after the next. I just keep raising them. He sort of swats them away.

  bd2412 T 19:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I’ve always considered the noun use of horrible to be a Gallicism, because you hear it often from the French Cajuns in Louisiana. In a recent TV series, a Cajun remarks: "This muggy November weather gives me the horribles.". —Stephen 19:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, indeed, it appears from the cites I came across that a parade of horribles has long been a common feature of Mardi Gras in New Orleans. This usage is fairly similar to the usage of the word grotesque as a noun which means a piece of architecture in a particular style. bd2412 T 01:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WENSA

Any takers? Needs formatting and slimming down. SemperBlotto 08:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

wineyard

Protologism? SemperBlotto 08:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The reference given suggests that it is: "CrackedCork" says on Jan 17 2007: "I move to vote that we call it a Wineyard when it contains things other than grapes for winemaking." Delete in the absence of other evidence for its existence. — Paul G 16:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

peplum

"An historical B-movie genre set in ancient Rome or Greece. " Kappa 09:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That sense seems fine, but it also needs the clothing sense (from which the movie sense) Robert Ullmann 12:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

foozle

Difficult to find support other than urban dictionaries.--Dmol 16:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• The OED has it both as a verb and a noun. SemperBlotto 16:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

sandmans

the only English attributions I could find appeared (at initial glance) to be plural of capitalized "Sandman" used as a last name

footslog

Is this a word? I’ve heard of slog, but footslog? —Stephen 21:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitly exists, but I think you'll find footslogging is more common.
1969 "It was footslogging from the beginning, and it is footslogging today, getting one's work across". Irish Writing: The Magazine of Contemporary Irish Literature - P 102--Dmol 21:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of support on Google books, e.g.:

Peter Hathaway Capstick, Warrior: The Legend of Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen (1998) p. 149:

Dick went by train to Voi and then proceeded to footslog across the Serengeti Plains to Taveta.

bd2412 T 02:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

acidesque

By the entry's admission, 'this word cannot be found in any modern dictionary... ' but we might still find some sources for it. (Alternatively, somebody could just delete it. I have no preference.) -- Beobach972 02:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

All Google books hits (of which there are 3) are in French. bd2412 T 02:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha, so... turn it into a French entry that scrapes past CFI by the skin of its teeth? -- Beobach972 04:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not proposing that at all. Actually, one entry is a misreading of "acides que" and the other two are unviewable, so this doesn't meet the CFI for a French word either. bd2412 T 18:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

resaca

Resaca. -- Beobach972 02:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The following references were added to the entry:

• Resaca de la Palma, valley, an abandoned bed of the Rio Grande, N of Brownsville, Tex., where the second battle of the Mexican War was fought, May 9, 1846. Mexican troops under Gen. Mariano Arista, retreating south after the battle of Palo Alto , were defeated by American forces led by Gen. Zachary Taylor. — http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Resacade.html
• Resaca de la Palma State Park, located on the outskirts of Brownsville, Texas. — //http://www.worldbirdingcenter.org/sites/brownsville/
• Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site describes the battle which took place at the Resaca de la Palma site. — http://www.nps.gov/archive/paal/resacadelapalma.htm
• Texas Parks & Wildlife Department description of Freshwater and Coastal Water Boundaries: "The following public waters are not considered coastal waters: *** Fort Brown Resaca, Resaca de la Guerra, Resaca de la Palma, Resaca de los Cuates, Resaca de los Fresnos, Resaca Rancho Viejo, and Town Resaca in Cameron County" — http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/annual/fish/coastal_boundary/
• See examples of usage of resaca in Do You Speak American - Track that Word. — http://www.pbs.org/speak/words/trackthatword/ttw/?i=1267
• The City of San Benito, Texas, has adopted the slogan, "The Resaca City." — http://www.cityofsanbenito.com/index.htm

It seems to me that all of the citations of Resaca de la Palma (and Resaca de la Guerra, Resaca de los Cuates, Resaca de los Fresnos, etc) are (a) a proper noun, and not an example of the usage of the generic noun resaca, and (b) in Spanish, not English, and thus totally irrelevant. Am I mistaken? The only one of the references cited that verifies that this is an English word is the pbs.org one (the San Benito one is iffy), and it gives a somewhat different definition from what we have! -- Beobach972 04:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to track down three of the works cited in the PBS page (or can we use secondary citations like that?), we could probably make this work with the modifed definition. -- Beobach972 04:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

allopoiesiss

Never seen a word ending in an "-is" pluralized by making it an "iss". bd2412 T 09:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot propagated error cleaned up. --Connel MacKenzie 16:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

retcon

One hit with this meaning, whole bunch with computing contexts. --Connel MacKenzie 16:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few examples:

Glenn Yeffeth, ed., The Man from Krypton: A Closer Look at Superman (2006) p. 155:

It's a little trick called retcon, short for "retroactive continuity," ...

Yet I'm unsure even Millar is fully aware of the power given him by the retcon.

Len Wein, ed., The Unauthorized X-Men: SF and Comic Writers on Mutants, Prejudice, and Adamantium (2006) 92:

Retroactive continuity (aka retconning), would reveal that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch are also Magneto's children, showing that this was a guy who was really committed to his cause

Michael Eury, Daniel (CON) Best, Glen (CON) Cadigan, Mike (CON) Esposito, David (CON) Mandel, The Krypton Companion (2006) p. 157:

Luthor appeared a handful of times, Gary "retconned" the Toyman and created Terra-Man, and Superman would get a worthy opponent whenever Len Wein did a fill-in.

Rhonda Wilcox, Why Buffy Matters: The Art of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (2005) p. 9:

Fans talk of retcon—retroactive continuity—giving information that explains an earlier event, especially seeming plot contradictions or lacunae.

Eric Nolen-Weathington, Modern Masters Volume 3: Bruce Timm (2004) p.79:

A lot of people were like, "Oh, they just retconned their own continuity. They should have used Kyle. I don't like that." So we just threw Kyle in there to say, "No, no, Kyle's still there. He still exists in the animated universe; he's just not stationed on Earth at the moment, regularly."

Glen Cadigan, The Legion Companion (2003) p. 152:

TLC: What do you say to the Legion fans who have become disenfranchised with the series due to its various retcons and reboots?

Jean-Marc Lofficier, The Nth Doctor (2003) p. 5:

While ‘retconning' the scripts, I came up with a number of theories that throw new light on the Doctor, his past, and various other elements...

bd2412 T 18:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Closing as rfvpassed. bd2412 T 17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

mouthbreather

Apparently, the contributor was too stupid to realize it should be mouth breather. --Connel MacKenzie 16:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? I would say it should be "mouth-breather", from which "mouthbreather" naturally follows in US English, which often closes up hyphenated compounds. The point is though, which form or forms exist?

Google Books has:

• mouth breather/mouth-breather: 260 hits (Google does not distinguish these two forms)
• mouthbreather: 26 hits

So "mouthbreather" would seem to be fine. — Paul G 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Now, let's not insult our contributors, remember that a language is what is spoken/written by the masses. Personally I delight in the eccentric imaginations of English speakers at large :-) Now as for mouthbreather, as Paul G points out it has adequate citations on books.google.com. I'll add to that by saying that it's used frequently on internet forums, especially in flame wars. We might consider copying the entry to mouth breather, and changing mouthbreather to an alternative spelling entry, assuming the "mouth breather" hits are indeed synonymous with mouthbreather (as opposed to their sum-of-parts, lit. one who breaths through the mouth (which I suspect might be used a lot by biologists and such)). What I will say though (and thanks Connel MacKenzie for RFVing this since this needed to be said) is that I wrote the current definition to replace a poorer definition, but I'm not certain my definition perfectly captures the meaning of the word. Like retard, fag, etc., it's used as a somewhat general pejorative whose precise meaning is rather hard to nail down. So it would be super cool to the nth if someone could improve on the definition :-D — This comment was unsigned.

It wasn't so much an attack on the contributor, as a play on the ridiculous definition given by the vandal, that you replaced. Interesting that you edited, then pointedly mischaracterized the joke. I still assert that this doesn't pass the guidelines that DAVilla (or someone?) was forming for alternate spellings - this version is just a mistake, so it should be indicated as such. --Connel MacKenzie 16:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

curry

Adjective sense: curried only, right? --Connel MacKenzie 16:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not. Caribbean cuisine features "curry goat", not "curried goat", so this might be regional. Note that in this usage, "curry" is not an adjective but a noun used as a modifier. — Paul G 16:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, I've seen recipe books from the south-eastern United States give recipes for curry chicken (as opposed to curried chicken). -- Beobach972 19:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, curry goat. I'm hungry. I learned it in Jamaica and from the Carribean people where I lived. And we have it here too (although goat is often called "mutton"). Is an adjective in its common use in this sense, should be listed as such. Robert Ullmann 11:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

sunup

Marked as uncountable, and that is true of the first sense, but the second sense is countable, surely, by analogy with its synonyms? If you can say "What a beautiful sunup!" then you can say "We've seen some beautiful sunups recently." This is a US term so I can't be sure, but that would seem to make sense to me. — Paul G 17:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The first sense is countable too. See, eg, “Two sunups, and we break camp.” --Enginear 17:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

lah

Please lah, some citations. -- Beobach972 18:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"rather the bane of Singlish"?? --Ptcamn 18:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of these. --Enginear 20:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What, you've never been to Singapore? DAVilla 20:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I singapore lingly, and when I forget the words I use "lah". ;-) --Enginear 19:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha... ok, RFVpassed. -- Beobach972 19:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Süssreserve

Just wanted to verify that this is actually German, and that the definition is correct. Perhaps someone could also add an etymology and a better pronunciation? Atelaes 07:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Seems to be correct. Added link to -pedia and some wikification. Might even be English by now. (Needs German gender and plural) SemperBlotto 08:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Added IPA and gender stuff. H. (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

houseblinging

No Google book hits. Most of the web hits are from a namesake website. This feels a little like spam to me. Atelaes 07:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly no durably archived sources presented. One forum post says "I recently learnt the word "houseblinging", a coinage that can be dated to a 2004 letter to the Daily Telegraph, I think, though I understand it has caught on in the US."[27] If that's all that can be found, delete for failure to meet the CFI. bd2412 T 05:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Jannock

First instinct was to delete as nonsense... but some book hits seem to come through. bd2412 T 21:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, this is fine. Expanded and moved to uncapitalised. SemperBlotto 11:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

hear hear

Typo for hear, hear? --Connel MacKenzie 02:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I would have thought it was an alternative spelling. The OED has hear! hear!, hear, hear and hear-hear, the last also as a verb. SemperBlotto 11:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a merge of one into the other. --Dmol 19:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionarist

"someone who write the pages on Wiktionary"... independent citations? Kappa 11:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• This protologism has several definitions on the web but hardly any actual usage. Nothing in print yet. Deleted SemperBlotto 11:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

coño

[Tagalog sense!]

I know that Tagalog is a different language to Spanish so this sense is a bit odd:

Template:italbrac upper-class, affluent

Can anyone confirm if it is Spanish used colloquially in the Filiopines or if it is a Tagalog borrowing from Spanish?--Williamsayers79 16:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It probably wouldn't be Spanish if it's used contemporarily in the w:Philippines. Tagalog and Spanish are of course very similar, what with Spanish rule and all, so in that case a borrowing makes a lot of sense. DAVilla 19:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

w:Konyo English offers some clues: "The word konyo itself came from the Spanish coño ". A Google search on "konyo" shows that this may be the preferred Tagalog (or Tagalog-English blend) spelling, and not the original Spanish spelling. See [28]. But it does appear to be a Tagalog word in use, borrowed from Spanish. Dmcdevit 00:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Have created a Tagalog language section to this page now and moved the content from the Spanish def to there.--Williamsayers79 16:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

30's

"extracts of music or scores that are between 25 and 35 seconds long". Should probably be merged to 30s, if verified. Dmcdevit 22:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

matamata turtle

Any zoologists out there know whether "matamata turtle" or "mata mata turtle" is the more usual spelling? Currently, I have the former redirecting to the latter, as Wikipedia has "mata mata turtle" as the title of its article. However, the OED has only "matamata" (without "turtle"). — Paul G 07:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a professional zoologist, but FWIW, I have only ever heard it called a "matamata." RobbieG 19:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

curry

This already has a rfv-sense, but there is another: the Australian sense. Is this slang? Presumably. Is it derogatory or offensive? I would imagine so. Could someone familiar with Australianisms add appropriate labels, please? — Paul G 20:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

ding-dong

In the sense of a cake; it looks like this is a brand name, and so should be at Ding Dong, and even then might not pass CFI. — Paul G 15:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikispecies

This term is neither used attributively nor as a generic term (like "to google"). WT:CFI#Names of actual people, places, and things. I don't find an use of the term outside of it's proper noun sense, referring only to the specific w:Wikispecies itself. Can it be attested (and if so, the definition needs to change, or a new one added.) Dmcdevit 23:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

glandes

In Latin, yes. But in English? SemperBlotto 09:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse? English uses latin plurals all the time; antennae, faunae, matrices, indices... --17:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC) —This unsigned comment was added by BiT (talk • contribs).

Well, it's not common, but there are about eight b.g.c. cites of English use in this limited search --Enginear 18:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the main reason it's rare is that the plural of "glans" is rare. I can't find any uses of glanses, and only about as many uses of plural glans (in the relevant sense) as I can of plural glandes (in the relevant sense). Unless there's some other plural I'm not thinking to check, it seems that glans mostly exists in the singular. —Ruakh_TALK 19:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree (though I found one b.g.c. instance of glanses, probably in the relevant sense, using similar criteria to the search which produced eight glandes). So, surprisingly, glandes seems to be the prefered plural -- maybe because it is mainly scientific use. --Enginear 23:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm striking this now, as it's been cited for over almost a month without comment. —Ruakh_TALK 18:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. DAVilla 19:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

anomasexual

Claims to be common, but zero Google hits, zero Google Books hits. bd2412 T 15:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

empowerful

Any takers? sewnmouthsecret 16:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• What do you require? I looked at the article on protologisms, and it's more than that, but I doubt it's found in print as it's an internet-based neologism. I'm sure I can reel off a list of blogs (mostly notable only amongst blogs, though some writers have been hired by presidential campaigns as official bloggers) that use the word (see examples in article). 129.67.62.85 15:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

photochop

--Connel MacKenzie 18:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

green-collar

Part of language? --Connel MacKenzie 18:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Judging from b.g.c. results for various searches involving the phrase, I'd say the phrase is definitely in use, but seemingly not with any specific sense; in some cases it means "pertaining to a rural job" (as opposed to an urban blue-collar job at a factory), in others it means "pertaining to a job dealing with the environment", in others it means "pertaining to a job at an eco-friendly workplace" (which seems to be the most common use, but none of these is terribly common), in one it means "pertaining to the cultivation of marijuana" (which, BTW, is the only use I can find that makes it clear it's using an existing term, rather than a possible independent coining), in a few it means simply "pertaining both to a job and to the environment" (especially in the phrase "green-collar crime", which is when a company violates environmental laws). Some of these senses might meet CFI individually; others not. I think it might make sense to give a vague definition, with examples of various kinds of uses. —Ruakh_TALK 17:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Striking this, as it's been cited without comment for almost a month. —Ruakh_TALK 18:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. I don't think a table could be considered running text, but there are enough quotations without it. DAVilla 19:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

gray-collar

--Connel MacKenzie 18:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

After skimming of some of the term's 317 b.g.c. hits (http://books.google.com/books?as_q=%22gray%20collar%22), I suspect that the given definition is wrong; it seems that the term describes jobs that are like blue-collar jobs in the level of education required, but that don't consist of menial labor. (This sense definitely meets CFI; most of the uses of the term on b.g.c. seem to be actual uses, often without even feeling the need to define the term.) —Ruakh_TALK 03:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not sure the "jocular" and "non-standard" tags are warranted; judging by the b.g.c. hits, the term seems to be used quite seriously. —Ruakh_TALK 03:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm striking this now, as it's been cited for over a week without comment. —Ruakh_TALK 15:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Added another quote to support the definition a little better, and RFV passed. DAVilla 20:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

open-collar

Move to WT:BJAODN? --Connel MacKenzie 18:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's serious. It looks like this term might have been coined or popularized by S. Alvi and D. McIntyre's 1993 Canadian Business Review article "The open collar worker." At any rate, "open collar" worker gets 108 hits on b.g.c (http://books.google.com/books?q=%22open+collar%22+worker), and I daresay most seem to be serious, independent, and mainstream; most seem to be using it with the sense listed (though a few use it more generally in reference to laid-back work environments, tele- or otherwise), and many are actually using the term, not just mentioning it. —Ruakh_TALK 03:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm striking this now, as it's been cited for over a week without comment. —Ruakh_TALK 15:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. What is the correct way to code the superlative and comparative not being attested? DAVilla 22:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

pink-collar

--Connel MacKenzie 18:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

685 hits on b.g.c. (http://books.google.com/books?as_q=%22pink%20collar%22), seemingly all of them using the given sense, many of them clearly uses (not just mentions). —Ruakh_TALK 03:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. DAVilla 22:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

scarlet-collar

--Connel MacKenzie 18:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There are very few relevant hits on b.g.c., but there are a fair number of Google hits that are probably durably archived, such as http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000813/edit.htm#1 (from The Tribune, Chandigarh, India). All the Google hits seem to be using a narrower definition, though; they seem to use "scarlet-collar" much more specifically in reference to businesswomen (proprietresses and whatnot) in the cybersex industry. —Ruakh_TALK 17:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm striking this now, as it's been cited for over a week without comment. —Ruakh_TALK 18:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. All discussions copied to respective talk pages. DAVilla 22:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

lapsus linguae

English? Very doubtful. --Connel MacKenzie 08:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

b.g.c. shows that it's used primarily in English contexts (668 hits at http://books.google.com/books?q=lapsus+linguae), but obviously no one would use it without knowing what language it's coming from; is this enough to make something English? The CFI don't seem to give specific criteria for loanwords, beyond implying that spaghetti is one while ricordati is not. —Ruakh_TALK 16:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The google books hits indicate that it's a term frequently used to convey meaning in English-language discussions, I think that should be enough. Kappa 17:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Every use I've seen on b.g.c. show it in italics (or don't have image preview.) All "uses" then go on to translate the Latin as "slip of the tongue." This is not English. Quick reminder:

Please see the description of what the request for verification process is for, at the top of this page. The purpose is not fact-checking, but to verify whether a sense meets our criteria for inclusion. "Occurrence in other dictionaries" is not one of our criteria. The word usage is there, not "listing" and was put there very intentionally. Blindly copying from other dictionaries leaves us vulnerable to copyright violations, allegations of copyright violation, Nihilartikels and invalid appeals to authority. Referring to other dictionaries is fine to clarify (or even correct) a definition. But other dictionaries are not valid citations for a request for verification.

--Connel MacKenzie 18:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, please calm down; no one said otherwise. The b.g.c. hits do include dictionaries, but also include plenty of non-dictionary uses. Note that we do allow use+mention contexts, where the word is simultaneously used and defined (à la "He asked me to pass the vegemite (an Australian food paste made from brewer's yeast)."). —Ruakh_TALK 23:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is not calm? Or are you referring to the wording of {{nosecondary}}? (The original contributor was busy adding dict-refs when I last looked.)

Please allow me to clarify: Yes, we should have a Latin entry for lapsus linguae, but it seems pretty clear that there should not be an ==English== section on that page. --Connel MacKenzie 23:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see, sorry; I didn't catch that was a template, and it looked like you typed a long, strenuous comment rather than just 15 characters. Nonetheless, I'd note that the original contributor was not adding them as references, but rather as external links, which IMHO is pointless but relatively harmless.

As for its being Latin — well, is it a Latin idiom? Obviously it's a Latin phrase, but it's not obvious to me that its current idiomatic sense is ancient.

—Ruakh_TALK 01:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It should have an English entry, just like faux pas or persona non grata or any one of dozens of others. It's used in English all the time. Widsith 12:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

viral

In marketing sense. --Connel MacKenzie 09:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The definition seems right, but it is not a noun. More like an adjective as in viral marketing, which I have just created a page for.--Dmol 09:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Google pulls up 933,000 hits for "virals", and of the first ten hits, nine are in this sense, so I'd say it's pretty prevalent as a noun. Also, a b.g.c. search for "virals" -"anti-virals" -"antiretro-virals" -"anti-retro-virals" pulls up 65 results (http://books.google.com/books?q=%22virals%22+-%22anti-virals%22+-%22antiretro-virals%22+-%22anti-retro-virals%22), and while I'm not sure this sense is the one used in the majority of them, it's certainly used in enough to pass CFI with room to spare. —Ruakh_TALK 16:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this really a noun, though, or an adjective being used as shorthand for an unstated noun? (e.g. "I can't decide whether I want skinny noodles or a thick noodles, so I'll take half a pound of skinnies and half a pound of thicks.") bd2412 T 07:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you really say it that way? I'd say, "[…] half a pound of the skinny and half a pound of the thick." BTW, if substantive adjectives actually have plural forms for some speakers, then we need to add plural-form support to {{en-adj}}. —Ruakh_TALK 23:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it that way, but not everyone follows my lead! ;-) In any event, saying "half a pound of the skinny and half a pound of the thick" is still using the adjective in place of the unstated noun. I'll have half a pound of the viral, please. bd2412 T 18:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I made a point of searching for the plural form. Substantive adjectives, like attributive adjectives, are invariable in English; when you elide the noun, its plural marker goes with it (hence "half a pound of the skinny", not ?"half a pound of the skinnies"). When you see what looks like the plural of an English adjective, it's because the adjective has actually developed a noun sense. —Ruakh_TALK 19:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

qual

--Connel MacKenzie 09:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's attested in graduate student handbooks from all over the place. I'll go find mine and cite it later, if you guys want :). In any case, the word is used quite often, I would even challenge your classification of it as slang. Maybe it should be classified as "US", if it's regional? I don't know whether or not that's the case. The word is everyday lexicon right up there with "cat" and "dog" for every math/comp sci grad student/prof at every university I've been to.

From bgc:

Steven Krantz, 2003, "A Mathematician's Survival Guide: graduate school and early career development" - Page 34.

It is essential, as you study for your real analysis qual, that you do a great many exercises that will drill you in the use of these “big three” theorems. (emph mine)

Emanuel Derman, 2004, "My Life as a Quant: Reflections on Physics and Finance", p. 30.

To be a theorist, you also had to pass a special theory section on the quals (emph mine)

Glenn Adams, 2001, fiction, "A Likely Story: The Unlikely Adventures of a Boy and a Man", p.336.

"All of us in the program in Psychology must take and pass the quals before we can be legitimately admitted to the Rehab Program" (emph mine) I emphasize the fact this is a fiction book, meaning the word has transcended academia

Stephen Cannell, 2000, "The Devil's Workshop", p. 12.

He'd refused to say anything more, because he didn't want to distract her with his problems on the eve of the Quals. (emph mine)

Harold O'Neil, 1994, "Motivation: Theory and Research", p. 208

All crews are allowed so many Non-Qual exercises before they are scheduled for the Qual exercises. (emph mine)

Ralph Morelli, 1992, "Minds, Brains, and Computers: Perspectives in Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence", p. 144

Well, that reminds me of the QUAL [qualification exam for artificial intelligence]. (emph his)

And so on. I took special care to include non-pluralized use, even though that's much rarer than pluralized use. I realize the bgc search for "quals" is diluted with lots of noise, but just search for "the quals" to fix that, and you'll see this has tons of cites. This illustrates it will make an excellent addition to Wiktionary :-) Signed, Language Lover

Blisterfinger

Doesn't really appear to be a word. --Eean 20:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if it was, the cap would be wrong - but zero google books hits ("blister finger" gets three, none of which relate to the definition offered). bd2412 T 22:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

carnism

Cites please. Cynewulf 22:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

zuigerphobia

On Wiktionary:List of protologisms, which makes this entry suspicious. bd2412 T 07:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

bitchwad

It's been here for a while, but unlike its brother (dickwad), it has no Google book hits. Jonathan Webley 13:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Not surprising. They are fairly well known, however. They seem to be related to sorry wad (U.S. Civil War through the mid 1900’s), which was popularly held to refer to genetically low-grade semen delivered by Civil-War soldiers to the helpless farmgirls they encountered, and hence to their illegitimate children. By the 1900’s, sorry wad had become a term of endearment for small children. —Stephen 03:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Civil war! No more "age" jokes for me - they're all yours now!

In all seriousness though, did it have the South Park meaning back then? --Connel MacKenzie 01:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. DAVilla 20:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to pee on your parade, but the cites don't verify the meaning. Any pejorative could be substituted and the citations would make sense. Proper cites please. Moving to March Andrew massyn 08:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The cites verify that it is a pejorative. The rest of the definition I don't care enough about to try to prove. Just a bunch of silliness, or maybe a legitimate etymology but still not something I'm interested in. DAVilla 18:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

candida albicans

Huh? How is this the plural of candida? bd2412 T 10:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It is the taxonomic name of Candida (the most common sort). Exactly how TheCheatBot was confused I don't know. Robert Ullmann 18:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Candida albicans and cleaned up. —Stephen 14:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Struck. bd2412 T 15:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

primitivization

Not in other on-line dictionaries, not too many b.g.c. hits - the preponderance of them seem to be specific to psychiatry? Is the definition given wrong, (even after my edit) or too narrow? Or is it not a word? --Connel MacKenzie 04:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• It does seem to have some specialized use. I have changed the definition from that of a verb to that of a noun. SemperBlotto 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations please. I have moved the discussion to March. Andrew massyn 12:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Orgy of evidence

Any takers? (Capitalization is wrong anyway) SemperBlotto 16:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems okay to me. Randy6767 20:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Various Web hits attribute the phrase to the movie Minority Report. —Ruakh_TALK 15:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

But surly the term's use is not limited to this movie. Randy6767 17:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I inderstand it is a term used by detectives which was popularized by Minority Report but not invented by it:[29] Either way it's often now used without mentioning the film, especially on conspiracy websites:[30][31][32] Quadzilla99 12:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the capitalization by the way. Quadzilla99 13:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

overworld map

Widsith 18:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly "overworld" is standard in games (of that ilk), it is fine. But I see no way in which "overworld map" is not overworld + map. Robert Ullmann 18:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Only one hit on b.g.c, but 401 good hits on g.g.c., apparently mostly independent.

From b.g.c.: Andy Slaven, 2002, "Video Game Bible, 1985 - 2002", p. 155.

Featuring an enormous overworld map and expansive dun-geons, this game was large to begin with, but the inclusion of the Dark World makes the game twice as ...

From g.g.c.: Many attests for both senses, I will focus on the sense which is not sum-of-parts (the 2nd sense).

Kevin Sullivan, 2001, "Re: Final Fantasy X - No Overworld Map?", rec.games.video.sony

I remember before FFVII came out I had never seen any pics of an overworld map and I thought that it had been removed completely.

Zach Levy, 2002, "Re: Insane instakill overworld ambush", rec.games.roguelike.angband

There is a certain quest that you take, that even if you don't walk the overworld map, you will get ambushed.

BuffGuy, 1999, "Shadow Madness Demo thoughts", rec.games.video.sony

The overworld map is kinda confusing to walk through, i had know idea where i was going.

Michael McIntyre, 2001, "Re: Game design theology... aka NEENER NEENER", rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons

By the way, the games FF2 and FF3 (both for NES, never released in the US) allowed you to save on the overworld map.

Yes, sure, used a lot, perfectly valid. But absolutely, totally sum of parts! Should we allow game character? 669,000 hits ;-) Robert Ullmann 14:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I am wrong, hmm, but I really think the 2nd sense is not sum of parts. "Map of Africa" is sum of parts, but it is very strange to say, "The map of Africa is kinda confusing to walk through", unless the person talking is an ant!  :-) Sum of parts only gives the first sense, lit. a map of the overworld, and by itself does not adequately capture the fact (seen above) that people speak about the map as BEING the world itself. One pulls up the overworld map (1) to better navigate the overworld map (2).

wikivandalism

Keep as Wiki-slang, or try to find non-Wiki uses, or delete? -- Beobach972 21:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Na na na na na na na na hey hey goodbye

There is one hit on Google Books, but it can't agree on the number of 'na's, periodically adding two extra ones beyond the eight given... -- Beobach972 21:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be six, and it should be punctuated as they are delivered in groups: na na, na na na na, hey hey, goodbye. This one cries out for a sound file. bd2412 T 21:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If you listen to the song, it is 8 "Na's" and 3 "Hey's". Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye. Do with is as you wish; just wanted all to be aware of this fact. sewnmouthsecret 17:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the hits i see read "na na hey hey kiss him good bye". Randy6767 17:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Does it have "hey" three times? I thought the second one was just kind of extended, like he-ey. My sense is that the first two na's are generally omitted during the ritualized stadium chanting, but maybe they just tend to bleed together. bd2412 T 18:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In the song, it's definitely as sewnmouthsecret says, with two sets of four nas, one set of three heys, and a lone goodbye (granted, at a few points in the song there's a version with only one set of four nas, but it's always immediately followed by the full version). But at least in my experience, the game chant is as bd2412 says — the first two nas are dropped, and instead of three heys, there's one hey and one hey-ey (with a glide). I'm not sure which of these versions warrants inclusion, but certainly at least one of them does. (BTW, the version that Randy6767 gives is the name of the song, but doesn't actually appear anywhere in the song, and isn't what people are chanting at games.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For younger contributors: Bananarama. --Connel MacKenzie 16:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Side note: should the entry, if kept, be at the minuscule na na na (however many more 'na's and 'hey's) goodbye? -- Beobach972 20:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we should be keeping such things.--Williamsayers79 13:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand, why not, it's definitely idiomatic... but on the other hand, the words are kind of meaningless outside the context of the music. We'll need Dvortygirl to make a soundfile. bd2412 T 02:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I'm in two minds... are we to have football chants like "who ate all the pies"? Maybe, maybe not. If this is kept, then yes, it should have an initial lower-case letter. — Paul G 11:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally that's the exact wording from the song, I'm in favor of keeping it the way it is if it stays. Quadzilla99 07:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Harlem sunset

Apparently Chandler used this phrase. But it doesn't look like anybody else has... Widsith 12:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added two cites, both from semi-published novels (one found on b.g.c. but lacking a date, one found on Google Groups's Usenet archive). If someone can add the Chandler cite, then I think this technically just-barely passes CFI. —Ruakh_TALK 22:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We now have four cites, but I'm not 100% satisfied with the entry; it looks as though the first two cites are using it in a slightly different sense from the last two. The last two are using it in the sense given by various online noir glossaries; I wonder if said noir glossaries misinterpreted the Chandler cite, and the authors of the last two were thereby led astray? —Ruakh_TALK 22:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

family office

Any takers? Is it a US-only thing? SemperBlotto 19:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] family office def... googling "family office" returns 382,000,000 hits. It is one of the fastest growing areas of finance and philanthropy on Wall Street.

http://www.wallstreetandtech.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=159904336

http://www.umass.edu/fambiz

Handbook of Family Business and Family Business Consultation, Florence W. Kaslow Ed., The Hayworth Press, Inc.,2006 p.367

The Handbook of Estate Planning, Robert A. Esperti and Renno L. Peterson, Mcgraw, Hill, Inc., 1991

Family Wealth: Keeping it in the Family, James E. Hughs, Hughs & Whitaker, 1997

Family Foundations Now and Forever: The Question of Inter-Generational Succession, Paul N. Ylvisaker, The Council on Foundations, 1991

Philanthropy, Heirs & Values. How Successful Families are Using Philanthropy to Prepare Heirs for Post-Transition Responsibilities, Roy Williams & Vic Preisser, Robert. D. Read Publ., 2005

http://www.foxexchange.com

"Tailor-made office to suit all generations of the affluent: More families are putting their assets in the hands of a dedicated advisory team," Chris Davis, September 25, 2005, South China Morning Post

"Investment Services," Standard & Poor's Industry Survey, November 23, 2006

"Family Matters," Worth, December 2002

multi-family office

As above for family office. --Dmol 20:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Bloomberg Wealth Manager, September, 2005, pp.63-79 "Special Report: Multi-Family Offices"

LSD-25

Really? Suspicious, as the contributor (Khalsayogi) has added some rather odd information to various articles (e.g. weirdo, etymology for human). bd2412 T 13:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it is synonymous with LSD – 25 was just the sequential number given to the compound by the German chemists that synthesized it (if that's the right term). Widsith 14:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

RFVfailed and RFVpassed — which is to say, the sense given in the originally-RFV'd version has been deleted, and the current version is adequately cited. —Ruakh_TALK 02:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

weirdo

Three senses added by Khalsayogi, one of which seems redundant (or at least ambiguous) and the other two describing the term as, alternately, a "badge of honor" and a "very positive thing". bd2412 T 13:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• More tosh - removed. SemperBlotto 08:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. bd2412 T 20:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

freak

6th sense (from Khalsayogi), someone who uses sacred drugs carefully concocted by a conscientious chemist? bd2412 T 13:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• I was unable to verify this, and it seems to be an invention. Deleted sense. SemperBlotto 08:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks! bd2412 T 05:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

long-haired

Second sense from Khalsayogi, does "long-haired" have a specific religious connotation? bd2412 T 13:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• No. Sense deleted. SemperBlotto 08:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. bd2412 T 20:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

smish

I can't seem to find any instances of use, seems maybea neologism? sewnmouthsecret 19:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The words "smish and hug" gets two Google Books hits - one is in unintelligable German, and the other appears to be Smish as a surname (those make up a fairly high percentage of all hits). It is used onomatopoetically as part of "smish smash", a more destructive variation of "splish splash". About a half dozen authors of very old (going back to 1823) slang/cant dictionaries say that it means a shirt or chemise. bd2412 T 05:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

concubining

A verb? bd2412 T 00:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Protologism - one reported usage. Deleted SemperBlotto 08:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

aberrantest

It sounded terrible to me, but the way a lot of people speak sounds terrible to me. However, the astonishing eight google hits make me think that we should not be containing this particular word. Atelaes 03:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What's more, none of those eight Google hits are uses of any kind — not typos, not jokes, not anything. —Ruakh_TALK 03:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The utter paucity of Google Books hits is more telling for me. bd2412 T 03:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Atelaes 03:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

pull factor

Atelaes 03:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Seems OK to me. It is a term that I had heard before. SemperBlotto 08:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

aberranter

Along with aberrantest. Tim Q. Wells 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Google and Google Books turn up numerous references to a German meaning for this word. bd2412 T 22:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's definitely German, but not English. Who's the resident German expert here? Atelaes 23:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I got Thogo to add the German sense. The English sense has been removed. Atelaes 23:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done - Team Wiktionary wins again! bd2412 T 01:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

poontang

Second sense. Is the second sense a UKism or something? Also: highly dubious folk etymology from same contributor. --Connel MacKenzie 05:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Didn't seem at all out of the ordinary to me - men euphemistically rephrase lots of slang terms for certain female parts as the utilization of those parts (i.e. to get some [insert term here]). My sense is that the word was brought back by soldiers from Vietnam, but maybe that's just from watching too many 'Nam era war movies. bd2412 T 05:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

OED agrees more or less with both the second definition and the etymology. My experience is that the genital sense and the getting some sense are nearly indistinguishable in common speech. Atelaes 05:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The OED actually lists the second sense as the primary meaning.

