Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:41, 12 May 2017

Wiktionary > Requests > 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

Scope of this request page:

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

Templates:

{{rfv}}
{{rfv-sense}}
{{archive-top|rfv}} + {{archive-bottom}}

Shortcut:

WT:RFV

November 2015

жабар

žabar

Rfv-sense for Frenchman. — This unsigned comment was added by 77.105.60.36 (talk).

Just google for "žabar" "francuz" (with quote marks) and you'll find results that corroborate such usage. Fojr (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide evidence? I tried it and it gets tonnes of hits, but in Polish. Also Google on its own not an acceptable source. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of usage with the sense "Frenchman", from the first couple of pages of Google's results : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Fojr (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any CFI-meeting ones? Renard Migrant (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The number of occurences of that sense suggests a "clearly widespread usage". Fojr (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a no, then. Bare in mind it's not up to me. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging two users who speak Serbo-Croatian and have edited recently, @Crom daba, Vorziblix; does жабар/žabar sometimes mean "Frenchman"? does it mean "Italian", for that matter? in books, magazines, etc? (Issuu.com's search engine finds lots of magazines which use the word, but I don't speak the language well enough to easily tell which sense.) - -sche (discuss) 18:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

January 2016

Appendix:Proto-Dravidian/nīru

It is given as ńīr- in George Starostin's Proto-Dravidian database, without the final vocal, but apparently with a palatalised (?) n. — Ivadon (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starostin is definitely not reliable for something like this. @AxaiosRex might be able to help reference this reconstruction. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know “A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary” by T. Burrow and M. B. Emeneau whence he derived his work? — Ivadon (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given as “3690 Ta. nīr” in T. Burrow (1984). I see no difference in quality to G. Starostin's version, but at least there were no bad Nostraticists at work at that time! --— Ivadon (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My memory is that Burrow & Emeneau put them under Tamil rather than actually reconstructing the PDrav roots (hence the Ta. above), weirdly enough. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems to have been a common practice to put Tamil on the same level as Proto-Dravidian, probably because of its long written tradition. — Ivadon (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, in The Dravidian Languages, gives PD *nīr. It also says "In any case there is no comparative evidence to set up two n-phonemes for Proto-Dravidian. As in Tamil there could have been a phonetic difference between initial dental [n]" and a non-initial variant, but that seems non-relevant here. - -sche (discuss) 02:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to *nīr per -sche's evidence. This is now at a cited form, so it is resolved. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wannabe

"Someone who pretends unity with an oppressor or the oppressed. A scab who crosses the picket line is a wannabe hoping for crumbs in exchange for treachery." Really? What do they "want to be"? Chambers has no such sense. Can we also confirm/deny the newly added synonyms bootlicker and suckup? Equinox ◑ 19:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those synonyms seems more like ~~hyponyms~~ coordinate terms (perhaps not all wannabe's go to such an extreme...). Prob better to list them under that heading or 'See also' (?) Leasnam (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that second sense (if verified) is dated...it reminds me of the mindset of some from the 1940's and 1950's in segregated America Leasnam (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could probably find missing definitions for large numbers of words if we