1927 J. O'HARA Sel. Lett. (1978) 25 Just between us I haven't had any poon-tang since I was in Germany.

--Ptcamn 07:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to be pedantic, um, no. #1) Thank God we are not the OED, #2) that is the 1st meaning use figuratively, not the second nonsense definition. That is, J. O'HARA's selected letter is talking about getting some pussy not something obtuse like building a relationship, nor gay sex, nor getting a blow job... --Connel MacKenzie 14:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The second sense isn't about a relationship, but about sexual relations, which in the U.S. is a formal/euphemistic way of saying "sex". As it turns out, different people feel differently about what constitutes sex; after the Clinton scandals, some polling organization found that older people tended to consider oral sex a kind of sex, while younger people did not. —Ruakh_TALK 15:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

See also Ted Nugent:

Wang Dang Sweet Poontang

Wang dang, what a sweet poontang

a shakin' my thang as a rang-a-dang-dang in the bell

Appears to me that ol' Ted is using the term to refer to the woman herself. bd2412 T 15:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We're well out of my area of having-a-clue here, but a Web search gives the second line of that song as "She lookin' so clean, especi'lly down in between; what I like", which makes it sound like he is indeed referring to her nether region. BTW, if it's particularly common for poontang to be used metaphorically in reference to sex, then I think that bears some kind of note, even if it's not a fully separate sense. —Ruakh_TALK 16:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This entry has the word disputed' in bold in the etymology section. Is there a template (and category) for disputed etymologies that should be used instead? RJFJR 15:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If you could fix that error for me, I'd appreciate it. However, my dipute question is perhaps the wrong label for the entry, anyway. --Connel MacKenzie 17:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've heard this word used in the sense in question in everyday conversations. I'd point out there is a similar phenomenon with pussy: people say "I'm going to get some pussy" to mean "I'm going to have sex with a woman", and this is probably related to the sense in question of poontang. *Signed Language Lover*

vallic

Any takers? Not in the OED. SemperBlotto 08:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That etymology is obviously fake — if it is a word with that meaning, then clearly it's a portmanteau of vagina and phallic (heck, vagina in Latin didn't even mean vagina in the relevant sense) — which makes me highly suspicious of the existing entry. A b.g.c. search for "vallic" does pull up a lot of uses of "Vallic." (a capitalized abbreviation with a period at the end, possibly of the name of a Christian-New-Testament codex?) (an abbreviation for "Vallicelliana", as in "Biblioteca Vallicelliana", a library in Rome that houses many old documents/codices and whatnot and therefore appears in a lot of citations), though, which should presumably get an entry if someone can figure out what it means. —Ruakh_TALK 15:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC) and 15:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Playing around with various Google searches (Web, Books, Scholar, Groups), I'm convinced that vallic has essentially never been used with that sense; the closest are http://en.bitacle.org/v/9zqr--39em0/greatest-prank-ever-.html ("did you know the opposite of 'phallic' is 'yonic'? […] At first, Fran, Miles and I were playing around with 'vallic' or 'vagic' […] I finally looked it up, and yup, it's 'yonic.'") and a Google-Groups hit (search for "Am I right zat it is a vallic statement?") where it's clearly intended as a foreign-accent pronunciation of "phallic". —Ruakh_TALK 15:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I say delete. To the original contributor, I say: the word has great sound and phonology, and we encourage you to write some books and magazines over a few years to force the word into the language... however, it seems like it would be a lot cooler if it had a meaning related to valor, rather than your suggested meaning.. but that's just opinion and you're free to write whatever you like in your books :-) *Signed Language Lover*

The etymology clearly is fake- it is a word with essentially that meaning- the contributor has just wrongly assumed what it is, It was a word created in the feminist movement of the 1970s as part of a number of attempts to "create an equality within a male dominated language" via creating female counterparts to male words (I think a feminine version of fraternity was invented too) I believe that in recent post-feminist movements, some language teachers have been trying to introduce these words into the language again. In the spirit of feminism I believe we should keep this entry. I will edit the etymology now to make sure it is persevered here.

—Miles Davies_TALK 15:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 02:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

wheels

Bodybuilding slang: Well-developed thigh muscles. (And presumably that would be quadriceps, or is it the whole thigh?) — Paul G 14:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(previous comment deleted, since no one replied before it went out-of-date anyway) I think it's acceptably cited now; care to take a look? —Ruakh_TALK 16:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, keep as is. bd2412 T 20:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Checked out. RFV passed DAVilla 20:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

fieldine

Is this a word in some English dialect? —Stephen 21:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol, no. I wouldn't say so. Its a word used very occasionally (sometimes by me) in a part of London.Maybe it hasnt spread elsewhere. Such an emotion needs a name so I use this 1. Fuzzibloke 21:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Tosh. deleted SemperBlotto 22:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Warrior Librarianship

Is there any reference to this outside of the eponymous satirical journal? --EncycloPetey 04:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"Warrior librarianship" gets no hits on b.g.c. or Google Groups, and google:"warrior librarianship" -"guide to warrior librarianship" gets only one hit that could conceivably be independent — and that's only because it doesn't give enough context for anything much to be inferred (not independence, not the intended sense, nothing). I say delete. —Ruakh_TALK 05:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Since when do we put spam/promotional material on WT:RFV? Zap it! --Connel MacKenzie 06:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

noctivagant

Another completely redundant word, primary reference being "The Endangered English Dictionary: Bodacious Words Your Dictionary Forgot". Not sure if it doesn't meet CFI because it is a nonce, or if it doesn't meet CFI because it is a made-up word for things that already have better words...e.g. nocturnal, sleepwalker, etc. --Connel MacKenzie 06:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just think it meets the CFI (my initial instinct was to RFV this as well, but I went through the sites and it seems real to me - it's mentioned in dictionaries going back over a hundred years):

Thomas Martindale, Sport Indeed (2005) p. 177:

When the sun dropped behind the ridges and this duskiness began to creep over the face of nature, it seemed as if the thoughtful dame had given all her creatures - except her noctivagant rakes — quick notice to finish whatever task they had on hand and get to bed.

Alan Wall, The School of Night (2003) p. 223:

Not merely nocturnal but noctivagant, a nightwalker, a prowler, a nomad of the midnight streets...

Raymond Queneau, Zazie in the Metro (2001) p. 153:

Primary and defalcatory policeman, noctivagant miscreant, irresolute pursuer of widows and orphans, these fleeting images allow me to assume without apprehension the minor risks of ridicule, of absurdity, and of sentimental effusion...

Charles Harpur, Elizabeth M. Perkins, The Poetical Works of Charles Harpur (1984) p. 495:

The bidawong, like the kindyne, is a noctivagant animal, and less like the European quadruped after which it has been partly named.

Nirmal Probha Bardoloi, Assamese Short Stories: An Anthology (1982) p. 36:

...Eso again turned noctivagant. That was why the Pastor could not meet him.

Walter Hamilton, Parodies of the Works of English & American Authors (1967) p. 142:

But the Demon's a deuce of a rider to catch,

And it taxes brave Shaw to continue a match

For the fiery noctivagant ranger.

Cheers! bd2412 T 13:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, this has nothing to do with sleepwalking. This is wandering around awake at night. Nocturnal isn't the same either, it doesn't necessarily mean wandering. 72.144.221.238 14:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

One more cite, quite an ancient old one:

James Hogg, The Three Perils of Woman; Or, Love, Leasing and Jealousy: A Series of Domestic Scottish Tales (1823) p. 145:

...I therefore think, Sarah, that the incommensurability of the crime with the effect, completely warrants the supersaliency of this noctivagant delinquent.

• Striking as verified. bd2412 T 13:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

dałaá

The language is listed only as "Apache", but that is a group of seven languages. --EncycloPetey 06:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally tracked it down as Western Apache. --EncycloPetey 16:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Commy

Impossible misspelling. --Connel MacKenzie 17:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I found few results for it on Google Books and most of them were names. Tim Q. Wells 17:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 11:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

gripless

Any takers? SemperBlotto 18:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned in this entry for grip Tim Q. Wells 19:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely keep because books.google.com has 72 hits for it and based on the first page thereof, they seem legitimate and independent. However, I think the definition we currently give, is incomplete or inaccurate. SemperBlotto, since you are the undisputed master of elucidating meanings of obscure words off bgc (like treebound), I hereby nominate you for the honorable task of rewriting this entry and making it one of the greatest entries in the whole Wiktionary!!! :D *Signed Language Lover*

I don't get the impression that the various hits are all using the same sense; rather, it seems to be a freely derivable nonce with the sense "not having a grip" (for any sense of the noun "grip"). That said, one b.g.c. hit does seem to be using the relevant sense, from a1913 no less; see http://books.google.com/books?q=gripless+nerved. Unfortunately, b.g.c. isn't giving enough information for me to identify the author of that sentence. :-/ —Ruakh_TALK 19:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that is why I think whoever makes an entry which captures the various senses appropriately, is an outstandingly great Wiktionary contributer :-) Even if every single use were a different sense, that doesn't stop the fact that maybe an ESL person will encounter the word and wrestle with it (especially if its sense is not the natural one, "which lacks grip"). Thanks for your tireless efforts to check b.g.c., keep up the Ruakhage! —This unsigned comment was added by Language Lover (talk • contribs) 19:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

YOYO night

A night when you make your own meal (e.g. "you're on your own")? No Google Book hits; some Google hits, but meanings vary. bd2412 T 00:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason this was created, was that it was on the list of English requested words for months and months (for most of that time, it was the lone y entry there). This is just a relevant observation, not a keep/kill vote. *Signed Language Lover*

Indeed, added there by 68.205.152.194 last July (only contribution from that IP as well). Carries no weight with me. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Trench cleaner

Any citations? Should this be capitalized? I wouldn't think so. --EncycloPetey 02:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This site [33] lists a trench cleaner as a small dagger, not a shotgun.--Dmol 16:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

uffda

Any takers? (no formatting) SemperBlotto 08:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

We have a somewhat prettier article on this at oofta. Which spelling is correct (or if they're both acceptable), I don't know. Google's giving me mixed signals. I'll try and look into it further within the next couple of days. This could be difficult to verify. While I know it's most definitely in use, I don't know how widespread it is, and it seems like a word that isn't often put into print. Atelaes 09:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I worked for several years in a company with a large ND office, and several of their staff came over to us. I never heard that word used.--Dmol 11:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about ND, but my wife lived in Minnesota and says they used it a lot there.  It's even written on souvenirs and stuff like that. — V-ball 15:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you be able to upload a photo to Commons of such an item? I think that would be a nice way to "illustrate" this word. --EncycloPetey 16:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of google hits, wikipedia even seems to have an article on it (but on wikipedia it is spelled 'Uff Da"). As Atelaes said this is going to be hard to verify.

I lived in Minnesota for 5 years and sure heard it used. Even saw it once in a newspaper cartoon. I think it's a natural interjection for people who shovel a lot of snow. (PS - Never heard it once, though, when I lived for 3 years in Wisconsin, the adjoining state to the east.) -- WikiPedant 20:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that, although this word may be from similar origins as oofta, that it may be its own word? I asked the North Dakotan couple (I was the one who submitted the word, BTW) if it had alternate spellings, and they were pretty adamant about the spelling (Uffda). — This unsigned comment was added by 66.91.69.242 (talk).

government spending

Is this really more than sum of parts? Is the second definition encyclopedic? SemperBlotto 19:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If the term "government spending" really does imply "meant to increase the money flow in an economy", then I think that's more than sum-of-parts. So, does it? And yes, the second "definition" is definitely encyclopedic. —Ruakh_TALK 23:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if government spending is intended to, it doesn't succeed. I can not see how anyone would assert that as an understood meaning, with a straight face. --Connel MacKenzie 03:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "meant" means "intended". Indeed, the use of "meant" rather than, say, "serving" rather suggests that it doesn't succeed. (BTW, it occurs to me that even if "government spending" does mean simply "spending by the government", it could be considered not-just-sum-of-parts in that noun+gerund compounds have a lot of possible parses, and the phrase "government spending" never means, say, "spending on the government".) —Ruakh_TALK 05:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

boviate

Cute. But real? bd2412 T 20:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

All b.g.c. hits at http://books.google.com/books?q=boviate are proper nouns (2, =Boyate, from references to the Domesday Book), typos (1, for "obviate"), or scannos (3, for "Houlate", "beviste", and "Soviets"), except possibly for one that b.g.c. won't give a preview of, but that's probably also the proper noun in the Domesday Book. —Ruakh_TALK 22:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The one Google Scholar hit at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=boviate seems to be some sort of weird glitch rather than anything meaningful. (Is there a Chinese-speaker here who can make sense of it?) —Ruakh_TALK 22:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There are two Google Groups hits at http://groups.google.com/groups?q=boviate, both from Usenet. One seems most likely to me to be a typo/mondegreen/something for bloviate, but the other one does seem to be using the intended sense. (2003, "It's a bit different when you actually have to design lighting for a living rather than boviate 'theory.'") —Ruakh_TALK 22:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There are about 140 normal Google hits starting at http://www.google.com/search?q=boviate; fairly few seem to be in this sense, but there are enough that do, or that at least are ambiguous, to suggest that the term might well be in current use. I doubt any of these are "durably archived" in a CFI-satisfying way, but since uses seem to be spread over several years, in a variety of unrelated Web forums, without so much as scare quotes or explanatory links or notes, I think it might be worth some extra effort to find CFI-satisfying uses. —Ruakh_TALK 22:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly (having done the derived and related terms for "bovine" yesterday) it's in the OED (second edition) as an obsolete form of "bovate". It might well have citations for that spelling. — Paul G 11:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the OED gives as alternate spellings of bovate: "Also 7 bovatt, 8 boviat." (For those unfamiliar with the OED's style, "7" means "17th Century" and "8" means "18th Century".) No "boviate". —Ruakh_TALK 16:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

factotum

The senses are marked as obsolete. I'm pretty sure at least one of these senses is extant. — Paul G 10:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my mum often used general factotum in a sense somewhere between a personal assistant and a gofer. So, archaic but not obsolete. --Enginear 20:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Or is that {{cattag|UK|archaic}}? --Connel MacKenzie 03:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It can't be too obsolete since it's used in two of the last three novels I've read: Factotum by Charles Bukowski and Life: A User's Manual by Georges Perec, both written in the 1970s. — Hippietrail 19:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait! Within only 4 days I've come across this word in a 3rd novel, A Void, also by Georges Perec. Can we consider this verified yet? — Hippietrail 18:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

combatic

Long-winded definition for a kind of study of martial arts. Really? bd2412 T 13:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

abdabs

A state of extreme nervousness. Really? bd2412 T 16:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, OED2+ has habdabs or abdabs or hab-dabs as slang with this meaning, and four quotes from 1946 - 1966. They have found it mainly in the phrase screaming habdabs, which is the only way I remember it. It often has an implication of nervous diarrhoea. There are 10s of b.g.c. hits. --Enginear 21:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So would this be a plurale tantum? bd2412 T 22:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Four quotes? Their criteria is supposed to be 15 quotes? So how could the OED have it? Do they have a special slang version online somewhere? Ahem: {{nosecondary}}. --Connel MacKenzie 03:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I looked it up to see if they were aware of the spelling -- I had thought it was spelled habdabs or habjabs and might be pre-WW2 only -- so noted what I found in case others made similar mistakes. I don't think that they require 15 quotes. Often they only give one, and I have seen a few of their entries which imply that a word is a nonce usage, and a few which only cite an entry in an old dictionary, and no actual usage at all. That's the best reason I have for refuting the notion that we should include any entry which is accepted by the OED. --Enginear 12:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A number of those Google Books hits reference predecessor names of Pink Floyd, "the Abdabs, the Architectural Abdabs, and, finally, the Screaming Abdabs" (apparently derived from the earlier use of the term). I've tagged it as UK, I see no evidence of U.S. use. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

lifalicious

Purports to be a popular word among teenagers. Really? bd2412 T 20:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Pipel

A child with a beautiful, refined face. Really? bd2412 T 23:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It really would help to simply delete obvious nonsense and nonces; an additional vandal indication is the incorrect capitalization. --Connel MacKenzie 03:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me - could just be a different language (and capitalization could just signal unfamiliarity with our naming conventions). The citation to Night by Elie Wiesel gave me pause as well - it has a ring of the familiar. bd2412 T 03:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

...in fact: Heidi L. Nordberg et al, Religion and Literature: A Reader (2000) p. 144 (quoting Night by Elie Wiesel):

He had a young boy under him, a pipel, as they were called--a child with a refined and beautiful face, unheard of in this camp.

bd2412 T 03:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that any of the (very few) I skimmed support the sense in question, but the word has 642 b.g.c. hits. That's quite a lot!! *Language Lover faints* Looks like we'd better get a b.g.c. expert on this case :-) We appreciate your vigilance Connel MacKenzie, I'm sure you are very great at checking books.google.com for all these beautiful words our contributors gift us with! :D

Changing the subject, upon close inspection of the Nordberg et al cite, I think it's ambiguous there. It could be saying that "pipel" means "young boy", and then the clause about the refined and beautiful face just elaborates further on the child, not on the word "pipel". Signed, Language Lover

I agree, the meaning is ambiguous if derived only from this source, it also could be a very localized use, perhaps only in that one concentration camp, in which case this would be... Yiddish? German? bd2412 T 12:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here are a few Google Books hits that came up which use the term:

Laurence Rees, Auschwitz: a new history (2005) p. 98:

The young boy was a “pipel”—camp slang for the young servant of a Kapo (and someone with whom the Kapo often had a homosexual relationship).

Hermann Langbein, People in Auschwitz (2004) p. 405.

A remedy for sexual distress that was customary in other concentration camps, in which no women were interned next to men, was frequently used in Auschwitz as well. Capos kept Pipel, young fellows who in return for personal services were exempted from hard labor and enjoyed other privileges. Quite a number of capos abused their boys sexually.

Frank Stiffel, The Oxymoron Factor 2 (2001) p. 240:

He had a Polish Schreiber, a homosexual who was attended to by a Pipel, a German Gypsy who was the Schreibers valet, his cook, his shoe shine boy, his lover, and his alternate, in which capacity he proved to be as much of a trouble to us as his boss.

...

Page 266:

None of Kapo Rudi's three Pipels was German, but, knowing what was good for them, they learned all the songs by rote.

...

The third Pipel was Raoul, a sixteen-year-old French Jew with a pair of sweet eyes of a doe and seductive plump lips.

Meaning seems consistent, although capitalization/pluralization are not. bd2412 T 13:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So could someone undelete this entry so we can cite it and whatnot? —Ruakh_TALK 22:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, wait a moment - the definition in the original entry was wrong (and possibly a copyvio, as it was just a quote from the Wiesel book), and we still don't know what language this should be in or what the proper capitalization should be. bd2412 T 22:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've re-written the definition to accord with the facts. bd2412 T 13:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Continental Shift

Is this a common name for the practice of arranging work schedules to have 24 hour operations? Capitalized? bd2412 T 00:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

4.94 Continental Shift

The quote that follows is taken from a British Help Wanted advertisement:

http://www.encorepersonnel.co.uk/jobzone/technicalvacancies.php

Encore Superior Staffing Solutions

Technical & Engineering Job Vacancies

Encore have vacancies available all over the Midlands. Whether you require an industrial, driving or technical position we hope you will be able to find something suitable in the relevant section of this website.

Look through our listings below to see what is available at the moment, if you see a job you like click on the link to register your interest or alternatively just give us a call.

And remember to come back again in the future as our jobs are updated weekly.

Extrusion Machine Operator

To be successful in this role it is essential that you have previous experience of operating a machine and be able to demonstrate commitment and flexibility to work the continentals which involves working 12 hour shift including days and nights and weekends. A valid Fork Lift Licence is also essential for this role. Personal attributes

My client is looking for an experienced Machine Operator to work on a continental shift pattern. You will be responsible for operating a number of Extrusion Machines at one time you will be required to be able to manage yourself and your workload effectively. Applicants must have mechanical aptitude with previous experience of Machine Operating. Salary

The following quote is taken from a promotional website that encourages businesses to locate in North Ayrshire, Scotland.

http://www.northayrshire.com/stats.htm

North Ayrshire Economic Statistics

North Ayrshire's economic performance has proved an attractive option for inward investment - as a business location it provides quality infrastructure access to the European market and a highly educated and skilled workforce.

Continental Shift Working

• North Ayrshire has a tradition of companies utilising continental shift patterns eg. Nobel Explosives (ICI), Glaxo SmithKline, Caledonian Paper, Rockware. • Local workforce and families are therefore used to and willing to work shift patterns.

THe following link is to Thompson's Labour and International Law review. Unfortunately, I cannot copy from this articly, but a word search will show it:

http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/dload/lelr0017.pdf

The following entry is from a Canadian Study:

http://www.canadianstudy.ca/ON/Aug06/August-Part2-p18.pdf — This unsigned comment was added by Robert D. KATZ (talk • contribs) at 03:02, 26 March 2007.

beardo

A pejorative term for someone with a beard? bd2412 T 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen this used almost as everyday lexicon on some webforums, but never literally: it's used as a more pejorative version of nerd. (Signed Language Lover)

In the uses I've seen of it, it has nothing to do with having a beard, but nevertheless it has spawned some very interesting language. For example. "Forgive me for talking about Star Wars, my beard is strong today." (Signed, Language Lover)

Ok, I researched this and it looks like the sense I mentioned above might be a peculiar locality at poe-news.com. Another thing I learned is "beard" has an archaic spelling with a weird "e" at the end which google often misscans as an "o". Here are some cites for the "has a beard" sense of beardo.

Salman Rushdie - 2000 - "The Ground Beneath Her Feet: A Novel", p 331

...or a voodoo cab driver with zombies on the brain or a bomber from Montana or an Islamist beardo from Queens, then whatever's going through your...

Suzi Rose - 2003 - "Accidental Heroine: Diary of an Attention Seeker", p 146

Mr Bore is in his garden again. I went to say Hello and he gave me a really stony look so I went back in. I really don't know what his problem is. Anti-social beardo (that's a weirdo with a beard).

Joshua Wright - 2004 - "Plotless Pointless Pathetic", p 119

He can't control the weather. It's controlled by the atmosphere, with respect to variables such as temperature, moisture, wind velocity, and barometric pressure. It's not run by just some mouldy old beardo wearing a bed sheet and throwing thunderbolts about.

Patrick D Gaffney, 1994, "The Prophet's Pulpit: Islamic Preaching in Contemporary Egypt", p 90

Moreover, in the regional patois one common expression used by outsiders, including unsympathetic shaykhs, to refer to the group was birubū dign, which can be glossed as the "bearded ones" or more colloquially as "beardo's."

There are many cites which are ambiguous, mostly because b.g.c. only gives limited or snippet preview. For example:

Ed Lark, 2005, "Grief", p 146

The giant turned to him, "Worried you there you whining beardo. Did I ever tell you about the time..."

Hope this helps :-) Ahh, another beautiful word worthy of our fine Wiktionary!!! :D Language Lover 15:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes but can you tell what it means? Only one of those cites clearly references the proffered definition (weirdo with a beard); the rest could simply be a colloquial term for anyone (weird or not) with a beard (or any group wherein beardsmanship is a characteristic common to those in the group). bd2412 T 15:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the fact that they dont "clearly reference the proffered definition" makes them stronger cites. If every time the word was used, the author gave a definition, that would clearly make it a neologism of santorum calibre! :) Now as for the specific cites above. Rushdie is almost certainly using the given sense, because of the stereotype "Muslims have beards". Rose and Gaffney both unambiguously say what they mean. And Wright seems to be making a reference to the stereotype of God as a bearded old man. :) Hope this clears things up a bit :-D Language Lover 15:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of cites is to show usage of the word as we have defined it. While the cite itself may not do so, and indeed, as you say, is often stronger if it doesn't, the extended context should make the usage clear. That is why we prefer cites to include a link to an online source (see Wiktionary:Quotations#Between_the_definitions) and, for CFI purposes at least, prefer to see them interspersed between the definitions of a word with more than one suggested meaning. I agree with your reasoning that the Rushdie, R&G, and Wright cites show this (and are enough to pass CFI) but others might like links so they can check for themselves. And if you are unsure of the usage given in the others, perhaps they should not have been used to suggest that CFI were met. --Enginear 20:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wintendo

Move to WT:-) perhaps? --Connel MacKenzie 03:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems common on Usenet, but I would doubt independence. Are there any other potential sources for us? DAVilla 19:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is a project on Sourceforge [34] that is further evidence to the independence of this former hacker-slang.—This unsigned comment was added by 69.170.199.205 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

mimblewimble

Any evidence of independent use, as required by WT:CFI. My search turns up only Harry Potter references. Dmcdevit 09:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Scabbers

A character in Harry Potter. This appears to be a concept better fir for an encyclopedia than a dictionary. I don't see evidence of independent use or attributive use. Dmcdevit 09:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not linguistic. Deleted. DAVilla 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

dime bag

Added with no formatting; I cleaned it... but is the term really used? -- Beobach972 21:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It’s very common in the U.S., but I wasn’t sure of the meaning. I always thought it means "$10 worth" of marijuana, but the article claims it means one gram. I’m sure the contributor knows much more about it than I do. —Stephen 21:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Stephen; firstly, I've encountered the term before, which means it must be pretty common (given my cluelessness about pop culture), and secondly, the term gets plenty of b.g.c. hits, but those that define it define it as "$10 worth of any drug" or the like. —Ruakh_TALK 22:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

While I admittedly never got into any harder drugs myself, I was always under the impression that dime bag specifically referred to marijuana alone, and to $10 worth, not a gram. Atelaes 22:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the term is clearly in widespread use, but I agree with the previous definition clarifications. (Odd that Google suggest, suggests the rare spelling dimebag. I've only ever seen it as two words.) --Connel MacKenzie 02:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I clarified the definition to reflect that. I left the RFV tag in case anybody wants to give examples of use in support of a specific meaning one way or the other.-- Beobach972 02:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

poutinize

Ok, this seems ridiculous, but I've been wrong before, so I'm rfv'ing this re-created entry for a verb which purpotedly means putting cheese curds and gravy on top of french fries. bd2412 T 01:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(Note - zero Google Books hits, 11 regular Google hits, in contrast to the roughly two-million hits for poutine, the dish from which this is reportedly derived). bd2412 T 01:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

stimmer

To stammer during an IM? bd2412 T 13:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Mozart

Third sense. --Connel MacKenzie 13:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, no but:

Ryan A Nerz, Eat This Book: a year of gorging and glory on the competitive eating circuit (2006) p. 67:

There is a Mozart of competitive eating who is yet to reveal himself.

Victor H. Mair, The Columbia History of Chinese Literature (2001) p. 296:

Li Po is the most musical, most versatile, and most engaging of Chinese poets, a Mozart of words.

Lawrence Grobel, Endangered Species: Writers Talk about Their Craft, Their Visions, Their Lives (2001}:

Joyce Carol Oates has said, "If there is a Mozart of interviewers, Larry Grobel is that individual."

Kathryn Ann Lindskoog, Surprised by C.S. Lewis, George MacDonald, and Dante: An Array of Original Discoveries (2001) p. 116:

In contrast, MacDonald's Gibbie is not only a moral prodigy, but also a Mozart of religious sensibility.

Noel Bertram Gerson, Harriet Beecher Stowe: a biography (1976) p. 86:

By the same token, Rembrandt resembled Hawthorne, and the architect who had designed Melrose Abbey was a Mozart among architects.

Sir William Mitchell, The Place of Minds in the World (1933) p. 142:

One child is a Mozart with a flying start, while another foots it, and makes little way; but the course is the same, being set by the object.

Joseph Lane Hancock, Nature Sketches in Temperate America: A Series of Sketches and Popular Account of Insects, Birds,... (1911) p. 103:

He is a Mozart in the insect world, sending out his strain upon the evening air.

Henry Ward Beecher, Plymouth Pulpit: Sermons Preached in Plymouth Church, Brooklyn (1875) p. 446:

[W]e can understand how a father who is a good musician may have a son who is a Mozart—a genius in music...

From the above, it appears that "Mozart" is synonymous with "virtuoso" in any field. bd2412 T 14:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as you would expect from someone using Mozart metaphorically. Not sure if it's necessary or desired to elucidate metaphors. Maybe we need to ask the Mozart among wiktionarians?--Halliburton Shill 04:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If I were to point to a child and say, "that child is a Mozart!", I think the typical response would be, "at what?" If I were to say someone is an Einstein or a Napoleon or an Attila the Hun, I wouldn't have to specify, but I think with a Mozart I would. bd2412 T 04:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Procedural Listening

No Google Books hits, does not appear to meet CFI. bd2412 T 14:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted; appears to be spam. --EncycloPetey 00:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

politubing

Move to WT:LOP. --Connel MacKenzie 06:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Only 4 blog hits, a dozen unique Google hits overall. Nothing in books or even Usenet. DAVilla 19:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

pee off

Really? bd2412 T 13:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a euphemistic form of "piss off", in the sense of "to annoy". — Paul G 09:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Usually considered a more polite way of saying piss off.--Dmol 10:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Cites would be nice. bd2412 T 13:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes -- surprisingly difficult to find cites, considering that it is verbally very common, considered informally acceptable in almost any company. However, here are three: [35] [36] [37]. I assume that, as with piss off, the usage is (mainly UK). --Enginear 14:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Piss off in that sense is quite common in the U.S.; it's only the "leave" sense that's (mainly UK). That said, I've never heard pee off in any sense, so it might be U.K.-specific even though what it's a euphemism for is not. —Ruakh_TALK 15:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

KEEP Yes, I believe it is mainly a British term, not really euphemistic, more a lightweight piss off, just like twit is a mild way of calling someone an idiot!--Williamsayers79 14:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Can't recall when or where, but I think I've heard this used by Brits. Not so sure if I've ever heard it in Canada or the U.S. In any case, the entry now includes sourced quotations. -- WikiPedant 15:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The entry currently only has one cite, but if we add Enginear's first two cites (with are both in the sense given in the article), we'll have three. —Ruakh_TALK 16:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Question, though: Enginear's third cite suggests that pee off might be euphemistic for piss off in any sense — in which case this seems like sum-of-parts (with pee being the catch-all euphemism for piss)? —Ruakh_TALK 16:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Kemcolian

--Connel MacKenzie 15:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

limit break

I feel sort of bad with this one, because I know it's a word, and it's an exceptionally well formatted entry. It's just that I really don't want to see this turn into a gaming jargon site. Google is certainly supporting this, as expected, but google books is not. I just don't think it's really become standard vocabulary for anyone except RPG'ers. Atelaes 19:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, if this is used in RPGs, then the article should say so; it currently speaks only of certain video games. Secondly, as annoying as gaming jargon is (at least to those of us who never play RPGs/video games/whatnot), I don't think we should away legitimately widespread gaming jargon, if only because I think that's one area in which a wiki can really excel compared to other dictionaries and other online sources. Why throw away free excellence? —Ruakh_TALK 20:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

SemperBlotto has now deleted this with the deletion summary "tosh". I disagree, but not strongly enough to argue the point, so I guess that's that. —Ruakh_TALK 15:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could say I was sorry, but I'm not. I guess I just have a personal philosophy of erring on the side of respectable in these cases. However, if you feel like taking the time to find some good cites on this one, I'd be more than happy to undelete it. Atelaes 16:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, don't worry about it; I hate gaming jargon as much as the next guy, and while I do think we should keep legitimately widespread gaming jargon, it's in a vague "I think this would probably be good" way, not in a true "this is something I care about" way. —Ruakh_TALK 19:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This may have been deleted in haste - feel free to request an undelete if you really think it deserves a place here. SemperBlotto 19:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't "gaming jargon". This is a neologism only used in Final Fantasy. It would be different if it was a generic term, but this is practically a trademark. --Ptcamn 05:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

zune

I could not find it in any dictionary or Google Books (besides names). (Also, the author moved ccdc to zune calling it a typo.) Timw. 03:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made the assumption that this is simply a cheap stab at the Microsoft zune, based on some of the conributor's past contributions (i.e. Microsoftian). If I am in error on this, please accept my apologies and ask me to reinstate it (or do it yourself if you have the capability). Atelaes 03:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

inheritance powder

No disputing the existence of this term, but is it really obsolete, or just archaic, or dated, or even extant? I read a reference to it in a novel today that suggested it the term is historical (which would make it extant, not obsolete).

Is it really countable? The definition suggests that it can be used as "arsenic and thallium were used as inheritance powders", but I would think it's more likely that it is/was uncountable, as in "arsenic and thallium were used as inheritance powder". Any evidence either way? — Paul G 09:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

bizmeed

LOP? bd2412 T 13:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

see Bloomberg Wealth Magaizine "Special Report on Multi-Family Offices" September, 2005. —This unsigned comment was added by Rmmoseley (talk • contribs) 13:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Ok, find two more cites and you'll meet the CFI. bd2412 T 17:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

See The Grocer (UK) "A Friendlier Face" 16 November, 2006

See The Guardian (UK) "Moving Business into the 21st Century" 12 January, 2007

There are now three citings of this word.

Does this word now meet the criteria? —This unsigned comment was added by Mark.Crosby (talk • contribs) 13:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Please add your citations to the entry, using the format prescribed in WT:CITE. —Ruakh_TALK 15:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

-able

Sense #6, "indicating obligation": really? The contributor who added this also added an example with "taxable", which I removed as clearly exemplifying the previous senses; but I'm not so sure about his/her "payable" example. My interpretation is that "is payable", i.e. "may be paid", is simply a more polite way of saying "must be paid", but I thought I'd bring it here and see if anyone can pull up a more unambiguous example of this sense. —Ruakh_TALK 16:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Innovation capability

Is this any more than the sum of its parts? (Needs formatting and trimming) SemperBlotto 17:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

emo slides

Any takers? Nothing very obvious on Google. SemperBlotto 22:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

PKF

There are now several links referencing this term:

http://www.verasage.com/index.php/community/pkf_defined/

http://blog.rebarbusinessbuilders.com/rebar/2007/02/professional_kn.html

http://neilmcintyre.ca/index.php?p=230

employee

"A device used to unravel mechanical liquidation wire."? And what is liquidation wire anyway? Gaston 12:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You added it, you tell us. I've rolled back your deletion of the interwiki and audio links, feel free to add this sense when you have 3 or more print citations of its use. Cynewulf 13:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't! It was added by user:TheMustardOfLice on 25 December 2006. I also didn't delete the interwiki or the audio pronunciation! I have no idea what happened there, but something is wrong with the page's history. Gaston 23:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

King Arthur - nautical game

Can anyone support this definition:

1. Template:italbrac A game used at sea, when near the line, or in a hot latitude. It is performed thus: A man who is to represent king Arthur, ridiculously dressed, having a large wig made out of oakum, or some old swabs, is seated on the side, or over a large vessel of water. Every person in his turn is to be ceremoniously introduced to him, and to pour a bucket of water over him, crying, hail, king Arthur! if during this ceremony the person introduced laughs or smiles (to which his majesty endeavours to excite him, by all sorts of ridiculous gesticulations), he changes place with, and then becomes, king Arthur, till relieved by some brother tar, who has as little command over his muscles as himself.

I think it needs trimming at least. Cites would be nice!--Williamsayers79 14:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems 82.96.100.100 (talk) was fond of copying things in from the 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue. Cynewulf 14:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert on mythology, but w:King Arthur seems an unlikely name for such a game. I could imagine such a ritual being named after King Canute, and I know there is a superstition that an item must be thrown overboard when crossing the equator, as an offering to Neptune. But I don't know of any connection with King Arthur. --Enginear 17:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

rhipidate

I can't find examples in dictionaries at hand, but there are significant Google hits. The root shows up in my botanical Latin dictionary, so it's certainly plausible as a word. --EncycloPetey 21:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It's in the Dictionary of Difficult Words, but that isn't an example of usage, it's a secondary source. -- Beobach972 23:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It gets a Google-Books hit (from the Indian Police Journal, no less): [...] a progressive reduction in the expanded area of tip noticeable, tip more or less rhipidate, no appreciable change in the number of inner air bubbles observable. -- Beobach972 23:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It was included in the word list for the 2007 Scripps National Spelling Bee as well. — This comment was unsigned.

auto-ethnocide

[ autoethnocide ] The amazing one b.g.c. hit. --Connel MacKenzie 22:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved. I was able to find 5 in print, all good cites. Absolutely none on Usenet or even in blogs, save one in French. I guess this is a print type of word. DAVilla 19:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh! (slaps forehead) Misspelling of the hyphenated form. Thanks! --Connel MacKenzie 06:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, apart from just writing '''RFV passed''' the template to use is {{process|rfv-passed}} although there still isn't any bot around that catches it. DAVilla 07:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Utlanning

With about 1000 Google hits, it's feasible as an entry, but the top hits are Urban Dictionary and blogs. Neologism? --EncycloPetey 03:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This word is described in [38] and it seems that Orson Scott Card is using this along with a few other words, like varelse and framling in his series of Sci-Fi novels, according to the links. The words seem pretty un-english to me, as they are taken from the Swedish language straight off, removing the dots of two of the words: främling (a person you don't know) and utlänning (a person from another country). Varelse means a living being, such as an animal or a human being, even fantasy beings. I have a hard time to believe this would be anything else than a protologism at most. Of the 1000 matches on Google I would believe atleast 95% comes from swedish words that also match the search. ~ Dodde 00:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

pood

The page lists an alternative spelling "pot", but that's Tatar according to the pot page. Can someone provide usage of this spelling in English? -PierreAbbat 14:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

After more than a month has passed with no verification, I have removed it from pood. PierreAbbat 02:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

meat curtain

Any takers? SemperBlotto 18:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dawkinite

0 hits on books.google.com. Protologism? Dmcdevit 23:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Proper term would be Dawkinsian (which gets 45 Google Books hits). Speedy moving and closing. bd2412 T 03:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Dawkinite seems to be linked from a few places. Labeled the residual redirect as misconstruction to let RFV run its course. DAVilla 17:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Skimono Jive

Seems like nonsense. I'm not finding widespread use. Dmcdevit 23:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

SemperBlotto kindly made this excellent entry in response to my putting it at English requests.. the place I saw it was in Fromkin et al's "Introduction to Language" (1st edition, if there are more than 1), which doesn't seem to be at bgc. No ggc hits, one bgc hit, 30 google hits. Of the google hits, this looks like it's durably archives- and, moreover, it appears to be a review of a book which is not on bgc and which would probably give an additional cite. I can request Fromkin again from the library to do a manual paper cite if you guys want :) Language Lover 23:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how much one could consider a parenthetical list to be "running text". If it really exists, as we would be led to believe from that source, then there must certainly be better cites than that. DAVilla 17:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

ratepayers group

Is this any more than the sum of its parts? SemperBlotto 07:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem any different from most of our {{law}} terms. There is a sense missing, in the context of group benefits meaning groups of groups. I'd say yes, this is a technical definition...just jargon specific to both the legal and health insurance industries. --Connel MacKenzie 03:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean to RFD? Keep per Connel. DAVilla 17:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

α

The marking scheme sense. It is not used in Belgium, Germany, France, ... so I think this is regional usage, should be marked as such, under the appropriate language header. H. (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The "names in other languages" section does not belong either - these are translations that should be at alpha if they are not already there. — Paul G 15:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

sanamahi Laining

Any takers? Caps looks wrong. Encyclopedic. SemperBlotto 14:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it’s right, but both words should be capitalized (w:Meitei people). I don’t like to accept entries such as this unless the contributor can also supply the name in the original language and script. —Stephen 16:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill Lawry

Fascinating etymology of a living person. But does this nonce meet our CFI? --Connel MacKenzie 23:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The Word Map book is a fairly serious source. Apparently they did a certain amount of verification on the more bizarre bits while compiling. (Dunno how much if at all Bill was checked though.) I hadn't heard of the use before seeing it in the book. The pun on opener might be well known – an old cricketer opener went through ebay[39] a couple of weeks ago (and there were new ones for sale somewhere I've lost). I added Bill because I could google him at the drinking shop web site shown, and though I don't actually know if that's an independent use (maybe that could be found out), two occurrances seemed enough to start an entry. My best guess is it's from the 1960s and a bit dated, but in principle reasonable slang. — Kevin Ryde 00:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

duocranium

Any takers? SemperBlotto 07:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Cartesian well

Quantum mechanics sense. Not in any of my physics sources. SemperBlotto 07:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably a mistake for Artesian well or Artesian spring --EncycloPetey 08:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

β

Questioned whether β is used in chemical nomenclature. The answer is yes, it is quite common. See, for example, β-galactoside, w:Schizophyllan, w:Ocimene. —Stephen 16:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Struck, though some clarification of meaning could still be useful. DAVilla 17:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

schisis

Any takers? Supposed to be Greek, but is in wrong script. SemperBlotto 07:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved to proper script (σχίσις), given Ancient Greek treatment, but could still use Greek, if it exists. Atelaes 07:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Asthenolagnia

A Wonderfool creation. It gets one Google Books hit. If verified, it should be moved to the right name. Dmcdevit 07:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Artifactuality

Independent use? Dmcdevit 07:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

bigature

Nonce for Lord of the Rings? --Connel MacKenzie 15:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite a nonce word, but I've not heard it attested outside of the Lord of the Rings cinematography. --EncycloPetey 08:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

mixicap

--Connel MacKenzie 17:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

lose one's rag

Creative nonce - but has anyone ever used it? --Connel MacKenzie 18:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

To quote someone (maybe Oscar Wilde) in answer to the comment "I wish I'd said that": "You will, you will." ;-) Yes, it's very common in UK, but surprisingly rare in print ... though still about 100 independent b.g.c cites of use when combining all the various personal pronouns and tenses, eg most of [40]. --Enginear 19:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I heard it this morning at work. Common enough in speech, but as noted, not common in print.--Dmol 21:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is real. Παρατηρητής

usurpress

Listed as a natural part of the English language, yet is obviously restricted to a very narrow use. As a nonce, does this pass WT:CFI? What is the best way to tag it? Note: rather than removing an overlooked RFV tag, particularly as the original submitter, it is better to correct the error and list it here. --Connel MacKenzie 18:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The use to which this is restricted is no narrower than usurpers: it's just as unusual to have a plurality of usurpers as it is to have a single female one. But we certainly wouldn't delete usurpers unless we decided to delete usurper altogether. Forgive me the fact that nonce is not an everyday element of my lexicon, so I had to look it up. It seems like any plural, past tense, or other regular construction, is nonce, by the way we define nonce word. After all, the first person to use the word usurpers, made it up on the spot for their occasion (albeit using regular pluralization rules which noone would ever contest, but they made it up nonetheless). The b.g.c. results for usurpress seem quite independent :-) It's an interesting word and I think it will make our readers happy :-) If you think our definition is not good, I encourage you to rewrite it, and hopefully we can all thereby learn from you :D But there's no doubt this is a word. Language Lover 18:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I most certainly was looking at b.g.c. The archaic Russian and British texts listed there, suggest the term is obscure, limited to Russian History, no? Why are you asserting that this is a core element of the English language? 16 hits? Perhaps we simply need better methods of tagging obscurities as obscure, or nonces limited to very narrow contexts. But then, WT:CFI used to (unless there has been recent changes there) specifically call out such terms as not appropriate here. --Connel MacKenzie 19:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A word used in the early 1800s, if not earlier, in the 20th Century through to the present day you'd consider a nonce!? DAVilla 19:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• 2004, Keith Smith, Re: A Jacobite Stamp[41], alt.talk.royalty Usenet

  I have a number of these. They were issued in March 1893 and advertised the journal "The Jacobite", organ of the Legitimist Jacobite League. They are listed in "Scottish Stamp and Label Catalogue 1970" and subsequently illustrated in "Scottish Stamp News" and "Cinderella Philatelist" There are used covers in existence which show the usurpress stamp upside down with the 'stamp' of Queen Mary IV and III alongside.

• 2001, Paul Steinberg, Speak You Also: A survivor's Reckoning, p40

  I would "attend" Auschwitz with invisible resources that vastly increased the chances of survival, resources that included even my linguistic abilities, since German was my mother tongue, so to speak, and French my vernacular, while English was the language I had spoken with my brother and studied successfully in school. Finally, Russian was the rule with my father, sister, and the usurpress, and I was literally at home in it.

• 1963, Victor Alexandrov, The Kremlin: Nerve-centre of Russian History, p147

  Sophia, who was anxious not to be reckoned a usurpress and who wished to keep up appearances, held two thrones and two crowns on behalf of Ivan and Peter.

• 1868, Anonymous, Pandora (poem), The Atlantic Monthly, Vol 22, Issue 132, archived here

  Thou, that assumest to lead,

  Holding the truth and the keys of the skies,

  Art the usurpress indeed,

  And rulest thy sons with a sceptre of lies.

• 1863, Emma Robinson, Mauleverer's divorce: A Story of Woman's Wrongs, p59

  Madame Le Crampon was the absolute ruler of this machine;--her mother had ceased to hold almost any relation to it! She had abdicated in favour of that hard and implacable usurpress.

• 16??, William Cartwright, reproduced in 1951 in The Plays and Poems of William Cartwright, p421

  This yet may dash the Marriage; and Leucasia That bold Usurpress of my Bed shall miss Of being saluted Queen to night howe'r.

(Signed Language Lover)

So, omitting the humorous use, it seems Russian-history specific. So back to the original question, before some of you got bent out of shape, how should this be tagged? It is not normal/standard/regular/whatever English. --Connel MacKenzie 23:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm a little slow, but only one of the above cites has anything to do with Russian history, and I don't see how any of them are "humorous" use :). It's good though, that you have a good sense of humour, laughing is a great part of life and I'm glad my cites made you laugh :-D Now, even if there WERE some Russian history bias, that would just suggest that Russia has suffered more usurpresses. We could put a "rare" tag on this if you think it's rare (what exactly are the "rare" criteria, anyway?) But it seems to me that we ought to judge a word's rarity based on the rarity of the lemma, not the derived form. As an example, retransliterating appears to be of about the same order of rarity as usurpress, but I don't think it would be proper to mark that as rare. usurpress is basically just a conjugated form of usurper, following rules which are somewhat regular. Hmm, I think we might better understand eachother if you come out and openly say what you have against this word, I promise that as a descriptivist, I'll respect your reason no matter what, since afterall you are an English speaker and thus are a fellow steward of the language. Language Lover 00:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fellow steward? What are you going on about? No. The forms of a term do not get automatic approval on en.wiktionary, for as long as I've been here. Each spelling is subject to a separate RFV. --Connel MacKenzie 01:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for not being clearer. I didn't say forms should be immune to separate RFV (you'll note I myself did an RFV on sandmans), I said I thought it might be inappropriate to give a derived form a special tag like "rare" or "Russian history", unless there was really good reason to do so. Anyway, let's please not fight or anything. If we honestly can't find a compromise, let's put it at Wiktionary:Votes, with options "delete word", "keep word as it is", "tag word as Russian history", or "tag word as rare". In any case thanks for your unsleeping vigilance as always :-) Language Lover 01:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are forgiven that. Forgive me for being grouchy earlier. Reading "usurpress" I naturally read the humorous connotation of the term; gender is rarely applied to English words, particularly when a gender neutral term (usurper) exists in common use. That is, in normal situations, a woman who usurps is called a "usurper" not a "usurpress." So yes, this form is inherently "humorous." Why it seems to have a Russian flavor is not clear (to me.)

No, I don't think a "vote" is appropriate...that has enough traffic right now. Please, do go back to the start here - at what point did I ever suggest deletion? The initial implication/request was for an appropriate tag! Which, by the way, was why I tagged it, way back when. --Connel MacKenzie 05:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's one of the problems of taking a descriptive approach, when inflections that are formed quite naturally can't be attested, or sometimes even the base form/root is difficult to cite. For a long time we had necroposting without necropost, and we might end up with ferroequinologist but no ferroequinology. I would propose that there are certian universal and uncontentious forms that should in fact be lumped together. This would only apply to words where there are no attested irregulars (plural/singular of be and have for instance) and excusing the exceptions for patterns (such as -s or -es after long o). In this case however I'm not entirely sure that -ress could be considered "universal and uncontentious". It may be, and the proof is in the ability to define where regular application can take place. Otherwise it has to be cited. DAVilla 07:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

drink off

--Connel MacKenzie 23:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

nychthemeron

English? --Connel MacKenzie 23:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Widsith 15:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

anatopism

--Connel MacKenzie 00:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

windigo

Psychological sense. -- Beobach972 00:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I found one, but the rest of the results of a Google Books search look to be usages of the alternative spelling of wendigo. -- Beobach972 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A b.g.c. search for windigo together with disorder (link) pulls up 130 hits, most seemingly relevant; however, it seems that most of these are using "windigo" attributively ("windigo disorder", "windigo condition", "windigo psychosis", etc.), and many capitalize it as "Windigo". That said, this particular use — the putative psychotic disorder — does not seem to be an alternative spelling of wendigo, in that a b.g.c. search for wendigo together with disorder (link) pulls up only 4 hits. —Ruakh_TALK 21:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. After doing the above, I also tried b.g.c. searches for windigo and wendigo together with psychosis, each of which pulls up even more hits (233 and 10, respectively). So, definitely a keep. —Ruakh_TALK 21:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

nonce word

The reason I'm RFVing this sense is that it seems to me it includes most derived forms. For example, once cat entered the language, the first person to say cats probably made it up on the spot for a specific occasion. Granted, they did so using very regular pluralization rules, but still, they made it up. The definition we currently have is also ambiguous: it could theoretically be read as, "a word invented as a synonym of 'the occasion'". Of course I doubt many people would misread it that way, but we must always strive to give our readers the best possible dictionary in the world :-) Language Lover 00:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind an ambiguous definition if it has to cover several meanings anyway. But if you want to define it the way we should use it here then I would suggest a second definition tagged Wiktionary jargon. DAVilla 06:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think if we're going to speak of a Wiktionary-specific sense, then it's probably more appropriate for Wiktionary:Glossary, where I've put a first attempt at a definition; help wanted! —Ruakh_TALK 21:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite see what you want verified. This page is where you come when you're looking for verification (in the form of citations) that a word is actually used, or is actually used in one if its listed senses. Are you asking us to look for citations where regularly inflected and productively derived forms are described as nonce-words? If so, we needn't bother: that's not how the word is used, and whoever wrote that definition didn't intend for the definition to be interpreted that way. If you're saying that that definition is poorly worded in that it doesn't accurately reflect how the word is actually used, then appropriate places to discuss it would include Talk:nonce word and Wiktionary:Tea room. If you're saying that you don't like the word because you think it's not a meaningful way to characterize a word, then I don't think there's any place on Wiktionary to discuss that, because Wiktionary is a dictionary project, not a word discussion forum. If you're saying that you don't think Wiktionary project pages should use the term because it's not a meaningful way to characterize a word, then the appropriate place to discuss that would probably be Wiktionary:Beer parlour. —Ruakh_TALK 21:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently withdrawn. DAVilla 12:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

pro-civil

Every google book hit I can find simply has this as part of "pro-civil rights" or "pro-civil liberties" or "pro-civil defense", etc. Can someone please demonstrate that this adjective does in fact exist in its own right. Atelaes 01:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it does. It is just a case of pro- added to the front of a two word non-hyphenated phrase. I suspect that the "proper" way to deal with such words is to hyphenate the whole lot, eg pro-civil-rights. If pro-civil had a meaning, I suggest it would describe someone who approved of towns, or perhaps was anti-military, rather than the meanings stated. --Enginear 12:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul G had a reference somewhere describing the rule; the first hyphen is the only one kept for normal construction of hyphenated compounds like "pro-civil rights." I agree that describing it as an adjective seems wrong. --15:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The three adjectives "civic", "pro-civic" and "pro-civil" are nearly synonymous, with the exception that "pro-civic" and "pro-civil" are more active and more extreme. Concerning the word's etymology, Latin pro- means "for", "supporting" or "favoring" and Latin civilis means "citizens", "community" or "society", thus the entire word means "for citizens" (supporting and upholding the best interests of citizens). I will attempt to provide some forms of documented proof of this adjective and its antonym "anti-civil" (meaning against the best interests of citizens) do exist in their own right; both words of course are rarely used and difficult to find, but they do exist. I stumbled across the words, unexpectedly in six articles written by two CNN journalists, namely Nic Robertson and Rym Brahimi, back in December 2002. Its been five years since I read the two articles on CNN's website, and if CNN hasn't deleted them, I will show provide other webpages where I found the adjectives "pro-civil" ("pro-civic") and "anti-civil".

Please bear in mind that we require three independent cites spanning a year. But a link to that CNN article would most certainly count as one of the three. Atelaes 18:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

flow of meaning

This seems like corporate jargon. Atelaes 02:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Also several more from the same user. SemperBlotto 07:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • We carry corporate jargon. bd2412 T 13:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If attested and labelled correctly. --Connel MacKenzie 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

binner

Really? Note: hundreds of Google Books hits for the word, but I found none that came through with the sense. bd2412 T 04:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Joke entry - deleted. It does seem to have some sort of meaning - so may reappear correctly. SemperBlotto 07:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't the guidelines here prescribe that the entry be copied to its talk page? This has not been done in this case. __meco 06:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the guidelines do say that. They are out of date. Thanks for pointing it out. We changed the routine for deleted entries for the very good reason that the Talk pages are deleted along with the entry pages. Therefore the information would become available only to admins (and not necessarily kept for ever anyway). The present policy is that entries which pass RFV have the discussion moved to their talk pages, while those that fail have their discussion kept forever, visible to all, in the RFV Archive. There is a proposed change in how that is referenced, which I will need to reread to understand. Perhaps someone who does understand can rewrite the guidelines. --Enginear 21:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Quaffle

This is a term used exclusively in Harry Potter, which I don't think can be attested as independent. It does not appear to have entered use as a generic word. Dmcdevit 08:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Bludger

As above. Dmcdevit 08:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Snitch

As above. Dmcdevit 08:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

continuous advertising tracking

Previously failed. Someone insisting it is a genuine component of standard English. So, to give every possible benefit of a doubt, re-nominating RFV instead of deleting immediately. --Connel MacKenzie 15:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Zero Google Books hits. Amazon.com has books containing similar phrases ("continuous consumer tracking", continuous brand tracking", etc.) but not this exact phrase. bd2412 T 21:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

noncupative

Shouldn't this be nuncupative. Also, it is an adjective but defined as if it were a noun. SemperBlotto 19:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

writing under erasure

--Connel MacKenzie 05:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• 1990, Jon Stratton, Writing Sites: A Genealogy of the Postmodern World, p15

  Derrida remarks that Heidegger, in Zur Seinsfrage only allows the word 'being' to be read if it is crossed out. Derrida argues that this moment, the moment of the writing of 'being' under erasure:

  is the final writing of an epoch. Under its strokes the presence of a transcendental signified is effaced while still remaining legible. Is effaced while still remaining legible, is destroyed while making visible the very idea of the sign. In as much as it delimits onto-theology, the metaphysics of presence and logocentrism, this last writing is also the first writing.

  Heidegger, Derrida is arguing, is using phonetic alphabet writing to mark the productive moment of fracture. By writing under erasure Heidegger is signalling the fracture which calls the possibility of articulating being (it is being which is under erasure) into presence.

• 1998, Geoffrey Shacklock, Being Reflexive in Critical Educational and Social Research, p173

  Sous rature, 'writing under erasure', is first illustrated weakly via a concrete metaphor (pool) but then stepped up twice to arrive at the stronger example of putting identity itself under erasure: 'movement is shape'.

• 1995, Graham Priest, Beyond the Limits of Thought: beyond Limits Thought, p245

  Consider writing under erasure. Whether one likes it or not, even 'being' appears to refer to being - or how are we to understand what Heidegger is on about?

It looks legit, but I think the artical could use significant reworking. For one thing, it's a noun/present participle, not a verb. And might deserve a context tag. Language Lover 16:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You are suggesting this is a valid idiom? Recognizable outside of an astronomically tiny context? --Connel MacKenzie 06:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

pescetarian

If this really is a word in common use, it should be on WT:FWC. --Connel MacKenzie 06:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• 2006, Ayun Halliday, Dirty Sugar Cookies: Culinary Observations, Questionable Taste, p151

  "Why don't you just tell people you're a pescetarian?" a vegetarian I met recently asked, cutting me off midapologia for my beat-up leather jacket and my callow habit of behaving as if fish are neurologically no more complex than eggplants.

• 2005, Kirsten Hartvig, Pierre Jean Cousin, The Complete Guide to Nutritional Health: More Than 600 Foods and Recipes for Overcoming Illness and Boosting your Immunity, p149

  Immunity follows a plant-based approach to improving immunity that is relevant to every style of eating—carnivore, pescetarian, vegetarian and vegan.

• 1999, Jessica R. Shawl, "Vegetarians"???[42], rec.food.veg Usenet

  I'm curious what you do when you encounter a friend, family member, whoever who claims to be a "vegetarian who eats fish". It *really* bothers me when this happens because it contributes to the assumption that I eat fish and I don't, because I am a vegetarian. I feel like it gives all vegetarians a bad name.

  Do you correct them? Do you not bother? And how do you correct them? I was thinking that saying something like "oh, you mean your a pescetarian" would be ok and give them the appropriate term. Speaking of which, how is "pescetarian" pronounced?

I've heard this before, but I am one, so might have a skewed perception of its commonness. So, taking a more objective approach, and searching Google Web Search and Google Book Search for each term matching /^p[ei]sc[aeio](vege)?tarian$/ (if you'll pardon the geekspeak), I found that while each gets at least one Web hit, only pescatarian (31,300 Web, 7 Books) and pescetarian (22,300 Web, 5 Books) are truly common (as these things go), though each of pescovegetarian (851 Web, 6 Books), piscatarian (865 Web, 2 Books), piscetarian (505 Web, 1 Books), pescotarian (753 Web, 0 Books), pescitarian (680 Web, 0 Books), and piscitarian (462 Web, 0 relevant Books) is common enough not to be discarded out of hand. (The other eight terms matching /^p[ei]sc[aeio](vege)?tarian$/ all get 1–12 Web and 0 Books, so I assume they're typos or misspellings or whatnot). Incidentally, note that the top two terms are pronounced differently; at least, I'd assume the pesca- has a hard c and pesce- has a soft c. —Ruakh_TALK 20:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So, pescatarian, pescetarian, and pescovegetarian all pass CFI? Which one do we want to have as the main form, of which the other two words are alternative spellings? Pescatarian? -- Beobach972 23:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have vague recollections of a nurse coming into Y6 at primary school to tell us about puberty and somehow ending up talking about vegetarianism. She used this term, although I think she pronounced it "piscetarian". RobbieG 22:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

smiley face

Second sense - I've never seen a smiley called a smiley face. Evar. --Connel MacKenzie 15:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• 2002, Lisa Malia McDonough, Lisa, the Brief Life of a Writer, p136

  Enter the smiley face, the computer hacker's version of comic relief.

• 2007, C. N. Barton, The Cambridge Diaries: A Tale of Friendship, Love And Economics, p94

  Against Mary Jane's wishes, I texted Gavin just to reassure him that I was not going out with his girlfriend. I put a smiley face at the end of the message.

• 2005, Craig Cornwell, Whoops! There Goes the Neighbourhood, p20

  Two minutes later a reply came back.

  Cool, see you tomorrow...x

  Campbell sent back a smiley face, did a little dance around the bedroom and flopped back onto his bed wearing a smiley face of his own.

These are just examples where the word is used for emoticons. For generic, handwritten smiles, eg those that junior high school students write in their binders, there are many other cites. Language Lover 16:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

How should the usage note describe that as a misuse, that somehow manages to squeak past our faulty CFI? --Connel MacKenzie 04:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

When I first saw this I, too, had never heard smiley face used for emoticon. But I think the first person to succeed in internalizing the entire English lexicon in all its vast size, will have their brain explode :-) We learn new things every day, and must not assume that just because a word is not in our personal lexicon, it does not exist... Language Lover 03:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OTOH, it is a serious failing, to not warn readers of probable misuse. --Connel MacKenzie 06:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

April

dag

Are any of these senses real? -- Beobach972 02:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Australian sense of a "loser" seems OK, judging by the fact that it's been in there a long time and Hippietrail (an Australian) edited the article back then. There is also a verb sense pertaining to the cutting of cloth that isn't in there yet. --EncycloPetey 02:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about the cloth sense, (and assuming that is not the one you are questioning) but I can vouch for both of the others. Dag as an insult is very common in Australia, but is also the name of the fly blown mess at the back of a sheep.--Dmol 15:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take your word for it; the obscurity of the sheep definition just made me suspicious. -- Beobach972 16:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

dispute resolution organization

Yet another odd corporate phrase. It's been cleaned up and its original spam removed, but now it needs to be determined if this really is a part of the English language. Atelaes 06:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What's the question here? Did you mean for this to be on WT:RFD? This is clearly in widespread use, as a type of business. --Connel MacKenzie 04:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

sugar parent

Google Books suggests this might be a nonce term or a protologism. — Paul G 09:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

...ie, the only b.g.c. quotes for this sense are the two already in the entry. I'm not surprised at the 1987 quote, since many "gender-neutral" words were coined in the 80s. Interestingly, I see there are about 7 b.g.c. cites for sugar mummy. --Enginear 21:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

basterd sugar

Should this be "bastard sugar"? — Paul G 14:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think so, "bastard sugar" has plenty of cites and looks like an excellent addition, but "basterd sugar" only has one ggc hit and 23 google web hits (of which some are from Wiktionary). Great find Paul G! *high five* Language Lover 14:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Some of the translations contain translations of "bastard", so "bastard sugar" looks much more likely. — Paul G 15:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Dogshelf

Any UKers have any opinion? Support from (b/g)gc is pretty flimsy Language Lover 01:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never come across it, except on this site. --Enginear 12:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked and cited dog shelf a while ago. Never saw it as one word, always "dog shelf". Probably delete the twiki. Yes, there is only one cite provided, but it does seem very real, but fairly local/regional usage. Robert Ullmann 14:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

meep

There does seem to be some evidence for usage as an interjection (probably on account of the roadrunner), but I see no evidence for usage as noted. Perhaps I should have simply deleted this one. Sigh...it's so hard to decide between the two sometimes. Atelaes 06:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Information exchange

Is this idiomatic (more than sum of its parts)? Caps bad? Plural bad? Encyclopedic? SemperBlotto 11:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Should be tagged as "business jargon" or "computing" I'd think. It is a set phrase; those definitions look accurate. (Caps is wrong, plural is correct.) --Connel MacKenzie 03:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Is closer to "communications", as it is not restricted to computing. Use is prevalent in NATO documentation to describe the required communication capabilities to interconnect operational force nodes. Added references to show its use. I don't know how to change caps through interface. -- William Pirkey 17:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is it back on the RFV? I thought I justified it, as no further comments followed and I removed the RFV tag. -- William Pirkey 15:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove the discussion-link tag. As {{nosecondary}} indicates:

Please see the description of what the request for verification process is for, at the top of this page. The purpose is not fact-checking, but to verify whether a sense meets our criteria for inclusion. "Occurrence in other dictionaries" is not one of our criteria. The word usage is there, not "listing" and was put there very intentionally. Blindly copying from other dictionaries leaves us vulnerable to copyright violations, allegations of copyright violation, Nihilartikels and invalid appeals to authority. Referring to other dictionaries is fine to clarify (or even correct) a definition. But other dictionaries are not valid citations for a request for verification.

Please see Entry layout explained for information on better citation formatting. Also note that this is not likely to be accepted as a (promotional) "Proper noun" entry, but is likely to remain as a set phrase. --Connel MacKenzie 16:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

wordflow

-- Beobach972 20:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Snopalse

-- Beobach972 20:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Snoprue

-- Beobach972 20:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

beat 'em-up

Is the spelling for beat 'em-up OK? It seems a bit iffy. --Keene 21:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove the gaming-specific nonsense, and it could be a real entry. --Connel MacKenzie 03:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

garden shed scientist

Really? No Google Books hits. bd2412 T 15:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

cash out

Should this be cash up and cash in? No formatting. SemperBlotto 16:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No. To cash out (at least in the US), is to settle the cash situation at the end of a work shift. Example: A pizza delivery driver acquires a "bank" at the start of a work shift in order to make change for customers. At the end of the shift, the "bank" and all delivery proceeds are reconciled with store records and collected profits deposited with the shift manager. I don;t know whether the terminology applies outside the US. --EncycloPetey 17:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That is cash up in the UK. SemperBlotto 19:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've also used it in the gambling sense (again in the US). Atelaes 19:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Very common in the USA...clearly widespread use. --Connel MacKenzie 03:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

the primal scene

Any takers? Including the the? SemperBlotto 19:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved to primal scene, cited, tag removed. Widsith 15:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

Are we now going to have to define every wiki-specific sense? I thought we'd decided not to include such usages. --EncycloPetey 02:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that debate (IIRC) was right as WT:VOTE was starting, and wasn't particularly well defined. I have thought we should have these (appropriately tagged, of course) for a long time. But for the specific entry vandalism, I don't see it as wiki-specific - it is simply kids with cans of spray paint, in the most generic sense imaginable. --Connel MacKenzie 03:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the current definition is Wikipedia-specific, as if we don't get vandalism round here (yeah, right). — Paul G 14:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Are there any implications for Wikipedia in defining this here? I doubt it's Wiktionary's charge to define these terms. Are there any legal ramifications? e.g. "Judge, this wasn't vandalism even according to their own definition." DAVilla 15:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, I doubt it. Most Wikipedians would be more comfortable at dictionary.com than here. Our only charge is to uphold CFI. In general, making exceptions for self-references is a bad idea that tends to make us look less professional and serious. We should err on the side of deletion, not inclusion, with these sorts of terms, especially ones like this that don't pass the independence clause of CFI. Dmcdevit·t 23:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is it listed as jargon at all? Surely sense 1 is adequate to describe vandalism of a wiki. RobbieG 22:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it. I'm getting rid of it. It doesn't seem anyone is arguing strongly for it anyway. DAVilla 16:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

prod

I've never ever heard of this Wikipedia-specific usage. --EncycloPetey 02:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I've actually used the w:Template:Prod. --Connel MacKenzie 03:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

blidget

--Connel MacKenzie 03:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Probable protologism. Only Google book hits seem to be OCR errors, mostly for budget. Deleted SemperBlotto 16:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note that it keeps re-appearing on Wikipedia. Transwiki:Blidget. The term obviously has a rabid wiki-aware fan base. --Connel MacKenzie 06:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

subplot

Definition does not seem to match b.g.c. uses. --Connel MacKenzie 04:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Added second definition, link to Wikipedia and quotations for each definition. Removed rfv. SemperBlotto 15:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Epper

English? Capitalized? Plural OK? SemperBlotto 07:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

HUD

Acronym or initialism, or both, depending on the sense? — Paul G 14:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Acronym, only. --Connel MacKenzie 04:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

投げる

Of the WWWJDIC and my personal yellow paper Japanese/English dictionary, neither of them have the "fly" sense. Is it true? (Maybe it is. I just don't know. I'd like to find out!)  :-) Language Lover 23:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm for removing the sense because the direct connection between the meaning of "投げる" and "fly" is almost nothing as said above. Maybe only in a case in which "fly" is synonymous to "throw", the word "投げる" can be translated into "fly"; e.g. 「人々は彼に向かって石を投げた。」 --> "People let fly stones at him." The first meaning "throw" alone would be enough for now. --Tohru 11:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: that's not the verb used to translate "he flew the plane"? —Ruakh_TALK 20:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Right -- it seems "he flew the plane" would be "飛行機を操縦しました". Cynewulf 20:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like a mixup between 飛ばす send flying and 飛ぶ go flying. Delete sense. Cynewulf 20:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. I deleted the sense. --Tohru 04:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Whig cherokee

--Connel MacKenzie 04:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete. It gets zero hits on Google Book Search, zero hits on Google Groups — even zero hits on Google Web Search! It takes serious effort to find a two-word phrase with no Google hits at all. —Ruakh_TALK 07:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete :) Good catch whoever found this. :) Language Lover 03:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted – zero g-hits, zero gb-hits. Widsith 15:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

impromptu

Second defn. --Keene 17:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that that definition is mostly accurate; at least, high school forensics competitions in the U.S. state of Michigan have such a category, though I don't know how widespread that is. I'd imagine most U.S. state forensics leagues have similar categories, but if I recall correctly, the National Forensics League does not. —Ruakh_TALK 20:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to erase this defn then...but then again I'm not American, you know, just dubious. --Keene 20:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would we delete it? —Ruakh_TALK 21:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

But the second definition for the adjective is that of a noun "a category . ." SemperBlotto 21:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Plausible; but I don't recall ever hearing this, here in America. --Connel MacKenzie 15:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have, but I don't see it as any different from the primary definition. It's merely a more specific use, not a more specialized use, to have to give an impromptu speech using a topic drawn at random. --EncycloPetey 17:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, in Michigan it has a specialized sense in that while impromptu and extemporaneous are usually synonyms, Michigan forensics competitions have separate, non-identical impromptu and extemporaneous categories; and I'd guess it's the same elsewhere in the U.S. That said, any explanation of that would probably be encyclopedic rather than definitional, so we're probably better off deleting. —Ruakh_TALK 20:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

In South Dakota, we have competitions where their are separate extemporaneous and impromptu events. the impromptu events are usually held to keep people busy because they have been eliminated from other competition. A person from any other type of event can participate. The main events such as Humorous, Prose, Poetry, Dramatic, Extemporaneous, or Readers' Theater have an elimination structure in bigger events and any one of the participants that are not continuing to further rounds usually participate in Impromptu. This definition should be moved to more of a noun sense. —Cryptman 19 April 2007

chemp

Good number of Google books hits, but all the ones I've looked at so far are scannos of chemo or cheap, or just onomatopoeia that have nothing to do with self-proclaimed expertise. bd2412 T 17:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

never smoker

Is this valid at all, without the hyphen? Used at all? In common use? --Connel MacKenzie 18:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• 2005, Fred Hirsch, IASLC Textbook of Prevention and Detection of Early Lung Cancer, p 38

  ... and the age-specific lung cancer death rate does not decline to that of the never smoker.

• 1991, American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation Convention, Abstracts of Research Papers, p127

  In 1968 subjects classified themselves according to their present smoking behavior as either a smoker, ex-smoker or never smoker.

• 1990, DIANE Publishing Company, Health Benefits of Smoking Cessation: A Report of the Surgeon General, p197

  Line A represents an immediate and complete reversal of the effect of smoking, so that the quitter almost instantly assumes the rate of the never smoker.

These are all from the very first page of the gbc search. Whether "never smoker" or "never-smoker" should be the main entry, and which is the alternative spelling, is up to dispute (and it's a good thing Connel MacKenzie has ignited debate about this); it can't really be disputed that both are used. Language Lover 20:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why hello. Wasn't the result of the debate to use relative measure, when a correct form (e.g. never-smoker) is so overwhelmingly prevalent? --Connel MacKenzie 06:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you'll need to provide some sort of evidence that the unhyphenated version is incorrect or non-prevalent. Going through the first forty b.g.c. hits for "never smoker" (which includes both versions), it seems that while there's a strong preference (almost 90/10) for the hyphenated version when the noun is used attributively, there's only a fairly weak preference (not even 60/40) when it's used substantively; so while I do think it makes sense to take never-smoker as the main term and never smoker as a variant of it, I think if you want to eliminate never smoker, you'll have to actually make a case for doing so. So, start talking. —Ruakh_TALK 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

In light of Connel's and Ruakh's research, I switched the role of never smoker and never-smoker so now the former is an alternative spelling of the latter. Thanks, you guys both rock, we can always count on both of you to catch things like this! :D Keep up the good work!!! I did a similar change to ever smoker and ever-smoker.  :-) Language Lover 18:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. —Ruakh_TALK 21:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Muth-labben

Can anything be rescued from this? SemperBlotto 18:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, the NET notes this:

"The meaning of the Hebrew term עַלְמוּת (’almut) is uncertain. Some mss divide the form into עַל מוּת (’al mut, “according to the death [of the son]”), while the LXX assumes a reading עֲלֻמוֹת עַל (’al ’alumot, “according to alumoth”). The phrase probably refers to a particular tune or musical style."

So, I'd consider it an intricacy of Biblical scholarship. At the very least, such a discussion should be taking place at a Hebrew entry (and be trimmed down by leaps and bounds). Even then, I don't know exactly where it would go, and in any case, I don't feel I have the requisite knowledge of Hebrew to do such a thing justice. Delete. Atelaes 19:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The phrase is in a title, or note, on the Psalm ("to the chief musician upon Muth-labben" or similar), it does not appear in the KJV. Would be good to have the Hebrew entry (however vague on meaning), and have this as a soft redirect of some sort. Do need a Hebrew expert. Robert Ullmann 10:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "it does not appear in the KJV"? It does. It's also in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to the KJV. However, it is (as you say) part of an annotation (from the Hebrew text) on the Pslam rather than part of an actual Psalm. According to Strong's, this is its only use in the KJV, and we have no context for determining its meaning. I agree with Atelaes; delete. --EncycloPetey 11:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten it now; please take a look and let me know what you think. I'm really not a Bible scholar, not even close, so I can't guarantee it's exactly high-quality; but at least it looks like an actual entry now. It or a variant spelling is used in a number of different Bible translations, and while it probably doesn't meet CFI (I suspect the various translations took it from each other rather than using it independently), I think it might be worth keeping anyway. —Ruakh_TALK 20:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

mopwater

--Connel MacKenzie 19:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• 1949, Cornell University, Epoch, p196

  Below in the narrow valley, a gray stream simmered, no more than a trickle of mopwater in summer

• 1998, Loudell Snow, Walkin' Over Medicine, p92

  The wary householder might also sprinkle salt around the house to keep away unwanted visitors, add a dollop of pepper and a little urine to the mopwater to prohibit the entry of evil spirits, ...

• 2004, Joe Jackson, How I Left the Great State of Tennessee and Went on to Better Things, p39

  He was a scrawny sort, not over seventeen, with pimples in the corners of his lips and hair the color of mopwater.

From [43]. It does seem like there are possibly some more obscure senses, but I wasn't able to figure out when I made this entry, whether "Mopwater Motif" has a distinct meaning in art, or just means a motif reminiscent of mopwater... It might be worthwhile for a good English speaker to research :-) Thanks Connel :-) Language Lover 20:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Quotes added to article. --EncycloPetey 17:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

metatag

meta tag is how it is written, right? --Connel MacKenzie 19:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly write it as two words, but "metatag" gets plenty of hits on b.g.c., and they don't seem to be typos or scannos. —Ruakh_TALK 20:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's cited now. —Ruakh_TALK 19:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

RFVpassed. —Ruakh_TALK 02:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Triskaidecophobia

"fear of the number 13": not in OED, and only one Google Books hit. Dmcdevit 06:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Rare misspelling of triskaidekaphobia. —Ruakh_TALK 07:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I hadn't realized. Deleted. Dmcdevit 07:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Remembrall

A Harry Potter coinage. Any evidence of independent use? Dmcdevit 06:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, deleted --EncycloPetey 17:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Keeper

As above. Dmcdevit 06:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 02:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Riffraction Fading

No hits on Google. Encyclopedic looking, caps?? --Dmol 10:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Totally wrong. No such word as "riffraction". Deleted SemperBlotto 11:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think they meant refraction fading, as in w:Thermal Fading. —Stephen 19:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It was meant as a blend, "Refraction – Diffraction Fading", but it doesn't look legit. DAVilla 23:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

karcist

Any takers? Not in OED. Answers.com redirects it to Internet! SemperBlotto 15:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

b.g.c. indicates a bunch of secondary sources. --Connel MacKenzie 06:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

disir

Icelandic, perhaps? --Connel MacKenzie 17:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

dis#Etymology 2 gives disir as the English plural of dis in one of its senses. Are you disputing this? —Ruakh_TALK 19:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

...it's actually cited there as well. Widsith 10:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

union list

How could this be limited to Libraries? In programming, it is union + list (not idiomatic, sum of parts, not set phrase, etc.) to refer to any such collection. --Connel MacKenzie 06:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean to RFD, or if it's cited will that be sufficient for you? DAVilla 23:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Supercalifragilisticoespialidoso

Any takers? Caps? SemperBlotto 06:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... this sounds like the Italian form as well (I've heard it, but not seen it written down), so it could well be the Spanish. As for the capitalisation, if I remember rightly, the OED gives it capitalised only, and only as the name of the song rather than as an independently usable adjective. — Paul G 17:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It’s correct, except it’s lowercase supercalifragilisticoespialidoso. Moved. —Stephen 18:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wendy's

Any evidence of attributive or generic use, as required by CFI? Dmcdevit 09:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't know it was a burger bar (doesn't seem to be very common in the UK). If I read "we had lunch at Wendy's" - I would have assumed it was at the house of a person called Wendy. That's a reason we should accept ALL words in ALL languages. SemperBlotto 10:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Er, so? There's a hardware store downtown called Joe's. Shall I make an entry? And every business? These are just encyclopedic entries. Dmcdevit 18:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I have created Joe's. I don't think we should waste our time adding such entries, but I wouldn't delete them either. SemperBlotto 08:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
      • *Sigh*, I picked a bad example, perhaps. Joe's gives a definition of the possessive, which, (I suppose, though I don't particularly like it) is a word that can already be attested independently of its business sense. So, if I read "we got a hammer from Joe's," like your "we had lunch at Wendy's," I would still think that it was from a man named Joe, or at least from a store owned by Joe (and not simply a store named, for whatever reason, "Joe's"). If you want to actually define that, you have to actually say that there is a hardware store named Joe's, as our Wendy's specifies it is the name of a specific fast-food restaurant. So if you think that we should define all businesses you migt want to add that sense, or beter yet, there is another hardware store called B & I Hardware Specialties. Dmcdevit 19:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as spam/advertising. This entry may become a poster-child of how tricky the WT:CFI distinction can be. --Connel MacKenzie 15:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Clarification: if we change WT:CFI, to (as a bare minimum) have an entry here for every Wikipedia entry, then this obviously would stay. Without such a vote, it is too far a stretch. --Connel MacKenzie 20:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not we keep this, it's a good example of a common problem which comes up when "defining" proper nouns like this: someone not very good at English could read this and say, "Oh, English speakers have a special word for 'chain of fast food restaurants'. My favorite Wendy's is Inn 'n' Out! (Literally: My favorite chain of fast food restaurants is Inn 'n' Out!)". This is hardly the appropriate place to discuss this, but I wonder if we shouldn't set it up so if people search for something we don't have, but which Wikipedia has, the "we dont have this page" response would include a {{wikipedia}} box... Language Lover 20:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That is accomplished by deleting Wendy's from here; subsequent searches will then point to searching Wikipedia, (that line above the box containing all the preload buttons!) as always. --Connel MacKenzie 06:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

One reason I would like to see entries like this accepted is that they often convey more meaning than just a mere location. Wendy's (as I understand it) is means a quick cheap meal, but dining at the Ritz has a completly different meaning, implying grandeur and opulance. The same with car types, Ferarri and Lada both state something about their owners more than the mere description of their form of transport.
There is no simple answer, and I certainly am not advocating that we include every local business in our listings. But CFI could be expanded somewhat in these circumstances.--Dmol 21:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What you are decribing is an attributive sense. "Wendy's" being used to mean "cheap dining" and not just a fast food restaurant. Please read CFI again, such uses are already what are required to attest the word. So, if that claim you make is true, than please provide citations to verify it; that was the entire point of the listing. That also isn't an expansion of CFI. If you can't find evidence of an attributive use, however, keeping the article would be a significant expansion, in the direction away from normal dictionary standards. Dmcdevit 15:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't recall "Wendy's" connotating "cheap" at all. --Connel MacKenzie 06:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Burger King

Any evidence of attributive or generic use, as required by CFI? Dmcdevit 09:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

lolers

Many Google book hits, but none in the "meaning" given. If it is real, what sort of capitalization should it have, and what is the part of speech? SemperBlotto 14:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted again with prejudice, as yet-another LOL leet variant that obviously is not part of the English language. --Connel MacKenzie 20:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

concierge

Janitor! Good lord, no. --Connel MacKenzie 15:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be yet another transponder (a word that means different thing each side of the pond). Originally in France, a concierge would be a woman who presided over the entrance hall of a block of flats (apartments). It has acquired this meaning in the UK (though most often a man) and, in addition is the person who you contact to get things done (even if he does not always do the things himself). Not sure if it is a janitor - as this word is not used much in the UK. SemperBlotto 16:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

We'd call that a "building superintendent" in the US (or simply a "super"). --EncycloPetey 17:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

starjump

The "Teching Tumbling" doesn't seem to match - other b.g.c. hits seem unrelated. --Connel MacKenzie 20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think I was taught them at school in the 60s, and my 5-yr old was taught them last month. A bit more common in the plural [44] and significantly more as star jump. Arguably therefore a misspelling. --Enginear 22:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps a regional tag is more appropriate than a misspelling tag? --Connel MacKenzie 15:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of spelling, I'm curious about the defintion, A form of exercise where one touches one's toes then jumps up. My understanding of starjump is jumping up and spreading out your arms and legs (hence the star) before landing again with the feet together and the arms back by your side. (Repeat ad nauseum). The def given does not seem to indicate this. Is my understanding of it another def, or is the one listed just a bit vague.--Dmol 20:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Like a jumping jack? —Ruakh_TALK 22:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Vaguely like that. I think Dmol is correct...When I saw our definition, I thought I had misremembered the exercise, but he agrees with my memory, as does one of the bgc hits, so I suspect our definition is wrong. --Enginear 14:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Cited now, but marked as an alternate spelling of star jump. —Ruakh_TALK 14:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

impregnable

2nd sense, "not able to get pregnant". It's hard to research this since the 1st sense is overwhelmingly more common. However, searching the usual archives for "pregnant impregnable" (without quotation marks), gave some evidence that, on the contrary, the word has an obscure sense, "ABLE to get pregnant", ie, the opposite of what we have. But I didn't research it long, so...  :) Language Lover 18:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• No, he means inconceivable! But seriously, there is a verb impregn (meaning impregnate) from which this would mean "able to be impregnated". SemperBlotto 18:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Searching through the first few pages of b.g.c. hits for pregnancy impregnable, I get a few that seem to be "able to get pregnant" (most clearly http://books.google.com/books?id=J34gAAAAMAAJ&q=impregnable&pgis=1), but also a few that seem to be the reverse (e.g. http://books.google.com/books?id=U18QAAAAIAAJ&q=impregnable&pgis=1, though I'm really not sure about this one). Both uses seem to be incredibly rare, though; even pairing the word with "pregnancy" mostly pulls up hits in the normal sense (which, incidentally, is the only sense the OED gives). —Ruakh_TALK 21:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Jew down

--Connel MacKenzie 14:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Jew down and jew down are now both adequately cited. The latter is very easy to get cites for off of b.g.c.; the former is easy to get cites for if you're O.K. with texts that set it off with quote marks, though I managed to find three cites that did not. —Ruakh_TALK 05:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. —Ruakh_TALK 16:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Baltic

Scottish slang sense. -- Beobach972 17:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any cites, but it's very common to hear people saying, "It's absolutely Baltic today!" – not just in Scotland but in other parts of the UK. Widsith 14:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

ironsic

Three google hits, one of which is an obvious typo for ironic, and one using the term as "Jeremy Ironsic" (in the manner of w:Jeremy Irons). The third does not match the stated definition. --EncycloPetey 23:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Probable joke entry, Should be deleted. SemperBlotto 07:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  OK, deleted --EncycloPetey 17:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Twino

Not in any dictionary I can find. Some Google book hits, some of them OCR errors and none seeming to have this definition. SemperBlotto 07:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

holiday

These senses:

1. (UK) (slang) The part of the male anatomy between the testicles and the phallus.
2. (US) (slang) An area of a wall or other object that has not been covered by paint or stain.

Citations, please? At the moment, they look like joke entries. — Paul G 17:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The second one I've heard and used myself (US). (Aren't the tags in the entry on the wrong senses? Or one is?) —This unsigned comment was added by Robert Ullmann (talk • contribs) 12:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

Hekaheka added the tag to sense 4 and removed it from sense 6 in this edit. He/she didn't add sense 4 to this page or attempt to justify removing the tag from sense 6. —Ruakh_TALK 19:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

bostin

U.D. --Connel MacKenzie 05:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not U.D. —Ruakh_TALK 15:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

greedtard

So, should I have simply deleted this? Or does someone else wish to offer a suitable tag for this entry? --Connel MacKenzie 06:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Calling it a neologism is generous, since there are no Google book hits, and of the 8 Google hits, one is a mirror site of one of the others, and one is your todo page. --EncycloPetey 06:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. Deleted SemperBlotto 07:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Legolas

Legolas is an English given name? In the real world? Dmcdevit 06:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not in any UK census from 1841 to 1901 - but these days, who knows? SemperBlotto 07:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Mered

This entry is real; there is a person identified by this name in the English translation of the Bible. However, he is obscure even by standards of Biblical scholarship. The complete passage in which his name appears as follows (quoting the New RSV); I Chr. 4:17:

The sons of Ezrah: Jether, Mered, Epher, and Jalon. These are the sons of Bithiah, daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered married; and she conceived and bore Miriam, Shammai, and Ishbah father of Eshtemoa.

Now why did someone feel that Mered deserved an entry out of all the individuals in that list? The bigger question is: Do English "translations" of the names of inidividuals mentioned once in a Biblical genealogy qualify under CFI? --EncycloPetey 06:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm....that is a tough one. However, under the current (soon to be official policy, hopefully) About Ancient Greek, his Ancient Greek name would, in fact, qualify. The ultimate fact is that I think it unlikely that there is any piece of literature that even approaches the cultural impact of the Hebrew Bible. So I would argue that even a nonce word (or name) from that work merits an entry. Atelaes 07:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In the original language, I would agree with you. But does that apply if the word appears in only one language's translation? Do we need to know how Mered was written in every translation of the Bible? What possible value could there be in that? The Ancient Greek and Hebrew certainly have some scholarly value, but I doubt that other language's equivalents do. --EncycloPetey 07:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And how about the Latin? Atelaes 07:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Like all Biblical names, they get used as Christian names. This one is rare though - only two people in the 1901 English census - both in Cornwall. SemperBlotto 07:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Those examples of Mered may be from a contraction of a Brythonic name, rather than based on the Biblical one. Also, I have yet to encounter someone named Ashpenaz. --EncycloPetey 07:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think every word in the KJV/Authorized Version merits entry (I'd make a similar argument for Shakespeare and a few others). In this case at Template:RQ:Authorized Version. Robert Ullmann 15:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

But you didn't say so above when we were discussing Muth-labben? This word appears in the KJV, but in isolation and with uncertain meaning. --EncycloPetey 17:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Missed that. But yes, we should have that entry too. Needs some cleaning up. Robert Ullmann 10:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

stratwork

Any takers? SemperBlotto 06:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

pagliacci

Italian etymology is correct (plural of pagliaccio). But is it an English word? It is not in the OED or any other of my dictionaries. SemperBlotto 11:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"a pagliacci" does get a lot of b.g.c. hits, nearly all in English contexts, but firstly, it looks like all are capitalized, and secondly, even discarding those that are simply using the opera name attributively, it's not clear to me that they all have the same sense. Nonetheless, there are a few hits that do seem like they might be using it as defined in the entry, such as this one (He is a Pagliacci who has forgotten (avidya) or has "bad faith" towards his inner malaise.). —Ruakh_TALK 18:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

vomitorium

Sense - place to vomit after eating. I don't believe this is the case. Also in the Latin entry, I believe it is an adjective rather than a noun. SemperBlotto 13:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the usual sense in which I've heard the word. There are rooms at archaeological sites termed a "vomitorium". Yes, this idea is debated as to whether that's what these rooms were really for, but the word does exist in English even if the concept is a fallacy. The structure of the Latin entry looks more like a noun than an adjective to me, but this particular word isn't in my Classical Latin dictionaries. I'll have to do some looking. --EncycloPetey 15:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I found vomitorium in Alexander Souter's Glossary of Later Latin to 600 A.D.. He defines it as the passage behind the seats. --EncycloPetey 15:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A b.g.c. search for vomitorium plus purge pulled up 4 cites in this sense, but unfortunately, none before 1994. I'm sure there are older cites, but when you search for just vomitorium, it's hard to sift through all the cites in the other sense. So, that sense is adequately cited now, but it could be better cited. —Ruakh_TALK 15:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

O.K., I got as far back as 1944 by searching b.g.c. for vomitorium plus vomit. I'm satisfied now. —Ruakh_TALK 15:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not yet convinced. 1944 was only yesterday, and those b.g.c hits are hardly works of classical erudition. I'm still of the opinion that it is a modern invention. I can't find any early mention of the usage, and there are lots of Victorian book of Roman architecture now in Google. SemperBlotto 19:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Note the word "supposedly" in the second definition. Kappa 19:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Semper, Ruakh has clearly shown that the word is used in English this way. Are you disputing the historical use of the word or the historical use of the rooms? Remember, we accept words like flying saucer and unicorn even if the referent is only mythical. --EncycloPetey 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll accept that. I see that Wikipedia calls it a "popular misconception". SemperBlotto 21:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

sedatist

"Someone who mellows a crowd or a discussion group with his or her attitude or demeanor." Looks like a protologism and gets 10 garbage google hits. --EncycloPetey 17:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

methamphetamine

[sense of a pill containing the compound]

I have never heard of ecstacy tablest being refered to as methamphetamines. If this sense is going to stay please provide cites!--Williamsayers79 19:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not one b.g.c. hit for "one methamphetamine" is using it as a countable noun; I also tried various small numbers ("two methamphetamines" and so on), and none pulled up any hits using it as a countable noun. Similarly with Google Scholar and Google Groups. That said, methamphetamines does exist as a plurale tantum, presumably from confusion between methamphetamine (which denotes a specific compound) and amphetamines (which denotes a class of compounds of which methamphetamine is a member). —Ruakh_TALK 21:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I think's going on with this sense. The word methamphetamines is used extremely commonly. But sense (1) of methamphetamine seems to be uncountable, like other similar chemical names. Maybe it would be worthwhile to add "always plural" or "almost always plural" to sense (2) of methamphetamine?  :-) Language Lover 17:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

recamera

Spanish for bedroom? This is n;t in the RAE. Is it a typo for recámara? Is it a regionalism? --EncycloPetey 19:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

They were thinking of recámara. "Recamera" is not Spanish. —Stephen 07:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved to recámara. The etymology was also dubious, confusing Latin with Spanish (cama is not Latin for bed.) –Andyluciano 18:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

us two

Connel MacKenzie tagged this back in February, but doesn't seem to have brought it here. (?) —Ruakh_TALK 20:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this strikes me as a conflation of two things:

• simple apposition of the pronoun us with the determiner-pronoun two
• a mis-cutting from simple apposition of the pronoun us with a noun phrase that starts with the determiner-adjective two

neither of which seems to warrant inclusion. (There's the interesting fact that us often-but-non-standardly replaces we when it's followed by an appositive, but that's not special to us two; you see the same thing regardless of the form of the appositive, as exemplified in two of the first 10 b.g.c. hits for "us boys have".)

—Ruakh_TALK 23:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added to the page some illiterate quotations by Shakespeare, Cooper, Hardy, Dickens, and Kipling. The Dickens quote in particular does not fit your hypothesis. --EncycloPetey 23:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

O.K., first of all, to clarify: I didn't add the {{illiterate}} tag, and don't agree with its inclusion.

Second of all, how doesn't the Dickens quote fit my hypothesis? It's synonymous with "Us being alone now, sir", but with "two" being added in apposition to "us". (Or am I missing something?) Compare the analogously constructed "Us men being alone now."

All the quotations you gave fall into the same pattern, with "two" being in apposition to "us". (There could also be quotations with a slightly different pattern, with "two __" being apposition to "us", but none of yours are like that.)

—Ruakh_TALK 00:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I also wonder how this isn't simply a sum of parts, along with you two and we two. Dmcdevit·t 03:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not a generally predictable pattern of apposition. The construction is limited to plural personal pronouns. I can find exactly five forms: us two, we two, you two, them two, and they two, but this doesn't extend to other pronouns or to other forms of these pronouns. I'd like to note two additional points: (1) For constructions like "we boys" or "you boys", it is a plural noun that is in apposition, but in "we two" and "you two", it is a number/determiner "in apposition", which is not what one would expect from the usual pattern. (2) One may say "we boys" or "you boys" and have the construction considered acceptable, but one cannot say "them boys" (without sounding illiterate) and can never say "they boys".

In other words, this is not a predictable pattern, nor may the apposition idea be uniformly applied. My personal suspicion is that theseconstructions exist in English as carry-over from a time when literate students were trained in the Classics, where one encounters singular, dual, and plural forms. --EncycloPetey 16:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I see what you're saying. Even if <substantive> <determiner-pronoun in apposition> is restricted to those cases where <substantive> is a plural personal pronoun (which isn't 100% the case — there are plenty of examples of "brother mine", "the sisters three", etc., though I'm willing to set them aside as archaisms — and also of "the people all danced" and whatnot, which the OED doesn't consider an adverb use, though I guess that doesn't stop us from considering it so), you seem to be saying that the only special component is the pronoun. Since I think it's clear that we shouldn't have entries for each of we three, we four, we all, we few, and every other such for which we can find three durably archived attestations, would you agree that the reasonable thing to do is to have usage notes at we, us, you, etc. explaining this use, and not to have individual articles for we two, etc.?

(By the way, I think it makes sense that people would only use <substantive> <determiner-pronoun in apposition> when <determiner-adjective> <substantive> is unavailable — specifically, when the substantive is we/us/you — since the latter is a simpler and more natural construction. *They two is impossible because we say those two; them two sounds illiterate because there exist non-standard dialects where them is used productively as a determiner, so we use the illiterate determiner parse instead of the impossible pronoun parse.)

—Ruakh_TALK 18:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The CGEL concludes that constructions like us all and them both are compound pronouns (universal personal pronouns) and also says that the construction extends to other related forms, but I can't say that their reasoning (or explanation) is very clear. --EncycloPetey 23:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Are they using a line of argument like #3 at http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003383.html? Because I would agree that "gave them both up" is grammatical while *"gave up them both" is not (and Google agrees; though Google is actually O.K. with "gave up them", so maybe it doesn't believe in argument #3). —Ruakh_TALK 13:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the reasoning runs along similar lines, though not with these precise arguments. (And in the particular argument you've linked, I'd say point number 2 is flawed since it only applies to the use of "all + these"; no other quantifiers work with "this/these"). --EncycloPetey 03:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. DAVilla 02:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

them two

Same as previous. I've gone ahead and already cited it using b.g.c., but honestly, this strikes me as a simple composition of the non-standard determiner them and the standard determiner two. —Ruakh_TALK 23:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - this is unidiomatic (as is "those two") because "two" can be replaced with any cardinal number ("Which of these pastries would you like to buy?" — "Them four" [or "Those four."]) — Paul G 11:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Why was this nominated? RFV passed. DAVilla 02:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Mazandaran

I don't think this meets WT:CFI. (See also [45]) Tim Q. Wells 04:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It’s an important political subdivision and I think it meets CFI as well as California or Bavaria. Keep. —Stephen 07:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

delorious

Really? bd2412 T 12:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not in the OED or any other dictionary. Probable joke entry. Deleted SemperBlotto 14:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

pig dog

Is there any evidence of this used as a general insult beyond the quotations from Monty Python and the Holy Grail? --EncycloPetey 17:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Probably just a literal translation of the German Schweinehund. SemperBlotto 18:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  Sense deleted --EncycloPetey 03:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  Probably from cochon-chien (with a similar meaning) ... the soldier is French. ;-) Robert Ullmann 11:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

chwl

This looks like obvious tosh (and is very strangely formatted). However, there does seem to be a Welsh word of this spelling. Anybody know its meaning? Or shall we just delete it? SemperBlotto 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

b.g.c.'s Welsh hits all seem to be scannos for chwi. —Ruakh_TALK 20:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted SemperBlotto 07:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Awesinine

An Urban Dictionaryism [46]; I don't think it can be attested. Dmcdevit·t 03:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 02:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Article directory

Is this a significant term, and not a sum of parts? If so, it needs cleanup. Dmcdevit·t 03:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

who shot John

Anyone besides Judge Judy and fans? --Connel MacKenzie 05:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I’ve heard this phrase all my life (or at least the last 50 years of it). —Stephen 05:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Now cited, -ish. The cites don't actually seem to agree with the given etymology and sense. —Ruakh_TALK 18:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. DAVilla 02:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Squirbage

--Connel MacKenzie 02:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like a joke or even a personal attack to me. No Google book hits. I would have just deleted it. SemperBlotto 07:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Deleted. Utter nonsense. Zero hits on Google Books, Gutenberg, or Amazon.com; Google hits are for a website (i.e. this is probably spam). Note to author of this term - try our list of protologisms, or Urbandictionary.com. bd2412 T 01:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

book

book#Etymology 2. --Connel MacKenzie 05:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've heard of this. I'm pretty sure it must exist, though I'd guess that knowledge of it is far, far more widespread than use of it. I doubt we can find three durably archived attestations. —Ruakh_TALK 14:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, SMSes aren't usually durably archived. And note, if you are in the US, the cell technology deployed is 3-4 generations behind the rest of the world; people in the US don't use SMS very much. (Do you have a SIM card in your phone? Can you swap into into someone else's phone and have your own phone number and contact numbers? This is bog-standard everywhere else. Phones work anywhere, except the US, and US phones don't work anywhere else, except sometimes if you reload all the software.) We use SMSes all the time. This is very familiar, but I don't know if it rates an entry; I don't think anyone uses "book" to mean "cool" outside of SMSes. (And there are a number of others: home/good etc etc) Robert Ullmann 15:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

dirty dirty

Wikipedia has something on this, but it doesn't jibe with this entry all that much. - [The]DaveRoss 12:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing obvious in the first batches of Google Book hits. DAVilla 02:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

an Englishman's cottage is his castle

I am an Englishman, and have never heard of this phrase. Zero hits for it on Google. an Englishman's home is his castle is a well-known expression. SemperBlotto 14:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, in the U.S. we say simply, "a man's home is his castle." :-) —Ruakh_TALK 14:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, an Englishman's home is his castle indeed, or so I've heard, anyway. An Englishman's cottage is not. RobbieG 15:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

racist indifference

Is this a set phrase? bd2412 T 15:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of it. I think he means racial indifference. I understand racist indifference to mean apathy toward racists. —Stephen 05:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it could be the kind of indifference felt by a racist, but if so it's unidiomatic, as this doesn't seem to be a phrase commonly used in this specific way. bd2412 T 23:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

read

I'm RFV-ing three senses:

• Template:italbrac To have the ability to read text or other information.

  He could read by the age of three.

This one isn't even supported by the hypothetical sample sentence; the "ability" part of the definition corresponds to the word "could", not to the word "read".

—Ruakh_TALK 18:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Although the example is bad, the intransitive meaning is correct. Substitute the example sentence:

• He likes to read while riding the bus.

And modify the definition to somehting like "to engage in the activity of reading text or other information." --EncycloPetey 23:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

O.K., I see what you're saying. Fixed, thanks. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 12:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

---

• Template:italbrac Of text, etc., to be interpreted or read in a particular way.

  Arabic reads backwards.

Does this sense differ from English's normal mediopassive voice that allows transitive verbs to be used passively, but without being syntactically marked as passive, to express a general property of a thing? (As in, "that soup eats like a meal", "that car drives like a Porsche", and so on.)

—Ruakh_TALK 18:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does because it isn't followed by a "like a..." phrase. You could also use the example:

• That sentence doesn't read right.

Meaning that it is written in such a way that the reader is confused. --EncycloPetey 23:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I gave bad examples. I don't think the like a isn't necessary; you can also say "Amphibious car drives over water"^BBC; but then, "car drives" gets an amazing number of hits, so maybe "drives" has developed an intransitive sense? (Sorry, the mediopassive voice confuses me, can you tell? :-P) —Ruakh_TALK 12:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that confusion a good reason to explicitly give the sense? (However, many hits for car drives are referring to the plural noun drives, modified by car, another case of a part of speech exceeding its natural authority, although I think that for that case, the consensus was that we would not create additional Adjective headings for most Nouns listed, so maybe I'm being inconsistent.) --Enginear 17:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wipe this table: "This table wipes easily." Sing our song: "Our song sings beautifully." Caugh up a hairball: "A hairball caughs up periodically." Erase memory: "Memory erases irreversibly." Tie silk laces: "Silk laces tie loosely." Restrain wild animals: "Wild animals restrain with difficulty." Climb a sturdy ladder: "A sturdy ladder climbs safely." Mention the incident: "The incident mentions frequently."

Not all of these roll off the tongue, but it seems like a grammatical construction that's pretty easy to come about.

Annoy my parents: "My parents annoy quickly?" Call a friend: "A friend calls regularly?" Greet a guest: "A guest greets happily?" It doesn't look like this is always possible though. DAVilla 14:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the difference that in the former cases, an active reading is impossible (since tables don't wipe things, song don't sing things, etc.), while in the latter, that's not the case (since people do do those things)? —Ruakh_TALK 15:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

---

• Template:italbrac To make ready or to clean up.

  Go read up your room!

This seems plausible, but if it is real, then it seems like it probably comes from ready, in which case it should appear with a different etymology, and possibly a different inflection and/or pronunciation. (?)

—Ruakh_TALK 18:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Now this one I've never heard of. It may be regional if it is real. --EncycloPetey 23:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur that this sense needs explicit verification. --Connel MacKenzie 06:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Some selective Googling [link] suggests this might be an attempt at spelling "red up"/"redd up" (both of which get plenty of relevant b.g.c. hits; and "redd" has a supporting entry in the O.E.D.). So, probably delete. —Ruakh_TALK 18:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

govee

Huh? Never heard of this. bd2412 T 00:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems kindof...hypocoristic? --Connel MacKenzie 06:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

false protagonist

Any takers? (Copied from Wipedia) SemperBlotto 10:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this one passes, although it is hard to find examples online that are not part of a dictionary. One example,
Sometimes, a work will initially highlight a particular character, as though they were the protagonist, and then unexpectedly dispose of that character as a dramatic device. Such a character is called a false protagonist[47].
I'll see what else I can find.--Dmol 20:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

stilla#Swedish

Sense 3: "to feed". I've never heard exactly that meaning. What I think the contributor was thinking of is the expression/idiom "stilla hunger", which could be translated as "to still (somebody's feelings of) hunger", so yes, there may be a logical implication of someone being fed, but it's afaik not the immediate meaning of this word. I don't think the person responsible is checking here anylonger, otherwise I'd asked hir about the source of this... \Mike 11:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

pílon

Not in dictionaries. Not sure if it is supposed to be pilón or filón. –Andyluciano 17:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

filón does mean lode or vein (ore sense), but I've never heard of "pílon" (unusual accent placement) and pilón doesn't have any meanings similar to this, as far as I'm aware. I'm not sure how pílon and filón were mixed up; maybe it's a regional usage? In any case, I've filled in the red links for pilón and filón. Dmcdevit·t 21:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I double checked the Spanish notes I used to create these and I have no idea how I botched them, I have it listed as "pílon - lode", but I agree that this isn't a correct term. Good catch. - [The]DaveRoss 23:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Deleted. Dmcdevit·t 23:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Tub frock

Any takers? Supposed to be "British" but I (or my wife) have never heard of it. Caps? SemperBlotto 07:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nor me...but using frock like that is it perhaps Northern English regional?

Note: proponent removing tag improperly, after adding "cites" improperly. My spam radar is now activated. Capitalization is certainly wrong, so it remains fishy. --Connel MacKenzie 22:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Even in the UK, "frock" is rather dated, except in ironic or facetious usages such as posh frock. I wouldn't expect anyone in, say, the fashion industry to market a product with that name. RobbieG 22:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick reminder, {{nosecondary}}:

Please see the description of what the request for verification process is for, at the top of this page. The purpose is not fact-checking, but to verify whether a sense meets our criteria for inclusion. "Occurrence in other dictionaries" is not one of our criteria. The word usage is there, not "listing" and was put there very intentionally. Blindly copying from other dictionaries leaves us vulnerable to copyright violations, allegations of copyright violation, Nihilartikels and invalid appeals to authority. Referring to other dictionaries is fine to clarify (or even correct) a definition. But other dictionaries are not valid citations for a request for verification.

--Connel MacKenzie 04:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Drag droppings

Sounds very unlikely to me. — Paul G 11:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

zombie

The sense of "zombie" as a WWII Canadian soldier who did not go overseas is not, as I heard the story, a standard or a Canadian usage. The story I heard (back in the 1960s) was that this usage originated with the brassy, ultra-patriotic American entertainer Kate Smith (1907-1986), who insulted Canadian forces and Canadians when she called Canadian soldiers a bunch of zombies for their supposed underparticipation in WWII combat. Canadians took great umbrage (especially given their entry into WWII more than 2 years before the U.S. and the many causalties they suffered during those early years) and Ms. Smith remained a hated figure in Canada for the rest of her life. I am not satisfied that this entry represents a usage which was ever common or standard, and it is certainly not Canadian English. -- WikiPedant 14:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

you are old, father william

Plenty of google and google book hits, but most seem to be referencing the literary appearance. Is this really a set phrase? Needs some cleanup if it passes as well. Atelaes 20:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Basically true - but it is just a poem - and this is a dictionary. deleted SemperBlotto 21:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

hospitalisation

This is described as being UK-only, but I believe it is used outside of the UK as well, e.g. Singapore ([48]) and Australia ([49]). — This comment was unsigned.

I have changed the template to the standard {{alternative spelling of|}}. -- Beobach972 02:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't something indicating "non-North America" be more appropriate? --Connel MacKenzie 06:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Musing on the use of Template:italbrac and Template:italbrac, a wonder if we could get away with (deprecated template usage) and (deprecated template usage) ? It's truthful, though perhaps not PC enough. But there's no point in tagging a word as an "alternative spelling" if UK or US children get marked wrong for using it.--Enginear 20:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

One solution I've seen used is (Commonwealth). --EncycloPetey 15:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

lady

The definition "The wife of a lord or a gentleman." seems flawed, in the sense of a title, it should be capitalised as Lady, and the second reason is that a Lady can be born a Lady and does not have to be defined in terms of her husband. I don't know how to edit it, does lady refer to a Lady as well? Pistachio 21:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Lady should cross-reference lady on the first line with {{see}}, and vice-versa. I think this should probably be in the tea room instead of RFV? The "the wife of..." definition is one possible definition, if not the primary sense, right? --Connel MacKenzie 06:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The wives of most British knights are also allowed the courtesy title Lady. --Enginear 20:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Upgradation

--Connel MacKenzie 03:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

squib

(Harry Potter sense). A Harry Potter coinage. Any independent use? Dmcdevit·t 04:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think is worth keeping the sense; J K Rowling is using the word in a variation of the standard meaning. Or, perhaps better, move to a usage note; there are a lot of people (kids ;-) who might very well look up squib. Did this; I think that is all we need? (and it certainly is worth noting!) Robert Ullmann 23:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm in support of the "someone might look this up" concerns, but isn't that why we have {{wikipedia|Blood_purity_(Harry_Potter)#Squibs}}? Dmcdevit·t 02:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hufflepuff

A Harry Poter coinage, and not a generic term, just a fictional dormitory. Any evidence of independent attributive use? Dmcdevit·t 04:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to read the translations for these words. I'm sure there's a Harry Potter wiki somewhere that would love them. Wiktionary, however, is surely not the place. RobbieG 14:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Could we move them all to an Appendix:Harry Potter, ideally in a nice table? SemperBlotto 15:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Slytherin

As above. Dmcdevit·t 04:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Gryffindor

As above. Dmcdevit·t 04:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ravenclaw

As above. Dmcdevit·t 04:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

wwtdd

What Would Tyler Durden Do? Really? bd2412 T 05:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. It probably passes CFI as "current buzzword" or "word in the news" or whatever that rule is called. --Connel MacKenzie 06:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it is just the name of someone's blog. Deleted (p.s. never heard of the person in question) SemperBlotto 07:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of Tyler Durden? bd2412 T 15:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

turd tickler

Say it ain't so. bd2412 T 05:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just an UD invention. --Connel MacKenzie 06:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 12:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

pillow biter

From the anon who brought you wwtdd and turd tickler, above. bd2412 T 05:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Plenty of gbc hits http://books.google.com/books?q=%22pillow+biter%22&as_brr=0 Kappa 09:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well attested, but I would hyphenate it ("to X Y" [real or hypothetical] -> "Y-Xer"); compare nit-picker, muck-raker, etc. — Paul G 16:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Entology

Really? bd2412 T 05:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Promotional/spam; move to WT:RFD. --Connel MacKenzie 06:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Creator added a Entology section, when Stephen corrected it, the creator changed it back. Waste of time, deleted out of hand. Robert Ullmann 23:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

theologist

Is this word a synonym to theologian or what? Is it a merited word in its own right? __meco 10:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

With 660 b.g.c. hits, most of which are English, it definitely meets CFI, but it can't compete with theologian (which gets >12,000 b.g.c. hits). Judging from the hits I've looked into, it does seem to mean simply theologian, though, so I guess we can just define it as "Theologian" and have the translations section point people to theologian's. —Ruakh_TALK 12:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

miswanted

This does not seem to me to be an actual word. Probably and protologism?--Williamsayers79 13:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Judging from b.g.c.'s 50 hits for "miswant|miswanted|miswants|miswanting", this seems to be a genuine, albeit rare, term used in the social sciences. (Incidentally, there are 50% more hits for "miswanting" than for "miswant|miswanted|miswants", which suggests to me that miswanting is most often used as a substitute for the missing de-verbal noun.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

virus

I've just commented out the spurious plurals "viri" and "virii" from virus. They are not interchangeable with the standard "viruses". I think we've discussed the plural of "virus" before, but we should take note of what this Wikipedia article has to say before considering restoring either, and then only with clear usage notes. — Paul G 16:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I think viri has rare English academic usage - 99 of the first 100 of the 6000+ b.g.c. hits are for non-English usage, but one is a US academic journal using it as a plural of virus (in the medical sense). It seems likely that the remaining 5900+ hits would gain enough for normal CFI. For virii, about a quarter of the first 100 of 600+ b.g.c. hits are as English plurals of virus in the medical or computing senses, so it clearly passes normal CFI. This compares with over 28000 b.g.c. hits for viruses. No doubt, some (or most) will want to call viri and virii uncommon misspellings, but personally, I would tag them Template:italbrac and leave them. --Enginear 20:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If we want to consider them variant plurals, then both do meet CFI; three of the first ten Google Patents hits for "the viri"^go are English-language patents using it in this sense, and similarly with six of the first ten Google Patents hits for "the virii"^go. The question is, do we consider them errors? If so, they must meet a much higher standard to be included, and I don't think they do (with viruses beating out viri by a factor of 17 and virii by a factor of 84). —Ruakh_TALK 23:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

They are pompous and pretentious but still used by various folk who are a little odd to say the least! Non-standard would be my prefered tag, and a warning to those of us who like to converse with each other in English we can all understand easily, that theses bizzare plurals are certainly not the norm. As for hypercorrectness, this unfortunately smacks of pompousness.--Williamsayers79 09:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

virii is used for the computer sort, not to be pretentious, but rather for amusement, as with boxen. The entry at virii is fine, I added a link to it in See also at virus, because there should be a link there somewhere. By all means leave it out of the inflection line. Robert Ullmann 09:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Gíêux

Supposed to be an English adjective. Seems unlikely. SemperBlotto 19:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It’s French, not English. Also, I don’t think it should be capitalized, but I’m not certain (since it’s strange orthography for French). —Stephen 16:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Joke/test entry. Definitely not French; French doesn't use acute accents except on e's, and doesn't use circumflexes on vowels that are followed by other vowels (since the circumflex originally indicated the removal of a silent s, which doesn't occur between vowels). 16:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that’s probably right. Deleted. I see that the page is also at fr:Gíêux. —Stephen 16:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Belcomposto

English? Adjective? Definition? SemperBlotto 22:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

pull the other leg

An idiom? In English? --Connel MacKenzie 13:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yet another "transponder". It is a very common Britishism - "pull the other one" is even more common. The full form is "pull the other one, it's got bells on!" I suppose a translation would be "You've got to be kidding!" SemperBlotto 13:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Also in AmE, pull the other one is the usual idiom. —Stephen 16:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That, I've heard, but I thought was in relation to "pull my finger." OK. --Connel MacKenzie 18:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

wintard

I don't doubt that this is used in IRC etc, but needs some verification and cleanup. - [The]DaveRoss 02:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

CAVOK

Transwiki:CAVOK claims the common meaning is "Clouds and Visibility O.K." and there is also "Clear and Visual Overcast". Dmcdevit·t 09:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is legit, but according to the following FAA link, the term is not used in the USA. [50]
Although not used in the U.S., the contraction "CAVOK" (ceiling and visibility OK) replaces visibility, weather, and sky condition if: ...

I'm sure it is pronounced 'cav-oh-kay', so would that make it an acronym rather than an initialism.--Dmol 16:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Mozes

Supposedly a Dutch slang with English use. Can either be verified? Dmcdevit·t 09:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

aubadinal

--Connel MacKenzie 18:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No hits on Google, Google Scholar, or Google Groups. Only two independent hits on Google Books. —Ruakh_TALK 20:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Leader

--Connel MacKenzie 19:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The corresponding Wikipedia article is Supreme Leader of Iran. The term "Supreme Leader" in itself shouldn't warrant an entry unless examples of it being applied stand-alone can be dug up. __meco 09:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The very article you named, w:Supreme Leader of Iran, uses Supreme Leader by itself eleven times. —Stephen 14:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If I encountered this term out of the blue, I'd have no idea it refered to the leader of Iran. (Supreme Leader of what? If used stand-alone — as opposed to 'he is the supreme leader of Iran' (NB the minuscule letters) — there is no way to guess.) However, is this a dispute over whether it does indeed exist as a term used in reference to the leader of Iran, or a debate on the term's idiomaticity? -- Beobach972 20:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

2004: Angel M. Rabasa, The Muslim World After 9/11,

Despite the vociferous protests from more liberal elements, the clerics endowed the office of Supreme Leader with unprecedented political and religious authority.

It’s just like President of the United States, which is an official title, but 99% of the time, one writes only President. Both terms are valid and useful. —Stephen 17:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In the English language, one can presume some knowledge of American politics; to play on the stereotype, one can assume that an American like me has no idea whatsoever what the term might refer to in the narrow context of the politics of a small far-away country. I guess my question is, is this something we can confidently say has entered the English language, proper? Offhand, I'd say no. --Connel MacKenzie 22:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

brown off

--Connel MacKenzie 22:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are 3 verifying items:

• "browns me off" generates 242 hits on Google. A quick inspection of hits on the first page shows usages consistent with this definition.

• "brown off." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 19 Apr. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/brown off>:

Phrasal Verb(s):

brown off Chiefly British Slang

To make angry or irritated.

• "infuriate - verb" The Oxford Paperback Thesaurus. Ed. Maurice Waite. Oxford University Press, 2006. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. 20 April 2007 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t24.e6754>:

infuriate - verb his arrogance was beginning to infuriate her ENRAGE, incense, anger, madden, inflame; exasperate, antagonize, provoke, rile, annoy, irritate, nettle, gall, irk, vex, pique, get on someone's nerves, try someone's patience; N. Amer. rankle; informal aggravate, make someone see red, get someone's back up, make someone's blood boil, get up someone's nose, needle, hack off, brown off; Brit. informal wind up, get to, nark, cheese off; N. Amer. informal bug, tick off. opposites: please.

-- WikiPedant 02:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

verb

Needs proper citations. --Connel MacKenzie 22:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: This rfv applies to verb as a verb. DAVilla 16:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

foobai

Any takers? Needs formatting and drastic shortening if real. SemperBlotto 07:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The original etymology linked to a Web site named after this term, which suggests to me that it might be a spam entry. —Ruakh_TALK 13:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, all 4 b.g.c. hits are scannos, and all 8 Web hits are references to the Web site. So, almost certainly spam. —Ruakh_TALK 03:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

kirlian

Noun forms only. Adjective form is verified from the OED. SemperBlotto 16:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

When I set about creating the entry, I was only aware of the adjective. I looked it up in Wikipedia to check that it was correct, as I'm not really familiar with paranormal/New Age thought. Wikipedia claims it can be used as a noun. However, this may not be used outside the creative-yet-wacky world of the Wikipedian association of original researchers. RobbieG 15:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

cloud

Computing sense. SemperBlotto 21:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the definition. The following two quotes, The Industry Standard 1999, are more in line with my understanding.

"We always drew networks as amoeba-like things because they had no fixed topology and typically covered varying geographic areas," says Vint Cerf, cocreator of TCP/IP, the language of networked computers. In short, no one needs to know the exact route their data will take to get from point to point. Everything is fine as long as it comes out of the cloud at the correct address."

"Novelist William Gibson, who coined the word "cyberspace" in his classic novel Neuromancer, first encountered the Net-as-cloud metaphor while preparing for his first video teleconference. He asked the tech guys how the signals would travel across the Net. It's not going across the Net, they told him. It's going through "the cloud" - through the totality of all the phone links in the world." AlMaki

2차적인

The mixture of a numeral and Korean characters seems strange. But what do I know? SemperBlotto 09:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, compare A菜 which is probably a favorite food of someone we know well! But what do I know? ;-) Robert Ullmann 23:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, not strange at all. Arabic numerals are used all over the world. DAVilla 06:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

fang-nei

Not much to go on. I am assuming that this is a mistranslation of the Mandarin word 房内 (fángnèi), which literally means in the room or in the house. In some contexts, 房 can refer to a wife's room. As such, 房内 may be translated as inside the bridal chamber or inside the wife's room. By extension, some dictionaries claim that 房内 has an archaic colloquial meaning of wife. I have never personally heard the term used in this way, and have not been able to find an example via Google. The bottom line, in bed seems to be the wrong translation more than 99% of the time. Besides that, Pinyin does not use hyphens. In most normal contexts, the best you could say is that this term is an un-sourced "some of its parts" entry, in a non-standard spelling, which is probably mistranslated. -- A-cai 22:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

stormtrooper

Hi,

This term recently came up on the Mozilla mailing lists.

I maintain the Australian English dictionary files for many projects(http://www.dictionary.JustLocal.com.au) and as best as I can tell, joining the two words as one appears to be specific to Star Wars.

All authoritative references and all spell checkers I reviewed, have storm trooper as two words.

May I suggest this entry be reviewed.

Regards,

Kelvin Eldridge

I have reviewed the entry, but stormtrooper is well-attested in that one-word form. A few citations have been added to the page as illustration. As for authoritative dictionaries, the OED certainly recognises it. RFV removed. Widsith 13:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Copied to talk page. DAVilla 16:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

soulcial

Looks dubious to me. Google hits turn up musical festivals and the like. --EncycloPetey 03:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your useless inputs, EncycloPetey;however, further Googleing will also turn up a webpage with this term.... It is also used in commerce within the faith-based community. Just because it isn't in YOUR vocabulary, doesnt make it "non-vocabulary." P.S. Isn't this exactly the purpose of open-source dictionaries?-- --User:tmsfadmin 03:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like spam for that website to me. -- Beobach972 04:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Widely used

Google "Soulcial" and it will be used throughout the faith-based vernacular. — This comment was unsigned.

Top Entry on Google

Please see www.soulcialsolutions.com (aka...the top search return on google) for more details. — This comment was unsigned.

deleted - the above unsigned comments were made by the creator of the entry. Please read WT:CFI to see why this entry does not belong here. Try Urban Dictionary. --EncycloPetey 04:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Alleged etymology was copyvio from [51] and [52] Cynewulf 13:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

regiftable

Any takers? The name of a commercial website. SemperBlotto 07:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds OK to my ear. The term "regift" is now widely used. Most of the Google hits for "regiftable" revolve around Regiftable.com, but on many of these sites writers clearly also find it acceptable to use "regiftable" as an ordinary adjective. I think the term is here to stay. -- WikiPedant 16:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

sanjaya

English noun and verb - any takers? (References seem to be only blogs, so could be a protologism) Capitalized form needs to be moved to its own page. SemperBlotto 21:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted, nonsense - this is the name of the guy voted off American Idol last week, can't possibly meet CFI. bd2412 T 22:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

make

English noun sense #2. An anon recently removed it, with the edit summary "/* Noun */ alright. Who actually uses it to mean that?", which is a good question. —Ruakh_TALK 22:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Provert

Really? All Google Books hits so far seem to be (a) surnames; (b) in French; or (c) scannos of proverb or proven. My suspicion runs deep. bd2412 T 01:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also Transwiki:Provert, from w:Provert. —Ruakh_TALK 01:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Corrected header; the entry Provert was created independently and improperly from the Transwiki. --EncycloPetey 02:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly a surname. But looks like a joke entry to me. My vote would be to delete it. SemperBlotto 07:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: the author of the Wikipedia article (which was transwikied here) has basically admitted to having had no legitimate sources for the word (see w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Provert). bd2412 T 03:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• ...and now the term has been deleted from Wikipedia as well. bd2412 T 17:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hideo

Supposed to be an English male given name. SemperBlotto 06:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

wota

Is this supposed to be Japanese or English? Formatting is confusing. SemperBlotto 07:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the same case as Otaku. Is a Japanese slang word used in some english circles.--Cbpm 23:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Many references can be found using google, or even wikipedia [53], as an example there is an article: [54] This is the kind of word many people use without official approval or recognition. Slang? Informal? English adopted word? I'm not sure, but this word is very used in many english sites (and foreign)about japanese female idols.[55], [56], [57] --Cbpm 00:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

genophilia

Not in the OED. Protologism?. (needs formatting) SemperBlotto 13:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Coined by the white supremacist movement in 2001 as part of the "justification" for genocides, etc ... first google hit is Stormfront. Very unpleasant, but probably citable if someone wants visit those sites. Robert Ullmann 13:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's in Wikipedia too. I was checking this out earlier....it may have been coined by different people at different times...there are cites which predate the current buzz-word sense, with apparently different meanings. Widsith 13:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Our definition is apparently taken verbatim from Thomas Fleming's 2004 book The Morality of Everyday Life: Rediscovering an Ancient Alternative to the Liberal Tradition, page 58: "[…] Lord Acton did not grasp the fundamental and enduring importance of the instinctive attachment to family and tribe that has no name in English or in most European languages. […] If we were to coin a term to describe such an attachment, it might be something like genophilia" (italics his, underline mine), found via b.g.c. Fleming's Wikipedia article (w:Thomas Fleming (author)) does make it sound like he's a white supremacist. —Ruakh_TALK 14:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added some cites back to the late 19th century, and removed RFV. Seems like it was invented by Sir Francis Galton, the same guy who gave us eugenics. Poor guy's not had much luck, has he.... Widsith 09:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed DAVilla 19:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

nappy

Noun 2: a horse refusing to obey its rider; and Adj 3: somewhat sleepy. Widsith 14:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The OED has the following -

• n - ale, beer
• n - dish with sloping sides
• n - absorbent towelling etc
• a - (of beer) having a head => intoxicated
• a - (of cloth) having a nap, (of hair, esp of a black person) frizzy
• a - (of a horse) awkward, disobedient

SemperBlotto 15:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

ophthalmophobia

--Connel MacKenzie 17:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it means fear of eyes, literally. Maybe it has been used in this sense but I can't see any cites initially except in those "phobia lists" you get. Widsith 08:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

DeAnne

Shouldn't this be deAnne? --Connel MacKenzie 17:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As a given name, surely not. I've never seen any given name with a lower case in English. The definition is a bit vauge as to whether they have "Hebrew name" to mean a separate entry for a family name. In this case it is possible, particularly names of French or Norman origin. Google isn't great for this search as it lumps all types of capitalisation together. --Dmol 17:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, e. e. cummings aside, yes, I meant as the surname, with "de" as a prefix. (Curious that the Wikipedia article on cummings defers to one single source, who seems to be in collusion with his biter ex-wife?) --Connel MacKenzie 05:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• The only lowercase name I know is ffrench, and that is a surname. SemperBlotto 07:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• There are a handful in Irish starting with an o or a h, such as 'ó Laoghaire' (O'Leary) and hÉalaighthe (Healy). Interestingly, many people when handwriting will use a small o followed by a capital in their names, even if it is Anglicised.--Dmol 14:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's actually a Hebrew name, it should be "Deanne", as Hebrew doesn't use capital letters, so Englishized Hebrew names just use initial capitals. That said, I'm struggling to think what Hebrew name this would be. I wonder if this article was created by someone named DeAnne who read in a baby-names book that her name comes from Hebrew? —Ruakh_TALK 13:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Scaper

--Connel MacKenzie 04:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of Google Groups hits in the relevant sense, mostly in various SciFi communities (not just communities devoted to Farscape). Definitely meets the three-independent-cites-over-more-than-a-year criterion; not sure about the used-outside-a-narrow-community criterion. —Ruakh_TALK 14:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sunbeam

(Note caps) A collection of brand names with no generic or attributive senses. Dmcdevit·t 08:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete. None of these is ever likely to appear in any sort of attributive sense. Just a list of names.--Dmol 20:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Crabbit

Regional slang? Dmcdevit·t 09:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

White Dragon

Urban-dictionaryism? I don't see this sense anywhere else. Dmcdevit·t 09:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, Urban Dictionary misogynistic nonsense. Burn it with fire (i.e. delete). bd2412 T 03:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted --Williamsayers79 21:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Blor

And wrong caps. --Connel MacKenzie 13:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Protologism. We normally delete these. SemperBlotto 13:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Word. Even Googling blor "blog war" doesn't pull up anything relevant, and if anyone has a Web presence, it's ColdFusion people. —Ruakh_TALK 14:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. DAVilla 19:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

alum

Adjective form - meaning astringent. Not in the OED or any of my dictionaries. SemperBlotto 21:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

rubber

Sport sense. -- Beobach972 00:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's in the OED, and I just happened across some uses while b.g.c.-ing wubber: [58] [59]. (Of course, it's better to give correctly-spelled cites, but those give some idea of what phrases to look for.) —Ruakh_TALK 14:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It is in the OED, but with the specific sense of a series of games involving or entailing a tie-breaker or a decisive game or match. That's the sense in which I've encountered it. I recall the term being used in snooker -- the rubber is the tie-breaking game. The word is also used as an attributive, as in "rubber game", "rubber match". -- WikiPedant 15:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Shall we correct the definition, then? -- Beobach972 15:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The AHD defines it as a 'series of games of which two out of three or three out of five must be won to terminate the play' or an 'odd game played to break a tie', so our current definition is too general. I've corrected it. -- Beobach972 15:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think your changes capture the sense very nicely. I tweaked your defns just a wee bit, because in N. America, at least, "match" is sometimes taken as implying a group of games. -- WikiPedant 16:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

jumped down

Nonce? --Connel MacKenzie 04:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

frapper le clou sur le cercueil

Do the Francophones actually say frapper le clou sur le cercueil? French Google doesn't seem to think so. Have any native French speakers seen this expression? --Keene 09:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Google suggests that the French world does have the expressions "[un/le] [dernier/] clou [du/dans le/sur le] cercueil" ("[a/the] [last/] nail [of the/in the/on the] coffin"), with about the same meanings as in English, but firstly that it's not terribly common (I think? I don't much experience judging French Google counts), and secondly that it's not usually paired with the verb "frapper", for the simple reason that "frapper" isn't the verb usually used with "clou". Might be worth moving to le clou du cercueil or something. —Ruakh_TALK 14:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As a Francophone, I agree that this is not a French expression. But enfoncer le clou is a very common one. I think I never heard the expression with clou and cercueil, although Google shows that it is used. Lmaltier 21:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This was created by a kid using an online machine translation program. Deleted. —Stephen 02:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

negocie el círculo

Can't find anything in Spanish using Google.es. Neologism, or just a word-for-word translations? --Keene 09:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This entry is strange, as it has the form of an imperative with a direct object (negocie being the third-person singular present subjunctive, and hence the second-person singular formal imperative, of negociar); it means something like "please traffic the circle" ("traffic" in the sense of "to traffic drugs", I mean). Maybe this is a joke entry? Wordreference.com gives for "traffic circle" glorieta and rotonda, which RAE's dictionary roughly backs up. —Ruakh_TALK 15:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This was added a year ago by a kid who was using automatic online translations sites to come up with foreign words. "Negocie el círculo" means "negotiate the circle," not traffic circle. Deleted. —Stephen 02:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

کله کیر

I don't know if it's a real expression. Pistachio 13:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand it, but I think it’s a vulgar term. I don’t think it’s used much and probably is not the proper word for it, but it’s not a regular topic of conversation for most people. —Stephen 03:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

friend zone

This is an invention of the Friends scriptwriters and appears to have been taken up as a phrase; but can it be verified to a sufficient extent? --84.68.126.146 17:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Zionazi

--Connel MacKenzie 07:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

b.g.c. gives three independent cites (four if you count the one you can't actually see); I included all three. They're all kind of crappy, though, as they're all "quoted in"-type cites with no real context. Google Groups gives 31,200 hits, most of them apparently English, but judging by the first page of hits, some of those people really mean it, and there are some things I'd rather not read. —Ruakh_TALK 13:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at some of these; is certainly in wide-spread independent use (I suspect it was coined independently by a number of people); should be kept. But not such a pleasant word. Robert Ullmann 16:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Pleastness/unpleasantness aside, I don't think our CFI adequately addresses terms (such as this) invented for the nonce, meant to be as harmful as imaginable. Yes, people are creative when being insulting, but that doesn't mean the made-up word is used. Perhaps CFI does address this; b.g.c. listed fewer references yesterday when I nominated this, but the first is the only one that seems to use it? Does CFI still go on at length about use/mention? --Connel MacKenzie 17:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: nonce usage: I think once a non-erroneous, non-sum-of-parts term has been used, seemingly independently, on three different occasions, each time with the same sense, it's worth defining even if each of those times was a nonce. In this case, the tens of thousands of Google Groups hits tell me that it's definitely moved beyond the nonce stage anyway; I doubt tens of thousands of posts reflect independent nonce usages.

Re: use/mention: The first and third are definitely uses, albeit "quoted in"-type uses. The middle one is iffier, as Pipes doesn't give a specific instance of Ayloush using the term, and gives no context. (Granted, the first and third don't give context, either, but that's because the term was used without context; "Zionazi racists" and "Zionazis" were the entirety of their respective texts.)

—Ruakh_TALK 19:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not when they are simple listings. The context of those lists for those is painfully unclear; listings of made-up insults? Furthermore, it is three b.g.c. hits, not four. So your inclusion of "the one you can't see" is quite dubious. --Connel MacKenzie 07:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: simple listings: they're not. (If you click to edit the page, you'll see the full context of each quote; I included it in <!-- --> comments in case someone found a decent way to include them. The problem is that the context is provided by the persons quoting, since the insults themselves appeared without textual context.)

Re: number of hits on b.g.c.: This is strange. b.g.c. previously gave five hits for "(zionazi|zionazis)", of which two were essentially duplicates (different books, but by the same author and describing the same event) — leaving four — and of which one had no preview available — leaving three usable. I used all three in citing our article. Now one of them (the plural one) has disappeared from b.g.c.; the book is still up, but a search for "zionazis" doesn't pull it up, and the limited preview no longer shows the relevant pages. (This is a problem with the entire concept of assuming that b.g.c. durably archives cites for future reference, but especially with the concept of trying to link to the relevant page: whose job is it to keep checking those links and make sure they still work?)

—Ruakh_TALK 16:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, when I first looked on b.g.c. (yes, before nominating here,) it did not have four or five - it had the three that are there now, which is why I find it so curious that you've dug up another from somewhere. I must be missing something, as I don't see your direct links. I should, when editing the entry, right? It makes it really hard to tell what part of it you typoed, when doing your b.g.c. search. --Connel MacKenzie 03:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As to "durably archived:" no. Books are books, available to the general population through local libraries, bookstores, the Library of Congress, E-Bay and whatnot. The books themselves are durably archived; the links are for convenient verification! If they are gone in five years, we'll flush them with a bot. --Connel MacKenzie 03:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Now, if the Usenet "archives" were to suddenly disappear, we'd have a bigger problem, as those citations exist no where else...so at least half of the terms that have currently "passed" WT:RFV would instantly fail. Oh, wait. That would be a Good Thing, I think.  :-) (And that doesn't even touch on the fact that Usenet is not professionally reviewed by an editorial staff, prior to "publishing.") Furthermore, the argument that blogs and websites come and go with (sometimes) alarming speed, seems once again relevant. I certainly don't expect Google.com to be around in a hundred years. But I do expect a form of Wiktionary to persist (via the GFDL.) So the argument that "Usenet" should be used for citations, I still question. The idea (IIRC) was that Wiktionary was trying to capture language, and language features, that people use to communicate effectively. But relying on typos and errors (often not even reviewed by the person typing it in!) from Usenet doesn't (to me) prove that such linguistic items really are used outside of a very tiny segment. But I haven't even started writing that essay, for WT:BP discussion yet. --Connel MacKenzie 03:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Dunno what to tell you about the b.g.c. cites — were you not searching for "(zionazi|zionazis)" originally? Is it possible that b.g.c. was never supposed to show the Islamikaze cite, and just briefly did for some reason? I really don't know. At any rate, I didn't typo; looking through my Web history for all my Zionazi-related b.g.c. searches, I spelled it the same way every time. No, you shouldn't see direct links when editing the article; you misunderstood me, apparently. I was saying that if you edited the article, you'd see the context given the quotes by the persons quoting. I generally don't share direct links to b.g.c., as Google uses those URIs to track individual browsing (so it can make sure the same person doesn't view an entire book over time, I think), so it seems that we're not supposed to be sharing them. In this case, though, since something weird is going on with b.g.c., I'll make an exception: going through my Web history, I find that provided you have a Google account, you can find the Islamikaze cite at http://books.google.com/books?id=J7SfSyicjZsC&pg=PA364&ots=fUryVOLjJ8&dq=zionazis&sig=TjyFdglfUepXrw1bDKlx4L-q2zA (scroll to the very bottom of page 364 and top of page 365). —Ruakh_TALK 14:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sidenote: this is a very good example of why indirect links are inadequate. The "new" citations format does not have widespread support, right? There hasn't been a vote for it, certainly. --Connel MacKenzie 17:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but could you clarify what's meant by "indirect links"? :-/ —Ruakh_TALK 19:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Using DAVilla's proposed (and withdrawn?) formatting proposal, that avoided the b.g.c. direct links. I think is was DAVilla - appologies if I have erred. --Connel MacKenzie 07:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

They were both me, the withdrawn (no one was ever seconded) formatting proposal, and the rant on Google Book links (not that I have any problem with them in talk spaces). But those are two almost completely separate issues.

How do we get access to the ISBN page? We need to link to Google Books from there somehow. You'll notice the one on Wikipedia is fairly complete, and ours has like, four or something? DAVilla 03:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

materia

(English sense only.) A meaning related to a single video game only. Any evidence of independent use? Dmcdevit·t 07:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

bitch slap

• Noun Template:italbrac A slap directed toward a woman by a man (i.e. slapping a person as a pimp would slap a prostitute). The open hand is used because the full force of a man's punch would hurt the weaker woman.
  • bitch slap on the reference.com
• Verb Template:italbrac To slap someone with an open hand, intended to humiliate, or to cause pain. The term is used figuratively to mean putting someone in their place.
  • bitch slap on the Urban Dictionary
  • http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/5/10539/3203

There is also the entry from the OED, if anyone has access. What else do you need to document this and get the tags removed? --Evrik 17:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is not to determine whether other dictionaries corroborate a claim, but to demonstrate that the term meets Wiktionary's own criteria for inclusion. To do this, you must find three durably archived (preferably via http://books.google.com/) uses (not mentions; if I say, "I'm going to bitch-slap you", that's using the term, but if I say, "'bitch-slap' is a horrible term", that's just mentioning the term, and doesn't serve our purposes) of the term in each of the given senses, and list them at the article page (using the format described at Wiktionary:Quotations). Once you've done that, please comment here to say so, so other people can examine them and make sure everything is O.K. (Once you've commented here that you've cited it, it will generally be untagged within about a week, assuming no one objects.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• What about the OED citation? This is a link to book hits.--Evrik 18:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it best not to use OED's cites. A lot of the hits on that google books search look ok. Just find the best three, and put them on the article in the proper format, and you're all set. Atelaes 18:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment this is from w:Bitch#Uses

The term "bitch slap" is derived from American slang. In the original sense, a "bitch slap" is a powerful, full-swing slap in the face with the front of the hand, evoking the way an angry pimp might slap a defiant prostitute (not to be confused with a "pimp slap" which uses the back of the hand). However, the term is now frequently used figuratively to describe a humiliating defeat or punishment.

--Evrik 19:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

kitalaenluu

Have a look at the page... Lmaltier 19:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. —Stephen 02:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

workplace solutions

Ugh, more corporate jargon. Atelaes 21:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sum of parts. Plural, should be singular, Encyclopedic yet described as a stub. Am I impressed? SemperBlotto 21:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand, I would have no idea what this phrase meant without looking it up. On the other hand, it qualifies as the ultimate nonce word; it means "whatever we do at our business to get our business done".

Ah, corporate jargon. Where else can one have a job description as "implements programming solutions for back-end shopping cart technology" (a real job description of one of my former co-workers). --EncycloPetey 22:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Call it jargon or what you will, but this term or phrase is used frequently in the US to describe Corporate Real Estate funtions within large and mid-sized compaines. Do you remember when Human Resources was called Personnel in this country? Is the purpose of Wiktionary to capture contemporarty language, regardless of the medium, or is it to be exclusionary? Maybe I am confused. —This unsigned comment was added by Rvteed (talk • contribs) 23:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

It is meant to reflect language that is used, not promote terms that some people would like to have changed. This particular entry smells more like spam than a dictionary definition. --Connel MacKenzie 23:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

UTFG

Seems to have plenty of reference, but little usage. Atelaes 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

quarterpitcher

Three google hits (none of which supports the definition), no google book hits. Atelaes 21:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not a word. Deleted SemperBlotto 21:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Rashomon

Is this trying to describe the Rashomon effect? Needs a definition that doesn't start with "when"? SemperBlotto 21:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

sporatic

Any takers? Not in OED. Google books hits seem to be OCR errors for sporadic. SemperBlotto 21:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As someone specifically trained in botanical nomenclature and plant morphological terminology, I can see that I have never seen this word. --EncycloPetey 21:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

http://poetryreviews.ca/2007/02/02/sporatic-growth-by-jay-millar/

This is a book of poetry. The title is probably a pun on spore / sporadic. SemperBlotto 22:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

ent

Both senses. I've never heard of ent as a short term for entertainment. The Tolkien sense seems to fail WT:CFI#Independence, as there is no common or generic sense. Dmcdevit·t 23:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there needs to be a common or generic sense. WT:CFI#Independence is just meant to exclude verbatim quotes, isn't it? (If not it should.) "Ent" may only be used to refer to the characters of Tolkien's fiction, but Tolkien's fiction is widely discussed (and translated), and the word "ent" used by people other than Tolkien.

• 2003: Walter Scheps, "The Fairy-tale Morality of The Lord of the Rings", in Jared Lobdell (ed.), A Tolkien Compass

  [...] and that fine young ent Quickbeam is merely a minor crux in an Old English glossary (the name Quickbeam means 'living tree' in Old English).

• 2003: Colin Duriez, Tolkien and C. S. Lewis: The Gift of Friendship

  Tolkien's Treebeard, his Ent creation, was inspired by Lewis, especially his sometimes emphatic deep voice

• 2003: Ralph C. Wood, The Gospel According to Tolkien: Visions of the Kingdom in Middle-earth

  Tolkien perhaps speaks for himself when he has Treebeard confess that "nobody cares for the woods as I care for them," and when this same Ent also warns that "the withering of all woods may be drawing near"

--Ptcamn 14:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Ents," as tree-like beings is a purely Tolkien usage. It is also, I believe, protected by copyright. "Ent" (plural: I think "enta", although I may be mistaken, as I'm certainly no expert) was an Anglo-Saxon term for a giant or monster. Several of Tolkien's creations have obsolete historical words for names, such as Warg and Orc. In all cases, the Tolkien usage differs somewhat from the original use. "Entwife" must be a Tolkienism, though, surely. RobbieG 15:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to copyright individual words. --Ptcamn 21:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, it's the actual creatures themselves that are protected by copyright, although that hasn't stopped the creation of cheap knock-offs that differ only in their names, like "Treants," ""Treemen", "Tree Kin"" and "Treefolk." RobbieG 15:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

entwife

Same as above. This is an encyclopedic literary entry, and the term fails WT:CFI#Independence, as there is no common or generic sense. Dmcdevit·t 23:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

shegalsn

Any takers. Says it is English then that it is Irish. SemperBlotto 18:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing looks wrong. I don't speak Irish but it does not even remotely resemble any that I have seen here in the last 25 years. There is no Ancient Irish language that defined words like that, they merely were names on headstones. Old Irish is (so I'm told) similar enought to modern Irish to be recognisable. Unless cites are provided, it should be deleted.--Dmol 22:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've dealt some in Irish names from the Middle Irish period (pre-1200) but not Old Irish. I do know that the primary differences I've seen between Middle and Modern Irish pertain to spelling patterns and the marking of lenition - how certain grammatical pronunciation changes are (or are not) reflected in the spelling. This doesn't look like a Gaelic word, but I do know some people I could ask about Old Irish. --EncycloPetey 02:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

From the following link, http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/s/s0345500.html :

shingle etymology [Middle English, from Old English scindel, scingal, from Late Latin scindula, alteration of Latin scandula (influenced by scindere, to split).]

I could see it as a similar aberration of "scingal," a confirmed etymology from Old English. Perhaps a common alteration from the Latin root, similar to the Old English alteration, with a language-specific tone. Of Irish original origin? I couldn't say, but it doesn't seem to come from Gaelic. It is common to adopt the word into a language with such aberrations, especially during a period with primarily spoken language versus written. US English is full of such adopted words.

Without knowing more about who started using it and when (probably not possible to know), I'd say it *looks* probable, especially with the new reference. (I don't know how to add references, maybe someone can help with the link above?)

In any case, it looks similar enough that I wouldn't throw it in the trash without specific, contradictory information.

Erlack

Another Urban Dictionary coinage, it appears. Dmcdevit·t 21:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 02:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Saddameter

I doubt this phrase has lasted long enough to meet our WT:CFI. Was a buzzword/neologism at the time, but since war broke out, I doubt it has been used enough to merit inclusion in Wikt. --Keene 08:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

your mom

• Is there any evidence that this is used outside the US? The translations are literal. I don't believe that schoolchildren all over the world use this form of insult simply because US students do.
• The quotation isn't illustrative of the sense. "Your mom goes to college" is not an insult.
• Your mum redirects here. I don't think this is used in the UK, and this would needs some content anyway rather than simply being a redirect. — Paul G 08:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"Your mum", is a common insult or retort in UK secondary schools, usually among immature people who haven't the imagination to come up with anything more sophisticated. *Sighs* 9_9 I'm sorry to say that this term is in common usage, at least in Gloucestershire. I've no idea whether it meets CFI though, as I find it unlikely that it will be durably archived. After all, why would anyone have a reason to write it down? RobbieG 14:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The same usage is common among the same group in Norwegian ("morra di). It's a recent addition to our vocabulary and in my perception doesn't originate with English language influence primarily, but as an influence from Arab immigrant youth, whose intense focus on protecting their mothers' serene reputation is a deep-rooted matter of upholding family honor. The term implies (although to most users only remotely) "I fuck (or have fucked) your mother". __meco 22:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the Spanish have the phrase tu madre, which is used similarly. RobbieG 22:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, in the UK, although the "your mum" varient is more common, it's generally percieved as an Americanism, rather than a Arabic, Spanish or Norwegian phrase. It's also not taken seriously, and isn't directed at any specific culture. RobbieG 15:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

hoodles

Any takers? SemperBlotto 18:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is one relevant hit on b.g.c., but it's a mention rather than a use. (Search for "ducks or hoodles".) —Ruakh_TALK 19:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

incarcerate

Second defintion: to trap. I'd like to see some examples of this usage. Perhaps it just needs to be exchanged with Merriam-Webster's "to subject to confinement"? __meco 22:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would you want to introduce a copyvio as a remedy for anything? --Connel MacKenzie 23:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Is referencing definitions of words listed in commercial dictionaries copyright violation? Can word definitions be copyrighted? __meco 08:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. A particular phrasing of a definition is copyright-protected material. --EncycloPetey 02:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Should the part of entelechy that is based on definitions found at Dictionary.com be removed then? __meco 14:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. But not because it is based on (it is not,) but rather, because it is directly copied from there. (Short definitions can have "fair use", not several sentences.) --Connel MacKenzie 14:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

cyberphobia

--Connel MacKenzie 23:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

joypad

--Connel MacKenzie 23:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

sublow

--Connel MacKenzie 23:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Tagged RFV since September of last year. Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 19:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

one-percenter

One-percenter

Any takers? Bad caps - no formatting. SemperBlotto 07:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The term is in use; not sure if it could be considered "clearly widespread use" though, so I guess citations will help. --Connel MacKenzie 08:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This... well I cannot conclude what definition is meant from this context...

• 1970: William J. Craddock, Be Not Content: A Subterranean Journal

  All the clubs under the one-percenter patch automatically followed the Angels. I was a one-percenter, so I was now pro-Vietnam war and anti-peace.

This seems to be an example of the wealth sense...

• 2004: Thomas J. Stanley, Millionaire Women Next Door: The Many Journeys of Successful American Businesswomen

  However, the typical ten percenter with a mortgage has a much lower balance than the typical one percenter.

I also see one percenter patch often in my search for examples of the usage of this word — any idea what those words mean?

— Beobach972 03:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The only meaning that I am familiar with for one-percenter is outlaw biker, such as a member of the Hell's Angels (w:Outlaw motorcycle club#One Percenters, Gangs and Outlaws). This is very common usage among American motorcyclists. —Stephen 17:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

2002 http://www.iamhe.net/memespore.htm (without necessarily endorsing other content on that page)

Recall the quote from Edison that: "Invention is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration." Frequently individuals submit their "inspirations" with the desire that NASA complete the other 99% of the work (and anoint the submitters with accolades). A shorthand phrase for these individuals is "one-percenters".

My first encounter with the term suggested that this sense was in use long before 2002. -Sam0472 01:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

botanism

I can't find this in any reliable online dictionary, and Randomhouse Unabridged 2d (the only large paper dict I have) doesn't list it either. Google hits, less than 350 total, point to usage where folks might be looking for the term "botany". Doesn't mean it's not real, but could someone check with access to better resources? Thanks. ArielGlenn 07:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Verified from online OED. Done some cleanup. Pronunciation needs work. SemperBlotto 07:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd that books.google.com seem to give different sorts of uses. --Connel MacKenzie 08:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Faunoiphilia

Probably another result of those websites listing oodles of phobias and philias that seem to have been invented from the prefixes for the purpose. Zero Google Books hits and not listed in OED. Dmcdevit·t 09:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

挈

[Teochew portion]

• I speak Amoy Min Nan, not Teochew Min Nan. However, this on-line dictionary lists the following Romanizations for Chaozhou: kiag4, kei3, koi3, kieg4. The Romanization of kioh8 is no where to be found. Granted, the site I listed does not always use standard spellings, but nothing is even close. -- A-cai 13:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

apricot blossom

Unlike cherry blossom, this word is not one I recall ever hearing spoken. --EncycloPetey 21:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The combination of those two words is probably relatively common, at least common enough to find three examples of usage. The question is whether or not it is idiomatic, etc. — Beobach972 03:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• 1951: Wai Wen Ch'u Pan She, Chinese Literature

  Everyone, professor or cadre, would smile at us as if we were the apricot blossom and spring themselves.

Hmm... This sounds more like a literal translation of a Chinese idiom than idiomatic usage in English. --EncycloPetey 17:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

 *shrug* Probably. — Beobach972 20:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

...opened my eyes/and what did I see?/Popcorn popping/on the apricot tree... I don't think I've ever heard "apricot blossom" but I imagine botanists might use it in a sum-of-parts manner. What is the Chinese idiom? --Connel MacKenzie 02:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is my bad if it is not idiomatic. You'll find several expressions of the form <fruit tree> + "blossom" that I added to blossom. I think these are all in the OED, but that doesn't mean they pass our CFI as the OED often lists unidiomatic collocations as examples. So if "apple blossom", "cherry blossom", etc, are found to be unidiomatic (after checking the OED), they can be deleted. A weak argument in favour of keeping these terms is that "apple", "cherry", etc, refer to the trees of those names rather than of the fruits, and so the sense is not immediately understandable when "apple" refers to a fruit much more often than it refers to a tree. A counterargument to that is, of course, that it is trees that have blossom, not fruits, so the sense is immediately understandable in that context. — Paul G 09:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: I would say, however, that orange blossom should be kept, as this could be understood to mean "blossom that is orange in colour" rather than "blossom of the orange tree", which is, of course, white. — Paul G 09:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, wow, I never made that connection. In Gabriel García Marquez's Chronicle of a Death Foretold (which I read in English translation), it explains that a bride wears a white dress and orange blossoms as a sign of her purity, which I somehow completely failed to understand. I totally thought it meant "orange-colored blossoms". So, yes, definitely keep orange blossom. (I rather feel that apricot blossom should be kept as well, but I can't formulate a coherent argument for why.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree it should be kept as a reasonable colocation, (Pawley list?) even if not idiomatic. (But I'm still curious about that Chinese idiom.) --Connel MacKenzie 18:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Blooms of degree success"? A-cai? --Connel MacKenzie 18:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep orange blossom, but I'm inclined to RFD the others. The fried egg test requries that the meaning cannot be derived from the constituents nor from their combination. In these cases it's pretty clear that the blossom is not yet a fruit. It's terms like onion blossom that require some explanation. DAVilla 20:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that peach blossom seems to have an erroneous definition. I have listed it on RFV, where I have cross-referenced this discussion. — Paul G 17:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Was just an error, I'd think. DAVilla 20:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

big auntie

big auntie and little auntie... A quick web search brings up nothing of relevance. --Keene 00:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think these terms must have been used in the user's own family and he thought they were general. (My mum had a "big aunt Mary" and a "little aunt Mary" but they were from different generations.) SemperBlotto 07:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

DELETE - --Williamsayers79 09:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Not likely to pass RFV? Okay, deleted. DAVilla 14:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

basis point

Does this have an idiomatic meaning? --EncycloPetey 02:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean to RFD? DAVilla 14:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I usually use RFD for terms that are highly dubious, but RFV for terms that might stand a chance of being cited. In this case I simply didn't know what the definition was (if a proper one existed). --EncycloPetey 17:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So it seems. I have added a proper definition, and a link to -pedia. SemperBlotto 07:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That is, replaced the definition. Struck, copied to talk. DAVilla 14:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

trake

I found on citation (which refers to the hole itself, not the recipient nor the procedure), more are needed if this entry is to be kept. -- Beobach972 04:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've found a few more cites. I've also moved the explicit definitions to trach, since that's by far the more common spelling if b.g.c. is any guide. (I think trake might actually be better described as a "misspelling" than as an "alternative spelling", but I don't know enough about it to say definitively.) —Ruakh_TALK 06:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It is common practice in the medical field to refer to the patient by the medical procedure they have undergone. "The" tracheo(s)tomy [in room...], shortened to trach or trake, would refer to a specific tracheo(s)tomy patient. --Joe Webster 22:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As per the third def. on trach, this is just pragmatic, it's not actually an equivalent. No would would ask, "Is your loved one a trach?" etc. The use needs to be a lot stonger than figurative. DAVilla 12:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As to the respelling trake, it is common for shortened forms to be respelt phonetically. --Joe Webster 22:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

gee up

Is this a common misspelling of giddyup? --Connel MacKenzie 07:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a slightly dated dialect form. RobbieG 07:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

6360 Google Book Hits, and used by such esteemed authors as Charles Dickens, apparently in the sense of "giddyup". RobbieG

I've heard it many times, but I'm sure giddyup is more common. UK regional??? --Dmol 17:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

fagling

+ -ling can be added to any word? --Connel MacKenzie 20:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, not any word. This one needs verification. DAVilla 12:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

playscale

I'm surprised to find that a Google Books search only returns four citations, two of which are from mathematics books that seem to use the word in a completely unrelated sense... for some reason I thought this was a real word. Perhaps it is; can anybody find citations? — Beobach972 20:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Regular Google shows it to be used regularly for dollhouses, related paraphernalia and, by extension, the dolls themselves of 1:6 scale. Of particular note would be About:Miniatures. --Joe Webster 21:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I thought so. Of course, we'll still have to find durably archived citations to keep the entry here. — Beobach972 01:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Three citations have been added to the article. --Joe Webster 06:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm, thanks but, unfortunately, the internet is not a durably archived resource. DAVilla 12:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is, however, clearly an industry standard. — Joe Webster 05:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. With the right type of resource, it shouldn't be difficult to cite. Maybe magazines instead of books. The current list is pretty short though.

There are a sufficient number of Usenet quotes available but I'd hate to have to resort to that. This is jargon, not casual language. DAVilla 14:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

otaku

--Connel MacKenzie 20:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's subcultural slang, with use specific to animé and manga. It gets 342 gbs hits, spanning well over 3 years. As explained in the article on Wikipedia, it's quite a complex term, and its use as a loanword is differs greatly from the Japanese usage. RobbieG 21:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

May

Exoergicity

--Connel MacKenzie 00:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved to exoergicity, citations provided. Beobach972 16:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Lamb's bread

--Connel MacKenzie 02:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it to lamb's bread and formatted it, and provided citations for it. — Beobach972 14:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

hobophobia

--Connel MacKenzie 05:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Transpressionism

RFD as promo? --Connel MacKenzie 06:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There are seven respected artists from Brazil, US, Canada, Uk and so on in this movement. As well there re independent publications refering to this movement. The French version Transpressionisme, and the Spanish version Transpresionismo is already entered into reference materials. — This comment was unsigned.

strange

As an adverb - isn't this just an error for "strangely"? Shouldn't it be "acting strangely" in the example? Or is this one of those adjectives that can also be an adverb, like "fast"? Or should the example use one of the verbs such as "look" or "seem" that use adjectives as adverbs (eg, "to look nice" rather than "to look nicely")? — Paul G 08:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just delete it. If it's verifiable then it would be a grammatical blunder. The definition, marked non-standard, does not dispute that. So put a note under Appendix:English Grammar or wherever we decide to spell out these things, and leave this one out. DAVilla 12:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Google books hits for "acting strangely": 686

...for "acting strange": 659

...for "behaving strangely": 633

...for "behaving strange": 8 (legit)

...for "actingly weirdly": 15 maybe

...for "acting weird": 631

There also appears to be a large number of legit hits for "talking strange", enough that it doesn't appear to be a simple blunder. Kappa 13:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So... keep it and mark it as an error / nonstandard? — Beobach972 16:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, act takes an adjective complement in some of its senses. This should probably go in a usage note at act, but doesn't warrant mention at every conceivable adjective used with it. —Ruakh_TALK 17:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think though, that this is almost exclusive to terms meaning strange. Compare 554 hits for "acting weird" and 251 hits for "acting odd". It's nonstandard, but it's certainly in widespread use. I'd say it was a colloquialism, rather than simply a "blunder". RobbieG 22:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's a colloquialism or an illiteracy. Call it whatever you want to. The point is that adjectives are used this way very broadly, just as the gerund is used as a noun, just as the the past participle of a transitive verb is used as an adjective. We don't list these as separate senses, regardless of how common they are. DAVilla 23:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. As any adjective can be misused as an adverb (eg, "don't talk ridiculous"), but we won't make a point of listing these here. However, if "strange" can be the complement of some verbs, do we give an entry for it? The verbs for the senses have adjectival complements ("look strange", "sound strange", "smell strange", "feel strange" and "taste strange") but again, just about any adjective can be used in this way, and these are still adjectives, not adverbs. So should it go? — Paul G 09:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a difference in meaning? 'Acting strangely' means 'behaving in a strange manner' whereas 'acting strange' means 'acting as if one were strange'/'acting that one is strange'. Thus, when you're walking down the street some strangely acting guy is approaching while your mate next to you is acting strange, apparently pretending to be a retard. Gaston 00:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I think, however, that "strange" is still an adjective here, as it is in "look strange", "feel strange", etc. Looks like we should delete the adverb entry. — Paul G 09:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is. That's what I am saying. Delete the adverb sense. Gaston 08:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Striking this out as resolved. Someone else has already deleted the adverbial sense. — Paul G 17:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

joxquiz

--Connel MacKenzie 13:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to find two more citations. However, it has one citation, so I'm copying it to the LOP. — Beobach972 03:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

miniaturism

Verification of the sense of ‘hobby of collecting, creating and/or displaying scale miniature items’ is needed. I'm not quite sure which sense the quotation I supplied pertains to, by the way. — Beobach972 17:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is the hobby of the miniaturist² as expressed by the -ist/-ism relationship. — Joe Webster 19:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

But is it in use? — Beobach972 20:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't -ism automatically implied by -ist? — Joe Webster 23:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Not unless you want to claim that the existence of artist, typist, flautist/flutist, and heck, mist and fist automatically makes artism, typism, flautism/flutism, mism, and fism words. (Some of them do actually have enough b.g.c. cites to pass RFV, but are you really claiming that the mere existence of their -ist counterparts would mean we should include them?) —Ruakh_TALK 00:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"Fist" and "mist" do not contain the morpheme -ist. The examples given above seem to be the exceptions rather than the rule. For the adherent/adherence relationship, such as hedonist/hedonism, atheist/atheism, creationist/creationism, etc., they seem pretty inseparable. — Joe Webster 07:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, -ed and -ing are included when a verb gets accepted, whether used or not. — Joe Webster 22:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

preferences

• Moved to WT:TR#preferences. DAVilla 22:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone care to explain to me why this heading is indented? Some nonsensical magic key word or something? DAVilla 22:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's because this section heading has its id attribute (of type ID) set to preferences, which is treated specially in /skins-1.5/monobook/main.css (and presumably other skins' counterparts). I've added some whitespace now, so at least the box won't cover up text in the preceding section; I don't think there's a better solution. (?) —Ruakh_TALK 00:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

drunk as a lord

--Connel MacKenzie 18:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hmmm the first 3 pages of google books hits are dictinaries but there must be some real uses in there somewhere. [60] Kappa 19:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• 1997 Max Crawford Lords of the Plain : A Novel, University of Oklahoma Press, ISBN 978-0806129082, page 183

"Good many of them drunk as lords," said DuBois of the established merriment of the guests.

• 2001 Ryotaro Shiba and Eileen Kato Drunk as a Lord: Samurai Stories, Kodansha International, ISBN 978-4770027375
• 2006 Edward Marston The Princess of Denmark: An Elizabethan Theater Mystery Featuring Nicholas Bracewell, St. Martin's Minotaur, ISBN 978-0312356187, page 17

"How he managed to light it, God knows, for he was as drunk as a lord. As soon as his head touched the pillow, he was asleep."

Courtesy of Amazon.com. __meco 20:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've heard this dozens of times, although I always thought it was UK regional --Dmol 21:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a common idiom in the UK. SemperBlotto 21:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A few more, for good measure (including an old one) :

• 1909: Frances Hodgson Burnett, The Secret Garden

  He gave her a good hidin' an' went to th' Blue Lion an' got as drunk as a lord.

• 2004: Fyofor Dostoyevsky, The House of the Dead

  Then vodka was brought out; the hero of the day would get drunk as a lord and always walked all over the prison, reeling and staggering, trying to show to everyone that he was drunk, that he was “jolly” and so deserving of general respect. Everywhere among the Russian people a certain sympathy is felt for a drunken man; in prison he was positively treated with respect.

The quotations also indicate that as drunk as a lord should redirect as an alternative form (or this should be moved thither). — Beobach972 21:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

heal

Noun sense...why should we be promoting misuses? FWIW, I've only heard "can you heal me?" in this context. --Connel MacKenzie 19:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what makes you think this is a "misuse" (nominalization is pretty common), nor do I think that inclusion in Wiktionary should be taken as "promotion". Random web examples:

[61] This disease damage is then converted into a heal for the ally.

[62] It's tough to get too excited about the Draeni just because of that, although their racial abilities -- a heal, a couple of passive party bonuses, and a bonus to the new trade skill Jewelcrafting -- are decent.

[63] Partially true, a shield generates only half the amont of aggro that a heal does for the same HP's, a shield is very useful when used right.

[64] Of course, I also felt bad when a heal misfired and a team member died.

[65] This is especially useful for parties with multiple healers, so that you don't accidentally cast a heal on the same person

You could probably find print uses in strategy guides and gaming magazines. --Ptcamn 21:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the matter with you? Why the automatic assumption of bad faith? Not a single other dictionary lists it as a noun, not even your beloved OED. Or are you trying to say that all "gamers" are illiterate? And we should therefore promote their misuses?

"Taken as promotion"? WTF? Of course appearance of a term in Wiktionary is promotion. The experiment, now known as WT:RFV, is largely a failure because of that feature. Terms appearing here often magically have more results from a Google search after just a few days, where they had zero previously. By the time 30 days have passed, only the very most ridiculous items return less than a hundred search results. --Connel MacKenzie 22:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a misuse and its existance does not mean that gamers are illiterate. This is an example of jargon (definition 1), or possibly slang. Whether it meets CFI or not is undoubtedly a seperate issue, but within the gaming subculture, this is a perfectly legitimate term.

Even if it is bad English, Wiktionary doesn't purposefully promote the words it features. We include definitions for numerous curse words and pejorative terms, but that doesn't mean we're advising people to use them. RobbieG 22:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't twist what I said in response to Vlad like that. Yes, appearance here is demonstrably promoting the term. --Connel MacKenzie 23:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that I had twisted your response at all, so I must have misunderstood it. Would you mind me asking you to explain your view? If that's OK.

Also, FWIW, if the word is in use, what's wrong with acknowleging its existence? RobbieG 15:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What version of the OED are you looking it? The second edition (1989) has heal as a noun in several different meanings, with attestations going back to 901. (The usage they document is apparently independent of the gaming one, though.)

I still have no idea what you're worried about though. What is so pernicious about using "heal" as a noun? --Ptcamn 00:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's still used as a noun in Scotland. But I think we should be careful - this use seems to be an independent formation from the verb, rather than a continuation of the obsolete noun. Widsith 14:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

sex offender

I am specifically wondering if there should not be a delineation or at least a distinction made between this term and sex criminal, the latter more explicit about a breach of criminal law having been perpetrated, the former perhaps allowing more subjective opinion based on someone feeling offended. I'm unsure if citations can be produced for this position though. __meco 20:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S. at least, a sex offender is definitely a criminal. Indeed, I think our current definition is, if anything, a bit too broad, in that I think a sex offender is specifically someone who's committed a sex crime, while our definition makes it sound like someone who's committed sexual harassment could be considered a sex offender. —Ruakh_TALK 20:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That would make the two terms basically synonymous then? __meco 20:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess, except that "sex offender" is a very common term (>1.5 MGhits) while "sex criminal" is fairly rare (<38 kGhits), and I only understand it by making the analogy "crime":"criminal"::"sex crime":"sex criminal". —Ruakh_TALK 03:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard the term used to mean anything other than a criminal sexual action. The term 'sex offenders register' of sexual offenders would indicate that the law has been broken. Where is it ever used that it means merely offending someone. If that was the definition I would RFV that. The defintion given is accurate, although a little expansion wouldn't hurt.--Dmol 21:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

gummy

I know that everyone agrees that gummies are a type of candy, as has been brought up here before, but being one of the oldest tagged RFV's I wanted to eliminate it with certainty. And I would hope I have a reputation of being pretty thorough in my searches. That said I could find only one good citation of the singular for this sense, plus one lousy one (why not?) and maybe this one (use-mention?) from authors with pseudonyms.

In searching I have run across many types of gummy candies. Besides "gummy bear" these include, from memory, worm, snake, spider, bug, frog, fish, shark, dinosaur, fruit, booger, and yes, even "gummy penis", all edible, not to mention "gummy sweet" etc. And those are just the Google Book hits. So don't say I haven't done my homework. Or rather, your homework in this case.

Certainly the term is verifiable in the plural, in fact easily so. But there just isn't all that much for just one gummy, so to speak. By our rules, doesn't that mean it should be struck? DAVilla 22:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, should the "content" be moved first to gummy bear, gummy worm, gummy snake, gummy car, gummy spider, etc., first? (You are saying "gummy" is never used on its own, right? I guess can believe that.)

Is gummies marked as pluralia tantum then? Should it be? --Connel MacKenzie 23:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on this matter isn't based on our current policies. I think it's pretty darned obvious that if gummies are candies used in the plural then there would naturally be a singular form. In fact none of the links you've highlighted could be idiomatic unless they mean candies in other shapes than the one indicated (as I believe "gummy bear" and "gummy worm" would; that those two are set phrases is also supported by the different intonation pattern). Otherwise we would have to say that the word gummy in this sense is only used attributively OR in the plural, never in the singular just by itself, which is a very awkward position to be in, and despite a poor show in attestation, one that we all know isn't true. DAVilla 14:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts. Crisps ("chips" in the US) are sold in packets of more than one, so "crisps" is arguably the more common form. However, "Would you like a crisp?" shows that the singular certainly exists. I think the same argument probably applies to gummies (I think these are what we call them jelly babies in the UK), so "gummy" would be legit.

Now, as for which should be the main entry and cross-reference the other, there are two approaches for "crisp(s)":

• "Crisps" is the more common form, so list under "crisps" and cross-refer the singular to the plural.
• Put under "crisp" and make "crisps" one of our usual optional "plural of..." articles.

For the record, the OED does the latter. I think doing the same would make sense with "gummy", unless "gummies" is or was originally a brand name (compare "Pringles", etc), in which case that must be the main article. I know next to nothing about these sweets (sorry, this candy ;) ) so my comments might not apply. — Paul G 18:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

(Sweet is not chiefly British.)

More awkward is Cracker Jack, which is often used in the plural.

If you agree that it's pretty obvious, then I'd like to strike this by formulating a basic rule: regular inflection attested (the plural in this case), attested spelling for similar meaning (attributive in this case). DAVilla 20:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

While sweet isn't specifically British, sweets mainly is (what we call candy and rarely, when trying to sound British, sweets.) "Cracker Jacks" (the common form) is trickier because the "correct" form (at least in the song) is "Cracker Jack" (pluralia tantum) but is most often errantly pronounced as "Cracker Jacks."

Anyhow, could you please rephrase your proposed basic rule so that I can understand it? I think I agree, but the wording is a bit obtuse. --Connel MacKenzie 20:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

1. If the spelling of the term in question can be verified by some means (references, a similar meaning, etc.),
2. If there is another form of the term that derives or is derived from active production rules,
3. If that other form is attested by the usual criteria (three citations of use spanning a year that convey meaning), and
4. If there are no attested irregular spellings for the term in question, then

• The definition implied by the active production rules can be assumed legitimate and does not need to be attested. 15:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there some reason we can't just say "(usually with "bear")" on the noun definition line? That of course, is the rub; that sometimes the word is used alone, but sheesh, this is quite impossible to verify. Worse still, is that the definition given is precisely that - a single gummy bear (or other.) Searches that manage to exclude the adjective, don't exclude the normal "gummy bear" form; searches without "bear" return adjectival uses. The normal English rules of omission imply that in context it ("bear" or "worm" etc.) can be dropped, leaving an implied subject. But you and I know that the term is used alone, much more frequently than that. In spoken English, "gummy" might even be more common than "gummy bear". [66] What's the official English language rule for when objects can be abbreviated or omitted? --Connel MacKenzie 14:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

bundy

Appears to be a protologism or personal attack. Rod (A. Smith) 00:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Given the existence of the proper noun Bundy, I suspect that this is a protologism aimed at someone with that surname. I certainly cannot find any usages with any meanings remotely related to this. However, note that bundy on (synonymous with clock on) is well-attested Australian English that one can find in print magazines such as Computerworld and in Hansard for the Australian House of Representatives. Uncle G 02:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's potentially a coinage related to the Fox "comedy" program Married… with Children, whose "protagonist" family was surnamed Bundy. --EncycloPetey 04:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Scubaholic

Protologism? Needs formatting, slimming down, and moving to uncapitalized. SemperBlotto 07:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-idiomatic addition of -holic to an activity. See wikiholic. bd2412 T 19:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

fsck

Claims to mean fuck (often as an interjection, especially after a failed run of the former.)". I'm guessing by that CMK means "someone tried to type fuck on the touchpad/keyboard but made a tyop". I can't even understand how, on a mobile phone touchpad or on a keyboard, that mistake would be a common one, because the s button isn't near the u button on either. --Keene 12:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It is the most common Linux command for "File System ChecK" available on almost all distributions. I don't recall ever seeing this on a cell phone, but incessantly on IRC, /., etc. The template tag may have changed meaning since I first added that entry. (Yes, if you are performing a filesystem check, particularly a few years ago before journalling filesystems were common, "fsck" was a wonderful expletive describing the fact that a system had just been improperly rebooted.) --Connel MacKenzie 15:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Rfvpassed: entry has been "Uncle G"'ed. --Connel MacKenzie 19:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

rehi

I don't do much Internet l33t speak or much txtin, but am fmlr w most abrvtns. 0 of my skoolkds hav hrd've this eitha. RFV plz--Keene 12:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I see this whenever I /join #wikimedia-toolserver. It seems to be particular to German Wikipedians, for some reason, when they turn off "/away" (i.e. when they return to IRC from a real life distraction.) --Connel MacKenzie 15:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

teetotalling

Verb? SemperBlotto 18:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh... more like an adjective. Some examples taken from the first page of a Google Books search :

• 1958: Vance Nye Bourjaily, The Violated: A Novel

  Most were some variation of the girl-whistling, boyish, movie kind, but a few were serious, teetotalling and religious.

• 1988: Arnold M. Ludwig, Understanding the Alcoholic's Mind: Refocusing the Past

  Their teetotalling, absolutist frame of mind, along with its associated attitudes, simply closed off the option to drink.

• 1976: Sheldon M. Novick, The Electric War: The Fight Over Nuclear Power

  Insull was English, from an earnest, teetotalling family of modest means. He had learned shorthand and was advancing nicely in a London firm of auctioneers ...

— Beobach972 20:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

divulgation

Sense - Technical and scientific divulgation is the technology and science communication to the general public. SemperBlotto 21:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• It´s a synonym of Public awareness of science. See:
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Reis
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%AAmio_Jos%C3%A9_Reis_de_Divulga%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Cient%C3%ADfica
  • http://www.freewebs.com/pgostrov/edivul.html
  • http://www.aboutbigbang.com/results.asp?nSector=8&cSector=Divulgation
  • http://www.lip.pt/divulgacao/Physics/
  • http://www.linkedin.com/pub/1/aba/133
  • http://abaco.izt.uam.mx/english/prints/p99.html
  • http://web.media.mit.edu/~earroyo/curr_en.pdf
  • http://anywherebb.com/postline/posts.php?t=721&p=22

and so and so on... So, I am going to delete the request for verification, because it has been verified IMHO. --Mac 16:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A and B the C of D

Urban Dictionary coinage? Dmcdevit·t 09:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No hits on b.g.c., no hits on Google Groups, and Google only displays 30 Web hits (though it claims there are 132 until you actually visit the third page of this), of which as many are explaining the term as using it. —Ruakh_TALK 20:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering that some of the web hits, LiveJournal etc. actually use the term as described, we can let it run the course. It doesn't look too hopeful though. DAVilla 18:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Anthroposphere

OED hasn't heard of it. Cites would be nice. Dmcdevit·t 09:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Not in the OED? Really? It's in Webster's. I'm not sure whether I can find cites that are durably archived, but will see what I can do. --EncycloPetey 21:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Aspilogia

Coined as a Latin title to a book. OED doesn't know of it, if it's used in English. Any independent and widespread use? Dmcdevit·t 09:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

keep as a Latin entry. It turns up in the Latin titles of other armorial texts. --EncycloPetey 03:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up and moved to aspilogia. --EncycloPetey 03:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bankerhoo

Nonce word? Dmcdevit·t 09:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"the wind up"

Needs cleanup, if it passes CFI. Dmcdevit·t 09:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• And no quote marks. —Stephen 15:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• put the wind up and get the wind up could conceivably be redirects to the wind up meaning "an anxious feeling about one's situation". It is a common UK expression. SemperBlotto 16:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC) (I wonder if it is Scottish - the anxiety of a "traditional" kilt wearer in windy weather)
• Perhaps while we're looking at this, we could also consider windup, wind-up and wind up, which were posted to RFC quite some time ago. I have no idea what to do with all of it, but perhaps someone else will. Atelaes 16:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• put the wind up has been listed by other dictionaries for at least 40 years. It is listed on page 743 of The Kenkyusha Dictionary of Current English Idioms, published in 1964, and on page 422 of The Wordsworth Dictionary of Idioms, ISBN 1853263095. Uncle G 13:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, please enter those three British forms...I still don't quite get how it means "anxious." Any etymology for it? --Connel MacKenzie 06:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It's soldiers' slang, from World War I. () "windy" meant "habitually frightened". From it first came "have the wind up" and "get the wind up", i.e be or become frightened or anxious, and thence "put the wind up", i.e. to cause someone to be or become frightened or anxious. Uncle G 14:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Baltwash

Widespread enough usage? Dmcdevit·t 09:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Not that I can find. Most instances of baltwash or Baltwash found by googling refer to the regional airport, web servers, or other on-line groups. They all are apparently using the term in reference to Baltimore/Washington, but more as part of an on-line address than as a proper word. I found only one or two uses of BaltWash (note capitalization) that applied clearly in the sense of Baltimore + Washington. I think I'd call it a protologism at this point. --EncycloPetey 21:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

janx

Protologism? Rod (A. Smith) 21:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

EAT-O-TWIST

No evidence of widespread use. Only a few hits on Google.--Dmol 08:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Open source technology

Moved to WT:RFD#Open source technology. DAVilla 04:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

meme

Discussion moved from December Rfv. Please discuss further. Andrew massyn 20:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This encyclopedia article needs to be changed into a dictionary article. — Hippietrail 15:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Still? I think it looks good now. — henne 10:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it no longer needs fixing --140.211.91.237 01:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to anti-verify online quizzes as individual memes. I have never seen the usage, and it does not match well with the established definition. Also, I don't think "memetic" is derived from meme; I'm pretty sure it's the other way around. --140.211.91.237 01:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In the sense of "(loosely) An interactive quiz or survey spread from one user to another on the Internet" DAVilla 18:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

See (for example) these results from a search of LiveJournal, where practically every occurrence of "this meme" refers to something of the above kind. [67] 86.131.94.6 18:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's interesting! Too bad we can't use LiveJournal though. I sometimes quote blogs if they seem pretty solid, but anymore I even then prefer not to except as an addition, since they seldom count as durable, and even then questionably so. LiveJournal is so transient that half the time the pages are gone before I can even quote them. But nevermind, I'll see what I can dig up. DAVilla 22:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think mark it as a neologism and leave it. It seems a natural extension of the word. Rfvpassed Harmless. Andrew massyn 20:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems I spoke too soon. See discussion above. Leaving the rfvtag for the nonce. Andrew massyn 20:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

peach blossom

[wrong def?]

"The flower of a pear tree that will eventually turn into an pear." (my emphasis) Should be "peach", surely? (Note also the discussion of apricot blossom in Wiktionary:Requests for deletion.)

Surely. Probably came in a batch edit. Now corrected. DAVilla 19:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. RFV tag removed. — Paul G 06:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediterranean

The sense "As an oceanographic term, any salty body of water largely surrounded by land and having a limited exchange of water with the ocean."

• Firstly, does this sense exist?
• This is a noun definition under the adjective - is it meant to be a definition of an adjective or a noun?
• I suspect this would be "mediterranean" (lower-case m) rather than "Mediterranean" - is this the case? If so, move to mediterranean.

— Paul G 18:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

eski

"sublow". --Connel MacKenzie 19:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

dubstep

"sublow" --Connel MacKenzie 19:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

8-bar

"sublow" --Connel MacKenzie 19:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

paper board

Or should this be at RFD as sum-of-parts? (Describes any board of directors, pejoratively, no?) --Connel MacKenzie 00:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

What sum of parts. It's idiomatic, the board members are not made out of paper. My first thought when I saw this was that it was some sort of cardboard.--Dmol 10:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't see any google hits for this sense but it does seem to be an alternative spelling for paperboard (w:Paperboard). Kappa 00:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. Paper board might not exist in that definition, but a sum of parts arguement surely does not apply here.--Dmol 07:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As the author of the disputed definition, I first would like to apologize about about formatting problems, as I am a new user. As far as the origin of the word goes, it is relatively common slang in the non-profit world. I could not find terms that turned up this meaning on google, not did I find it on some online dictionaries and thesauruses.

I do not feel that "paperboard" would be correct spelling, as the contraction has no point. The Paper element and the Board element are not empirically integrated or inherently inseparable, as the pulp product is. It is sounded as two distinct words, actually the separation is used as an added emphasis. A "paper board" is inherently highly descriptive to anyone who has had the unfortunate experience of sitting on one, however, and when the term was told to me, I practically jumped for joy.

Thank you editors, for all your hard work. - - cognitdiss 12:28, 9 May 2007 (PST)

axad

Hmm. Widsith 11:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This would have been better off under RfD. deleted; Google supported a proper name in fiction, a foreign term, and an acronym. No support for the bizarre definitions given. --EncycloPetey 05:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

pigin

Shouldn't this be pidgin. (Definition could do with improving) SemperBlotto 14:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, (fairly un-)common misspelling; I haven't seen anything that would raise it to "variant spelling", although there are gbc hits that might qualify. Note that even the WP article(s) are just redirects to pidgin. Is probably worth the soft misspelling-of redirect. Robert Ullmann 15:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Marked as misspelling. --EncycloPetey 05:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

But as Robert says, it is not a common misspelling, is it? — Paul G 06:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how common or uncommon it is; I simply am following his recommendation to place a soft redirect on the page. --EncycloPetey 15:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

IMO we should just remove "common" from the misspelling template. --Ptcamn 14:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't have misspellings listed in the main namespace. Allowing common ones was a mistake. --Connel MacKenzie 17:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete as too rare: 8,360,000 vs. 46,400. --Connel MacKenzie 17:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

make whoopee

Second sense (originally added as nonsense; deleted out of hand.) --Connel MacKenzie 16:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's actually the only sense I was familiar with; I didn't realize there was a more general sense.

• 2006, Lorelei Sharkey and Emma Taylor, Em & Lo's Rec Sex: An A-Z Guide to Hooking Up, Chronicle Books, ISBN 0811852121, page 89,

  Before you get all prickly on us, "just friends" doesn't necessarily mean you're making whoopee together–it simply implies that the friendship is a little, shall we say, complicated. Either a) you used to make whoopee, b) one of you would kinda maybe like to make whoopee, c) you both kind of know you'll eventually make whoopee, or d) you spend so much time together that you may as well be making whoopee–what the hell's stopping you, anyway?

(obviously those uses aren't independent of each other, but when a single sentence has so many instances of the term being RFV'd, you just have to include the whole thing).

—Ruakh_TALK 19:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• 1995, Bradford Matsen, Planet Ocean: A Story of Life, the Sea and Dancing to the Fossil Record, Ten Speed Press, ISBN 0898157781, page 1,

  Some of the rich orange globes of life-yet-to-be always wash from the streambed gravel where they were deposited a few months earlier by salmon that had died, poignantly, mere hours after making whoopee.

—Ruakh_TALK 19:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• 1990, Leonard Maltin, Leonard Maltin's TV Movies and Video Guide, Penguin, ISBN 0451167481, page 55,

  Disaster at the newly opened ski resort where hard-driving tycoon Hudson is determined to double his not insubstantial investment while his ex-wife Mia is making whoopee with one of the locals championing ecology.

—Ruakh_TALK 20:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Date of lyrics?, Author? - He's washing dishes and baby clothes / He's so ambitious he even sows / but don't forget folks thats what you get folks / for makein whoopee SemperBlotto 21:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

1928? See w:Makin' Whoopee! Kappa 00:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As with Ruakh, I was only familiar with the second definition until now. --EncycloPetey 22:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed --EncycloPetey 21:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

spranky

--Connel MacKenzie 16:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost certain joke entry. Could not verify. Deleted SemperBlotto 16:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

none of your bee's wax

I believe this should be "none of your beeswax", if at all. The usual spelling of the word is "beeswax" (see print dictionaries); an older spelling is "bees-wax" (see OED), but "bee's wax" is not used.

Further, the expression is "mind your own beeswax" (see print dictionaries), so I would like to see citations for this purported form. — Paul G 06:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of spelling, I have often heard "none of your beeswax" rather than "mind your own beeswax". --Dmol 07:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, in the US, it is sometimes "bee's wax" with the two words pronounced entirely distinctly. --Connel MacKenzie 07:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have encountered both expressions many, many times in Canada and the US, just as one encounters both "mind your own business" and "none of your business" ("beeswax" being, of course, a rough homophone for "business"). In everyday written usage, the spellings are all over the map. -- WikiPedant 13:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

googolplextrex

No Google Web, Groups, Scholar, or Book hits. —Ruakh_TALK 06:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's another of these invented terms for very large numbers, by the look of it.

Just as a point of interest, serious mathematicians tend to use scientific notation for anything much above a thousand. Million to (perhaps) quintillion are all valid, of course, but anything much above that (even googol, which only recreational mathematicians use) is really nothing more than fodder for one of those lists of those words that only ever appear in lists of words. — Paul G 06:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd take it three zeros further because I have seen sextillion used with some frequency in old science texts. The Earth "weighs" 6.6 sextillion tons (IIRC), which is where I first leaned the name of a number beyond a trillion. And googol and googolplex occur in astronomy texts as part of discussions about very large numbers and the size of the known universe. I learned both words originally watching Cosmos hosted by Carl Sagan back when it first aired. --EncycloPetey 15:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll give you that. I was being a bit conservative. Number-names up to sextillion are indeed in frequent non-technical usage, as are "googol" and "googolplex". Print dictionaries give the "-illions" up to decillion, and also centillion, but I contend that these are rarely used, if ever. Anything above that (apart from googol(plex)) is suspect. (Aside: similarly with polygons; I think I've mentioned before somewhere that mathematics use pentagon to decagon and also dodecagon; undecagon anything above dodecagon are rare, although heptadecagon gets used in discussions of geometrical approximations of pi, I think. When mathematicians want to talk about a polygon with n sides that doesn't have a commonly used name (or even for polygons that do) they refer to n-gons, where n can have any positive integer value from 3 upwards (or sometimes even be 1 or 2, contrary things that we mathematicians are ;) ) — Paul G 17:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

When I teach non-Euclidean geometry (which is rarely, sad to say), I challenge my students two construct a 2-gon. I'll note that I have come across chiliagon (1000-gon) more than once in print, and it does have an entry in major dictionaries. I challenge my students to draw one after they've leaned to construct regular hexagons, dodecagons, pentagons, etc with a compass and straightedge. (Notice that I don't ask them to construct a regular chiliagon). --EncycloPetey 20:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And yet, it doesn't even seem to be in any list of words. —Ruakh_TALK 06:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny, that. In fact, the contributor admits ignorance of the correct meaning (if there is one) of the term in the comment added when contributing the term ("not sure - please check"). I've asked him/her to provide evidence, mentioned our CFI and pointed out that we don't accept urbandictionary-type content. — Paul G 06:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted on sight. SemperBlotto 07:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC) (aka Exclusionist)

infidal

No relevant-seeming Google Web, Groups, Scholar, or Book hits. (From the same contributor as googolplextrex.) —Ruakh_TALK 06:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

See discussion for googolplextrex above. — Paul G 06:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted on sight. SemperBlotto 07:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC) (aka Exclusionist)

friend

In the romantic-friendship sense. (The romantic friendship article is cited, but I don't think that friend alone can really mean that.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's almost identical to the first definition. Redundant.--Dmol 17:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Since friend apparently also means boy/girlfriend, there's no evidence that "friend" has any implication on sexual relation. Removed. DAVilla 20:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Examples could really help a case like this. Was the contributor thinking of "just a friend" or "just friends" perhaps? Does that merit inlusion separately? DAVilla 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

push

Verb sense: To attempt to move to an earlier position in a queue/line, with the example When the train arrives, there is [sic] always people pushing, trying to secure seats for themselves.

The definition is for "push in" (= "jump the queue"), or is "push" also used in this sense? I would say that the sense illustrated by the example just "to push" in the first sense, that is, people pushing against each other in their efforts to get on the train, rather than trying to jump in front of each other. — Paul G 17:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is push in, not a separate sense for push. --EncycloPetey 19:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

moot

In the Australian slang sense of vagina. (Seems plausible enough, but the link to UD that it's sporting practically constitutes an RFV tag.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

goat

The verb sense. (Was added originally at goating.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe confusion with goad? —Ruakh_TALK 01:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

az

English sense. Plausible, but iffy. Citations would help enormously. --Connel MacKenzie 06:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like rubbish to me. No computer program I've ever used in my many years of doing so has ever had an "az" button. A button with an icon that reads "A–Z", maybe, but never "az". And I would just say "Click on that button to sort the data" not "Click on that button to az the data". I suspect it's nothing more than part of the idiolect of the poster. I could be wrong, of course. — Paul G 15:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If this exists at all, you might expect FOLDOC to list it, but it has just "The country code for Azerbaijan." :) — Paul G 15:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Angrez

Was originally added without language; now the language added is Hindustani, which doesn't usually use the English alphabet; can anyone confirm whether this is genuine Roman Urdu, or if it's an English word that comes from Hindustani, or what? —Ruakh_TALK 14:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about usage in Hindi or Urdu, but it is a word in English, and is in the OED. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1202721,00.html Pistachio 15:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hindi and Urdu must be in the proper scripts. If this is English, it is only English, and the Urdu and Hindi versions would be translations. —Stephen 16:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn. —Ruakh_TALK 18:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

tyoga

Spam... can we salvage it, or must we delete it? — Beobach972 04:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, I don't want to filter through that for something salvagable. If someone wants to add a real defition, it'll be easier to start from scratch. Deleted Atelaes 18:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Colored People's Time

banker's hours I've heard, but not this. (Capitalization is wrong.) --Connel MacKenzie 04:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Request withdrawn. I'll add the Martin Luther King Jr. quote. --Connel MacKenzie 14:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

mark

Wrestling sense. Not sure if this should be {{rfd-redundant}} or rfv. Or both. --Connel MacKenzie 17:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you consider pro wrestlers to be con artists then yes, they are redundant. DAVilla 18:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A con artist isn't the only thing described in the earlier definitions; as they are simply specialized "actors" it is more of swindle. Either way, the "wrestling" sense is only an example, not a distinct sense. --Connel MacKenzie 17:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Are they swindlers then? In other words, does pro wrestling have "intended victims"? DAVilla 17:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

soudert

—Ruakh_TALK 18:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Its a standard inflection of the Scots verb souder which apears in the Dictionary of Scots Language. RfV removed. --Williamsayers79 19:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

bug

Crustaceans, card cheats, and telegraph senses. --Connel MacKenzie 02:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Crustacean, definite yes. I was going to add Morton Bay bug but it is already in there.--Dmol 20:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

D'oh. That isn't even specific to Australia. OK, my bad; I'll remove that tag now. The other two still need something, though. --Connel MacKenzie 17:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Telegraph key sense cited. Cynewulf 18:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

ubersexual

Sounds great, but really? bd2412 T 02:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read it in written also . But it comes from German, instead of english. --Rider 10:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

sapiosexual

Really? bd2412 T 02:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

all hat and no cattle

Can we have some references for this and its synonyms, please? I haven't heard of any of them. I think Connel entered them, so perhaps he might be able to add some.

Note also that all of the synonyms listed link to the page for "all hat and no cattle", which is bad. — Paul G 08:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, hey! [68] I only reformatted it. The main one I've heard; the others sound plausible enough to my ear. Each one seems like a colorful use of the English language, but I agree they probably are not strict idioms. --Connel MacKenzie 16:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

How is big hat, no cattle an "alternative spelling"? People really do like to abuse that heading. DAVilla 16:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, you certainly can blame me for trying to standardize headings. September 2005 was long before "Alternative forms" was deemed acceptable, IIRC. --Connel MacKenzie 06:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it acceptable now? I don't know what an alternative form is. An alternative spelling was something that meant the same thing and that I would pronounce the same way. Call me old-fashioned, I guess. DAVilla 18:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is all better now? --Connel MacKenzie 17:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

실내

English "translation" doesn't make any sense. SemperBlotto 11:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. —Stephen 14:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Closed as RFC DAVilla 18:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

nagin

--Connel MacKenzie 21:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Content is for a different word. Just delete it. SemperBlotto 22:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that it has been here since September, 2005 gave me pause. --Connel MacKenzie 04:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack? User:Dkraft's only contribution (or others also deleted). DAVilla 18:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

compersion

--Connel MacKenzie 23:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Cited. DAVilla 19:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

give stick

I think I have heard this, but only in reference to a hockey player's actions on the ice. Does it really exist outside of the hockey rink, with either of these meanings? --Connel MacKenzie 04:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The first mention ("to abuse") is very common in UK English. The object goes between the verb and the noun (as in "give someone stick"). Now I think of it, I think it might need to be "give (someone) some stick" rather than just "give (someone) stick". — Paul G 15:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of citations available for the form without "some". One may also get (some) stick and take (some) stick. Kappa 23:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

quango

--Connel MacKenzie 04:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that capitalized, it seems well attested as an African river. But I don't see this use. --Connel MacKenzie 05:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The OED has this "A semi-public administrative body outside the civil service but financed by the exchequer and having members appointed by the government." SemperBlotto 07:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Very common in Australia. Sometimes spelt Quango.--Dmol 08:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, stricken. Can you please fix the capitalization (which is correct?) --Connel MacKenzie 14:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Why isn't is QUANGO with the ==={{acronym}}=== heading? --Connel MacKenzie 14:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it's an acronym that has become a common noun, like radar and laser. — Paul G 15:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest quango, with Quango as an alt spelling. Maybe mark QUANGO as a rare alt spelling.--Dmol 13:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

mook

I thought this was a racial pejorative (confer gook.) Is this definition (given at entry) attested outside that movie? --Connel MacKenzie 04:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've heard the term even though I've never seen that movie, so yes. I've heard the term mostly in gangster films, so it's likely archaic at this point (unless it's taken on a new life). I've never been fully clear on the intended meaning from any context in which I've heard the word, but the AHD defines it as "An insignificant or contemtible person." Since that is the definition we have, it looks like a copyvio. --EncycloPetey 04:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think fuckmook counts as a separate word. --Ptcamn 12:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

GBM

Meant to mean (in gay personal ads) Gay black male. I'm unfamiliar the gay personal ad world, but quick websearches give little evidence. Same with GAM. --Keene 08:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

See personal ads in some gay publications. Compare SWF for "single white female". — Paul G 15:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

GAM

As above. --Keene 08:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As above. — Paul G 15:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

bum chum

Is this specific to the UK? --Connel MacKenzie 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Probably. All of the prose occurrences that I can find in 5 minutes have U.K. authors. It's definitely attested. Coleman lists it (along with rantum scantum, hanky panky, handy dandy, cock block, claptrap, poxbox, he she, bunch punch, fag hag, joy boy, peer queer, hoddy doddy, and lovey dovey) on page 10 of ISBN 3110145049. She also lists it (dating it to 1988) on page 250 of ISBN 9042004339. Uncle G 15:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

throw

Sense "A single instance, occurrence, venture, or chance." Is this really an example of the first sense under the second etymology? If so, it needs to be moved there, and will make that sense extant, not obsolete. — Paul G 15:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly widspread colloquial use, in the US. Third etymology ("Unknown") then? --Connel MacKenzie 12:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. It looks far too close to the purportedly obsolete sense. Needs to be checked in the OED or another good dictionary. — Paul G 15:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Vėlė

Caps? Funny characters? English? SemperBlotto 16:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It’s Lithuanian. Corrected and moved to vėlė. —Stephen 18:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Knife rape

Verify; current definition is rather too specific, I think. — Paul G 09:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• All Google Books hits turn up decidedly non-idiomatic senses. bd2412 T 09:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

se Dio vuole

This is good Italian for (literally) "if God wants", that is, "if God wills it", or, idiomatically, "God willing", "(may it) please God", or "Deo volente" (the Latin phrase, which is also used in English).

These expressions are used to wish or hope that something will happen. The expression "grazie a Dio" means "thanks be to God"/"thank God"; in English at least, these are used after something has happened. I'm therefore not convinced that "grazie a Dio" is a synonym for "se Dio vuole". — Paul G 09:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You can *also* use the expression 'se Dio vuole' after something has happened, as a synonym of grazie a Dio. Here's an example (from Ragazzini -Zanichelli press- dictionary): 'se Dio vuole è finita!' -> it's all over now, thank God! Other example: 'se Dio vuole è venerdì!' -> thank God it's Friday!. --Barmar 10:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Great, thank you for confirming that. So that means there are two meanings, then. — Paul G 14:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Entry fixed and RFV tag removed. Striking. — Paul G 14:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

ripe

"Intoxicated" sense - is that regional?

Noun - really?

Verb? Really? You mean ripen, surely?

--Connel MacKenzie 12:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the "intoxicated" sense is archaic; Shakespeare uses it, and modern editors footnote it. I also think Shakespeare uses the "ripen" sense, but I'm not sure. —Ruakh_TALK 15:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

General question: are we still marking things not used in 100 years with {{obsolete}}? --Connel MacKenzie 17:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

you got bitched

Any takers? Marginally less nonsensical than "you got bitch", which I've deleted. — Paul G 15:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

troll

The sense that is labelled as "Caltech slang". I think the slang used by particular institutions is too obscure to be included in Wiktionary. — Paul G 15:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Caltech definitely constitutes a "narrow community" (see WT:CFI#Independence). —Ruakh_TALK 16:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll drop a note to the contributor. — Paul G 09:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think narrowness should matter, so long as it's verifiable. If someone's published A Dictionary of Caltech Slang or something that we can use to check that the terms exist, then they should be included. --Ptcamn 18:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing stopping us from amending Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion to remove the "narrow community" caveat and to define "verifiable" as "supported by a published source, such as the published versions of UrbanDictionary.com"; just bring it to Wiktionary:Beer parlour and Wiktionary:Votes first. —Ruakh_TALK 18:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't put words in my mouth. UrbanDictionary is not a reliable source, whether online or in print. --Ptcamn 21:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Whereas our hypothetical "A Dictionary of Caltech Slang", published by "someone", is reliable? Either way, you see my point: such a policy would entail a change to WT:CFI, and hence would need to be voted on. —Ruakh_TALK 21:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

sister

1. (deprecated template usage) to have sexual intercourse with another person's sister. Note: only used in past tense and with "d" rather than the standard "ed."

   Dude, I totally sisterd him, and he was extremely upset.'

• Citations?
• Is the note about the past tense (which would presumably apply to the past participle as well) true? If so, move this to a usage note or into the inflection line. — Paul G 09:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This already failed once, so I've removed it. Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification_archive/March_2006#sister. Kappa 12:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Striking. — Paul G 15:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

the jig is up

Any takers? (definitely not a noun) SemperBlotto 10:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'd totally have thought that fell under "clearly widespread use". Maybe it's an Americanism? Anyway, there are loads of b.g.c. hits.; it shouldn't be any problem to cite. *gets to it* —Ruakh_TALK 17:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

O.K., it's cited now. (b.g.c. actually has two earlier cites, one from 1753 and one from 1792 — both for "the jig was up" — but both are "snippet view", with the snippet not showing the actual phrase, so I decided the 1833 cite was early enough). I'm really quite surprised you'd never heard it before; it's amazing sometimes just how wide the pond can be. —Ruakh_TALK 17:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well done. I see it is listed in a couple "American Idioms" secondary references, so tagging it {{US}} shouldn't be a problem. It is surprising, that an idiom that old could still be used only here. --Connel MacKenzie 17:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Make that "North American" idioms. It is also widely used and pretty much universally recognized in Canada. - WikiPedant 18:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

a.m.

Seems to me that these 2 senses are identical.

1. before noon
2. during the time period each day between midnight and noon. 12:00 a.m. is used to refer to midnight. 12:00 p.m., while seemingly an oxymoron, is used to refer to noon.

If I hear nothing I will merge them. (the 2nd was added anonymously in March by someone who did nothing else). —Saltmarsh 11:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous poster is an ignorant fool. If (s)he knew any Latin, (s)he would realise that "12 am" and "12 pm" are utterly meaningless. Respectively, they mean "12 before midday" and "12 after midday", which means that both refer to midnight!

Incidentally, they might be contradictions, but they are certainly not oxymorons in the proper sense of the word. Deleting this nonsense and adding a usage note to this effect. — Paul G 15:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

USA-amerikansk

I am a Norwegian native speaker, and this Norwegian term looks quite artificial to me. At best it's a neologism, however, I cannot find but a very few web references to its actually being used. __meco 17:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Btw., there was a discussion about this on the article's talk page, however, I believe that the tentative conclusion from it is untenable. __meco 17:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It was added by User:Jon Harald Søby, an admin of the Norwegian Wiktionary and a native speaker of Norwegian. I don’t know how often he visits this page, but you should discuss this with him. —Stephen 16:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not very common at all, but it is accepted by Språkrådet (the Norwegian Language Council); see [69] Jon Harald Søby 09:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

agalmic

From google it doesn't look like this Robert Levin coinage has entered widespread use. Kappa 03:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Debushification

Does get a fair number of Web hits, but it's not obvious to me that they're all in this sense. —Ruakh_TALK 03:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

NB WT:RFD#Bushification / Debushification — Beobach972 03:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Unsurprisingly, the anon didn't know to tag it with {{rfd}}. —Ruakh_TALK 04:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Move to WT:LOP. --Connel MacKenzie 14:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(from RFV) Here is the one quotation I found :

• 1998: Eleanor Kaufman, Kevin Jon Heller, Deleuze and Guattari: new mappings in politics, philosophy, and culture
• [W]hen it came to neocolonial violence he had taken up exactly where George Bush left off. [...] The series will doubtless be prolonged long into the future [...] This in spite of the short-lived success of Clinton's Bushification. By the second half of Clinton's term, his ability to direct domestic policy had been almost completely undermined by a Republican [Congress].

— Beobach972 02:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's "Bushification". This is "Debushification". I think they need to be cited separately. —Ruakh_TALK 17:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

hood rich

Sense 2 in particular seems dubious. —Ruakh_TALK 03:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That contributor’s edits are notoriously bad. Removed. —Stephen 16:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

pleasurisation

Zero b.g.c., only 11 web-google hits. --Connel MacKenzie 14:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Pleasurization" does get three b.g.c. hits, though one is iffy. The other two both seem to mean "the process of making pleasurable or pleasant":

• Quotations moved to page. DAVilla 17:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The iffy one is this one — iffy if only because it's in quote-marks to indicate that even its fictional author intended it as a nonce (some info taken from the publisher's Web site):

• 2005 July 1, Steven Digman, The Art of Women ... and other troubles, Digman's Violin & Publishing Co., ISBN 0-9770236-0-5, pages 34–35,

  Helen was the "Passion Editor" for the well distributed and the very well proportioned "womanary" magazine "The Treasure Breast." Abnormally, Helen would never accept any unsolicited material, but this one, "Samuel's Fantasy," had somehow found it way onto Helen's bed (the bed being where she read). So Helen (making herself comfortable) - read. ¶ Certainly the title was neither profound nor unique but the first chapter definitely was: "The 'Pleasurization' Process"...

(The ellipsis and the other weirdnesses — "abnormally" for "normally", "it way" for "its way", hyphen for em dash in a place you'd expect neither — are all in the original.) Sorry for the long quote, but I wasn't sure exactly how much set-up would be useful for y'all to catch the meaning being used. (I considered including more post-context, but it's all about Helen pleasuring herself while reading or thinking about the chapter; enough said.)

—Ruakh_TALK 16:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... why did you hard-code ambidextrous quotes? Anyways, I would trim the quotation like this:

• Helen was the “Passion Editor” for the well distributed and the very well proportioned “womanary” magazine “The Treasure Breast.” ... “Samuel’s Fantasy,” had somehow found it[s] way onto Helen’s bed (the bed being where she read).... Certainly the title was neither profound nor unique but the first chapter definitely was: “The 'Pleasurization’ Process”...

But I don't think even a bigger chunk would convey meaning clearly enough. With the innuendo all we really get is a sense of the topic, and everything else is inferred even more indirectly than that. DAVilla 17:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please note:
  1. Citations given (all three) were for a different spelling.
  2. Citation format is still using the nonstandard proposed format that doesn't retain the useful links.
• --Connel MacKenzie 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't anything to retain. I copied the quotes verbatim. But you're welcome to discipline Ruakh for using a “nonstandard” citation format. DAVilla 17:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: spelling: Yes, sorry, I should have said that explicitly. (I searched b.g.c. for "(pleasurization|pleasurizations|pleasurisation|pleasurisations)", and those are the three cites that came up.)

Re: "non-standard proposed format": I use the standard format described at Wiktionary:Quotations, except that where it says, "If the quotation can be read online, the page number should be wikified as a link to the online source (note: under dispute)", I don't link to b.g.c. results that include a sig parameter, since I don't know what-all that parameter is used for on Google's end. (I don't know to what extent it's being tracked, and to what extent those parameters are tied to my Google login; and, while Google doesn't seem to have an explicit acceptable use policy, I'm not sure we're supposed to pass around such links.) If you'd rather that I stop adding cites for which I'm unwilling to provide such links, I will.

—Ruakh_TALK 18:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd add a sarcastic comment about all RFVs, but well, no. Nevermind. No, I am not asking you to stop helping. You seem to be the main person adopting DAVilla's proposed format, to date. It is off-putting to me, to not be able to follow these links (easily.) grumble, grumble, grumble. --Connel MacKenzie 01:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If you search for a chunk of the citation, especially one with big words and no punctuation, wrapped in quotation marks, it's quite easy to find on Google Books. For instance, try searching for "Certainly the title was neither profound nor unique" and only one result pops up. DAVilla 17:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, that is not as easy as clicking a single, direct link. And getting perfect results (as in your example) are not often guaranteed. And the desired highlighted word is not then highlighted (particularly if it appears elsewhere in the same text.) --Connel MacKenzie 19:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: "nonstandard" vs. "non-standard"; I can't believe my original template error has gained a life of its own. Checking b.g.c and other dictionaries, it should be the word "nonstandard." --Connel MacKenzie 01:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Label template is fixed. Category moved, but may have residual hard-coded entries. DAVilla 17:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

demi-tasse

Two questions:

• I think the pronunciation is wrong. I'm fairly sure that the vowel is , not . Could someone confirm this, please?
• The gloss (or, as it actually was, the definition) said "cup", but which of the English senses is intended? Again, could someone please check and make any necessary changes. — Paul G 15:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: pronunciation: this appears to be a matter of some debate. The Trésor de langue française informatisé (TLFi) says of tasse:

Prononc. et Orth.: [tɑːs]. Gén. [ɑ] p. anal. avec tas (v. G. STRAKA ds Trav. Ling. Litt. Strasbourg t. 19 n^o 1 1981, p. 215). Mais PASSY 1914 [ɑ] ou [a] et MARTINET-WALTER 1973 6/17 [a]. Att. ds Ac. dep. 1694.

Pronunciation and Spelling: [tɑːs]. Generally [ɑ] by analogy with tas (see [source A]), but [source B] gives [ɑ] or [a] and [source C] gives [a]. Listed in the Academy's dictionary since 1694.

I think we're pretty safe sticking with , since most French speakers pronounce as anyway. (I know that sounds — and is — ridiculous, but that's just how it is. "Correct" French distinguishes the two, but most people pronounce both as .)

Re: definition: the TLFi gives:

Demi-tasse, subst. fém., vieilli. Tasse plus petite qu'une tasse ordinaire et dans laquelle se sert ordinairement le café à l'eau. L'officier avait devant lui sa demi-tasse, son carafon de cognac (POURRAT, Gaspard, 1931, p. 48).

Demi-tasse, n. f., dated. Cup smaller than an ordinary cup, in which is ordinarily served coffee with water (black coffee?). The officer had in front of him his demi-tasse, his carafe of cognac (POURRAT, Gaspard, 1931, p. 48).

so, both really; TLFi defines it as the cup, but the example sentence clearly means the cup with its contents.

(The above is accessible via http://atilf.atilf.fr/dendien/scripts/fast.exe?mot=tasse; click the middle element in the first row of cells.)

—Ruakh_TALK 16:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the great research. I checked for myself last night, and my French-English dictionary (Collins-Robert, 1978) has as the pronunciation of "tasse", which surprised me a little, but I'm happy to accept that. That dictionary (and other French dictionaries, monolingual and bilingual) I have seen do not lengthen vowel sounds (as, I believe, there are no minimal pairs in French wtih short and long vowels).

I'm aware that French speakers tend to pronounce as but, to my ear, "je ne sais pas" is /ʒnəseˈpɑ/ (or /ʃeˈpɑ/ if you prefer ;)). But then I'm a bit of stickler for "correctness" in language.

As for the word itself, it was not in my bilingual dictionary nor my monolingual one (Petit Larousse, 1989).

I'll update the French entry according to the TLFi definition and example. — Paul G 08:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Done - rfv tag removed. — Paul G 08:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, vowel length is no longer phonemic in Standard French, but since different words do display different vowel length phonetically (contrast e.g. puce "flea" and pur "pure", and note that the vowel is much longer in the latter), and since some dialects do still display phonemic vowel length to some extent, I think it's potentially quite helpful to indicate such. (I'm not advocating doing so here — too much work for too little gain, I think — but I appreciate that the TLF does it.) Especially since tasse is actually a word that one would not normally expect to have a long vowel; I think the vowel lengthening is a consequence of the tas-influenced shift to , since so far as I know is always long.

Incidentally, I also try to distinguish from , but I'm an acknowledged snob in such matters.  :-)

—Ruakh_TALK 18:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Universal application

Not just promotional, also capitalized wrong, not idiomatic and sum-of-parts. --Connel MacKenzie 17:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

babycino

(And Special:Whatlinkshere) Zero b.g.c. hits, urbandictionaryism. --Connel MacKenzie 17:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think every cafe makes up their own name for this. My local one calls it a bambinocino! Widsith 17:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

punk

Numerous senses. --Connel MacKenzie 17:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Added cites for some sort of tinder/ignition sense. Not sure whether the sense for those things you buy with fireworks is derived from it or the same sense. Cynewulf 18:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't tag that sense as disputed, did I? (Just checking: did I goof?) --Connel MacKenzie 02:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

cc'ing

Any takers? SemperBlotto 22:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer "CC'ing", personally, and b.g.c. suggests that most writers prefer "cc-ing"; and, there's interference from an automotive use of "cc" that seems to mean "to determine the volume of" (presumably after cc = "cubic centimeter"), but there are at least 5–10 cites for "cc'ing" in the e-mail/memo sense. Here are three (using curly quotes at DAVilla's request):

• 2000, Harvey A. Robbins and Michael Finley, The New Why Teams Don't Work: What Goes Wrong and how to Make it Right, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, ISBN 1576751104, page 138,

  The animosity was so complete that they stopped cc’ing routine items to one another, and even scheduled illegal meetings on the sly, without the other one present.

• 2004, Kate White, ’Til Death Do Us Part, Warner Books, ISBN 0446531758, page 64,

  “She kept sending all of you those awful e-mails and cc'ing me. […]”

• 2007, Angel J. Salazar and Steve Sawyer, Handbook of Information Technology in Organizations and Electronic Markets, World Scientific, ISBN 9812564780, page 58,

  Redundant ICT-enabled communication such as follow-up emails and cc’ing multiple people is not as necessary in the FTF environment where a passing glance on the way to the water cooler suggests someone is hard at work on her desk.

Don't ask me to explain what the third one is talking about, though. :-)

—Ruakh_TALK 22:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

cube

Verb, two senses. --Connel MacKenzie 01:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The "form into the shape of a cube" sense does exist, though it's rare, and more abstractly mathematical than our definition makes it sound; it's the analog of a similar sense of square. (Ever heard of "squaring the circle"? Well, "(cubed|cubes|cubing) the sphere" exists as well.) —Ruakh_TALK 03:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• 1590, Cyprian Lucar, quoted in John Aubrey and Andrew Clark, Brief Lives, Clarendon Press (1898), page 39,

  […] to change a figure of one forme into an equall figure of another appointed forme, to make a right line angle equall to a right line angle given, to draw a parallel to a right line given, and to cube any assigned sphere.

—Ruakh_TALK 03:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well...OK. But there was some discussion recently about listing figurative verbal uses of nouns, particularly why other dictionaries don't do it. At any rate, does this have a bunch of references, or just the one? And is it (as it is worded now) redundant with the cooking sense? --Connel MacKenzie 15:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd estimate there to be about 15–20 cites on b.g.c. that are talking specifically about cubing the sphere; 12 may be found from the above link, plus the one I gave here, plus probably others that phrase it a bit differently. I have no thoughts on how to find uses of cube in this sense other than in the context of cubing spheres, but they may well exist. I don't think this is redundant with the "dicing" sense, because one is about molding into a single cube, and one is about cutting into many smaller cubes; I see the similarity, but I think they're sufficiently different that if the above-cited sense merits inclusion (and I think it probably does, though I'm open to arguments against), then it merits inclusion separate from the "dicing" sense.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. (In cooking, dicing is similar to cubing, but much smaller, right? We don't seem to make that distinction very clear, right now.) --Connel MacKenzie 19:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

karuppanaswamy

English? SemperBlotto 08:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Should be in Tamil. Besides that, it’s not a good transliteration. It looks as though it was converted from Tamil to another language such as Hindi, and then to an unorthodox transliteration. —Stephen 10:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hondamentalism

Looks like spam to me. SemperBlotto 11:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If we gave awards for spam this one would win first place. Delete.--Dmol 13:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted on sight. --Connel MacKenzie 15:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

pants

"To pants"? "Pantsing"? All three verb senses. --Connel MacKenzie 15:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Stephen has (correctly, I think) removed two of those senses. Of the remaining one:

Most of the b.g.c. hits for "pantsed" are in the sense of "adj.-pantsed" (like "red-haired", "blue-eyed", "baggy-pantsed"), which makes this harder to cite than it should be, but it's still doable.

• date?, Keith Hunter Jesperson, quoted in Jack Olsen, “I”: The Creation of a Serial Killer, St. Martin's Press (2003), ISBN 0312983840, page 124,

  They always pantsed the freshmen in front of the girls, but I didn’t know it was a tradition. […] they pulled my pants down to my ankles. Then they giggled and walked away.

• 1998 August, anonymous, quoted in Peter H. Merkl, A Coup Attempt in Washington?: A European Mirror on the 1998-1999 Constitutional Crisis, Palgrave Macmillan (2001), ISBN 0312238312, page 174,

  They pulled down their swimming trunks to embarrass them. They called it ‘pantsing’ and, I think, Judge Starr just pantsed your president with his Starr Report and DNA test.

Is it acceptable to provide a cite from an episode of a TV show? The protagonist of Quantum Leap was "pantsed" in the episode "Camikazi Kid". (We don't actually need that cite — there are more cites available on b.g.c. — but I think it would be nice to mix it up a bit if no one minds.)

While printed sources are generally preferred, yes, quotations that convey the flavor better, are better. --Connel MacKenzie 19:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I also came across some cites for the more intuitive "de-pants" in the same sense.

—Ruakh_TALK 17:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

With the hyphen, right? --Connel MacKenzie 19:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. —Ruakh_TALK 19:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This is also the third person form of to pant (breathe heavily), right? --Connel MacKenzie 19:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we already have that. (That's why I focused my search on "pantsed". "Pantsing" should also be searchable, though.) —Ruakh_TALK 19:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean for verification; I didn't see it hidden under the second etymology. Right you are - it was there all along. --Connel MacKenzie 03:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

rrod

Move to WT:LOP? --Connel MacKenzie 15:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

shreddies

--Connel MacKenzie 18:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Bum Bags and Fanny Packs: A British-American, American-British Dictionary gives it as British slang for "manky or revolting men's (boy's) pants" (bold italics in original; link-ish), which would explain why I've never heard it before. The b.g.c. hits are overwhelmingly in the sense of "shredded wheat" (often capitalized — I guess it's a brand name), but I did managed to find one actual cite:

• 2001, Irvine Welsh, Glue, W. W. Norton & Company, ISBN 0393322157, page 40,

  As ah stand up n pill oan ma shreddies, then ma jeans in T-shirt, she's staring oaf intae space, then wrappin her clathes roond her.

  —link-ish (Scottish English?)

—Ruakh_TALK 19:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• 1995, Joe Simpson, This Game of Ghosts, The Mountaineers Books, ISBN 0898864607,

  As Mark came out of the bathroom, I remembered my underpants. ¶ ‘Hey Mark, have you got my shreddies?’

  —link-ish

• 2004, Harry Foxley, Marking Time: A Soldier's Story, Trafford Publishing, ISBN 1412015871, page 165,

  So adept did I become, in fact, that I could shower, shave and wash out socks and shreddies on as little as three penn’orth remaining on the meter (which had not yet been decimalized).

  —link-ish

• 2004, Toby Bishop, Cry Havoc: A Trip to Hell for a Group of Ageing Mercenaries Who Should Have Known Better, iUniverse, ISBN 0595321658, page 43,

  Their luggage was minimal, as he would have expected—shirts, Shreddies, socks, trousers and the rest of the basics of self-maintenance.

  —link-ish (capitalization in original)

• 2006, Brian Carlin, Boy Entrant, Lulu Press, Inc., ISBN 1411694333, page 61,

  “Drawers, cellular, six”—that was six pairs of loose-legged underwear that would come down to mid-thigh made from a cellular cotton fabric. We would later learn that the RAF slang name for these garments was “shreddies” because of their tendency to become threadbare and shred at the crotch where they rubbed against the harsh worsted material of our trousers.

  —link-ish

Those are all the cites I could find on b.g.c., uses and mentions included, so it's probably fairly rare.

—Ruakh_TALK 20:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

wdv

1. Written Down Value.

—Ruakh_TALK 19:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Todstuhl

Unknown to me. Gaston 23:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Nor in any online German dictionary I've looked it. Very possibly nonexistent. --Ptcamn 04:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It is nonsense and a product of imaginative folk etymology. Toadstool is not related to German Tod (death), but to Middle English tadde (toad). Deleted. —Stephen 14:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

betarded

All senses.

First Google hit is Urban Dictionary, which is never a very good sign.

—Ruakh_TALK 06:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. Underlying verb "betard" also does not exist. SemperBlotto 07:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

e-tard

—Ruakh_TALK 06:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

BibTeXification

Looks like a nonce word to me. Dmcdevit·t 07:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks more like jargon. And not just wiki jargon. Oddly, it already is marked as such, though, so I don't understand what the fuss is about. --Connel MacKenzie 06:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

avian

The fantasy sense: "A part-bird, part-human creature." Seems to be restricted to a set of games. Dmcdevit·t 07:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it actually is used across the genre of fantasy and also science-fiction. --EncycloPetey 20:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but the sense varies; in Star Trek: Enterprise, for example, Avians are an alien race. Also, I'm not sure why, but there's a non-F&SF use of the noun to refer to birds (see e.g. b.g.c:"avians" for a range of uses). I think we should simply have four senses, two adjective and two noun: "Pertaining to birds"; "Pertaining to bird-like or flying creatures"; "A bird"; "A bird-like or flying creature". I don't think there's more information we can give without delving into the details of specific fictional universes. —Ruakh_TALK 21:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The sci-fi/fantasy usages are really an extension of the "bird-like" definition. --EncycloPetey 22:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Necronomicon

A specific fictional book title from a novel. No generic or attributive use given. Dmcdevit·t 07:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Does the Simpsons count? Kappa 08:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

2002 Simpsons episode Brawl In The Family

and now Bob Dole will read from the Necronomicon. [70]

I think the Simpsons counts, but what meaning does that use of the term convey? Anything beyond just mentioning the name? Dmcdevit·t 08:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this a rather iconic book pertaining to the black arts? The mere mention of which conjures up certain feelings and connotations. I'd say it's more than just a name. __meco 08:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point: it very well may be, but it sounds like you are looking for an encyclopedia article. If the mere mention of it conjures up anything at all other than the fictional book invented by Lovecraft, then the definition should reflect that with citations. Dmcdevit·t 08:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree because we're talking about a proper noun. Just because mention of the word Paris conjures up an imagery of bagettes, cafes, art, and fashion does not mean we shouldn't list it as "the capital city of France". Just because the word Versailles conjures up an image of grandeur does not mean that makes a good definition of the word (though that ought to be mentioned). Proper nouns are specific objects and must be defined as such. The Necronomicon is a specific book (albeit fictional) and should be defined as such. The Usage Notes may express additional conntations as needed. --EncycloPetey 20:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This cite is good [71]. It shows a sense different from the current one where the word is used generically to denote something other than the fictional book itself, but presumably something sinister and mysterious. The definition should correspond to that sense (if it can be corroborated with other citations). Dmcdevit·t 08:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The meaning being conveyed in the Simpsons is "an evil book". Kappa 09:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a connotation, though, not a definition. I don't see this as a separate definition, just a reference to the same arcane book invented by Lovecraft and referenced/mentioned by numerous other authors. --EncycloPetey 17:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the book is fictional, it has no specific content associated with it. Its mention is intended to bring in an antiquity, weight, and horror that the name carries in connotation from other stories. It turns up in stories by varied authors who usually mention it, possibly describing its cover or history, but never giving the contents. It really ranks more as a word used to conjure up a sense of ancient evil and the supernatural rather than to identify a particular object. If you do look at the Wikipedia article on the w:Necronomicon, you'll see that it's mentioned not only in works by Lovecraft, but also by Clark Ashton Smith, August Dereleth, Stephen King, and (humorously) in the bibliography of a book by Michael Crichton. With reference in so many works, and an iconic "mystique" surrounding the book, it seems appropriate to give it an entry. It even has an attributive use as the etymological origin of the Necrotelecomnicon (book of talking to the dead) used in the Discworld books of Terry Pratchett. Other fictional works mentioned by Lovecraft (such as the Pnakotic Manuscripts) have not lived on in the imagination the same way as the Necronomicon has. Given time, I could assemble an armada of quotations, but I think its widespread use speaks volumes. (sorry) --EncycloPetey 19:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Acritic

OED hasn't heard of it. Perhaps there is a salvageable Greek entry here though? Dmcdevit·t 08:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably. I've noted the entry at Wiktionary:Requested articles:Ancient Greek. --EncycloPetey 22:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

biokind

Protologism? Certainly encyclopedic, but can anything be rescued? SemperBlotto 14:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

abortion

Sense 7 - A complete failure. This sense doesn't appear in any other dictionary of common usage or slang/idiom. The closest is Oxford which uses failure within the context of sense 8, like shorthand for an aborted mission. We could remove 7 and reword 8 as A failed project, mission, etc. Save us some wordiness and get rid of an unreferenced sense.--Halliburton Shill 16:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems like an obvious figurative use to me, "clearly in widespread use." --Connel MacKenzie 17:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC) I have no objection to merging it with the subsequent sense, though. That seems to be the best approach. --Connel MacKenzie 17:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

google:"a+total+abortion"+-"a+total+abortion+ban"+-"a+total+abortion+rate" pulls up 242 hits, of which I'd estimate (based on the first two pages of hits) that 80% are in sense #7. This isn't to say that we don't need to find durably archived cites, but obviously the slang dictionaries you checked are out-of-date or incomplete. (Not shocking: no dictionary is perfectly up-to-date and complete.) And sense 8 is quite different. "Their abortion of the mission" doesn't mean that the mission was a failure; it could well mean that something came up that would have cause the mission to fail, or to go awry, had they not aborted it. So keep and don't merge, and I'll go looking for durably archived cites. —Ruakh_TALK 19:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That said, it might make sense to merge it with sense #9 ("Something ugly, an artistic atrocity."), since it seems that the slang sense is a mostly figurative extension of such. —Ruakh_TALK 19:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I find the Oxford English Dictionary definition — Failure (of aim or promise) — significant, and see no reason to suppress it. ElinorD 10:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that inclusion in the OED (or in any other dictionary) is not a criterion for inclusion in Wiktionary; see Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. —Ruakh_TALK 15:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion in the OED is not in itself a criterion for inclusion, but the fact that it meets the OED's criteria for inclusion means that it almost certainly also meets ours. (Or should, anyway.) --Ptcamn 04:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

wikibinge

Nonce word. "Wiktionary jargon" that I have never heard or used myself. Dmcdevit·t 23:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely mislabeled: why would Wiktionary have jargon whose form could apply to any wiki but whose sense is Wikipedia-specific? I don't think anyone could accuse Wiktionarians of Wikipediocentrism … (To a lesser extent, the next two also seem to be mislabeled: there's nothing obviously Wiktionary-specific about the sense. I note that in all three cases, one editor started the article and supplied the definition, and a later one added the tag.) —Ruakh_TALK 23:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the {{wjargon}} tag anyway. They should either pass CFI as attested with widespread use, or go in Wiktionary:Appendix, not the main namespace. Dmcdevit·t 00:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Word. —Ruakh_TALK 00:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

While I agree the {{wjargon}} label is inaccurate, I disagree that jargon should be hard to look up. --Connel MacKenzie 03:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikinut

Nonce word. Dmcdevit·t 23:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

wikimaniac

Nonce word. Perhaps this one has some traction with use connected to Wikimania, but that seems to be a rather narrow potential use that shouldn't pass CFI. Dmcdevit·t 23:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

febricose

Seems listed only in secondary sources? --Connel MacKenzie 03:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hallo verden

I don't consider this expression, meaning hello world, added to the Norwegian phrasebook, as an idiomatic expression. It's not something people go around saying. __meco 07:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

People in the U.S. don't go around saying Hello world, either; it's a programming thing (traditionally the first program one writes in a new language is a "Hello world" program that simply prints/displays/outputs "Hello world" and then quits). —Ruakh_TALK 15:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

late

corrected the header (it was later) — Beobach972 04:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Rfv - Sense 6 (adjective)

6. Abbreviation for the word Later when used as an informal goodbye.

Nice talking to you. Late.

Firstly, it's not an adjective this way. Secondly, I've never seen or heard this "abbeviation". --EncycloPetey 17:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

nevical archaeology

Only five Google hits for "nevical", one of which mentions archaeology. -PierreAbbat 03:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Phillapin

— Beobach972 04:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

schemic

Shouldn't this be schematic? SemperBlotto 13:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

In a Google search it seemed always to be used as a misspelling of ischemic (of ischemia). It also seems to have a Middle High Geman sense listed here. I couldn't find any use of it as schematic. Tim Q. Wells 05:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

incertus

Supposed to be English. Not in the OED. SemperBlotto 16:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

apple-pie

The hyphenated form is an adjective only, not the noun apple pie, right? --Connel MacKenzie 17:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the usual pattern for these compounds. Space in the middle is a noun, hyphen in the middle is an adjective. --EncycloPetey 17:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "apple-pie" can be used an adjective. Both compound nouns and compound adjectives are often written with a hyphen when used attributively, and with a space in other cases; hence "a man who is well liked" = "a well-liked man", "a slice of apple pie" = "an apple-pie slice", etc. (This depends on the writer, though, and in my experience scholarly works are often averse to hyphenating such compounds in any context.) —Ruakh_TALK 19:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The OED (which often takes a cavalier attitude to spaces and hyphens) has apple-pie as headword for the noun. But it gives quotations both with hyphens and as two words. It gives an adjective meaning as "embodying traditional values . . ." and has apple-pie Amerian, apple-pie bed and apple-pie order. SemperBlotto 07:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

made in Italy

Stuff made in Italy, surely? --Keene 19:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have an extended sense; one b.g.c. hit says, "[…] whose outcome, […], was to form the basis for what much later would be identified as the ‘Italian style’ and the ‘made in Italy.’",^[72] and another uses the term "the ‘made in Italy’ sectors" with the gloss "textiles and clothing".^[73] I don't think the literal senses warrant inclusion, though. —Ruakh_TALK 19:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

syntheory

Protologism? SemperBlotto 21:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

humanology

Protologism? SemperBlotto 21:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

beater

The Harry Potter sense: another Harry Potter coinage without independent use. Dmcdevit·t 21:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

chaser

The Harry Potter sense: another Harry Potter coinage without independent use. Dmcdevit·t 21:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd also dispute the third sense, A small, light, usually single-seated aeroplane of great speed and climbing power, used in repelling hostile aircraft. I've been reading aircraft books for thirty years, have several detailed aircraft encyclopedias, but have never heard this term. The definition described is usually called an interceptor or (dated) a pursuit aircraft. There is the term chase plane, but it has a different meaning. That is one that follows another in order to advise or photograph it in flight, typically on experimental flights. --Dmol 15:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged the rest of the dubious senses. I agree with Dmol; the aircraft definition is for chase plane, which I don't recall hearing called a "chaser."

Note on the other senses: while they seem plausible, they seem to be glommed directly from dictionary.com, with no indication that they are obsolete, archaic, British, or whatnot. Appearance in doctionary.com certainly doesn't imply that those other senses pass Wiktionary's CFI. But reviewing each of those senses individually, I don't recognize any of them as valid, normal uses in the English language. --Connel MacKenzie 16:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

did I do that

Please cite this. --Keene 23:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's just a question, isn't it? Numerous Google Book Search hits, although one has to sift through all the "Now, why did I do that?"s, "How did I do that?"s and "What did I do that had this effect on him?"s to find relevant results. It's undoubtedly a common phrase, one I have heard fairly often, but is it idiomatic? I'm not convinced it is. Lots of people say things like "Hello, my name's..." and "Are you ready?" and "Oh, no, not again," but that doesn't make them idiomatic. I believe the term used on this site for this kind of entry is "sum of parts". RobbieG 14:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It is sum of parts, and has no other meaning. Just because that idiot on TV kept saying it doesn't make it any different. Delete. --Dmol 14:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

chur

--Connel MacKenzie 02:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Striken: [74]. Clearly in widespread use. --Connel MacKenzie 03:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

cher

--Connel MacKenzie 02:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Striken: [75]. Clearly in widespread use. --Connel MacKenzie 03:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

keyboard jihaddist

Acceptable and verified entry or crap? Can someone please look this one up? --Dijan 03:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted this, 2 google hits and looked a lot like a personal attack. Kappa 04:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Dr Tetris

Australian slang: "A term used to describe someone who suffers from ADHD" Kappa 10:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No evidence of usage, the only example being our own wiktionary. No google books or news cites. I also tried Doctor instead of Dr. This is the original contributor's only entry. Could be an in joke.--Dmol 15:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

caseifaction

It pains me to nominate this for RFV, as it already has two citations. But the definition given is quite counter-intuitive, and doesn't seem to be in any dictionaries I have handy, nor on any of the usual on-line dictionaries. (No, not even ORO.) The Latin term it points to is also absent. The normal b.g.c. search produces only one of those references (do those sometimes get pulled?) Also, in that one single book-search, the capitalization is different (even though it appears to be intended as capitalization for emphasis, rather than correctness.)

I honestly thought this entry was a joke, until I saw who entered it. --Connel MacKenzie 14:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• There is an Italian word caseificazione which is 1) the first stage in the production of cheese in which the casein coagulates 2) some sort of necrosis that looks like cheese. If I had to translate it to a single word I would have to use this one I suppose. (or caesification) SemperBlotto 15:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)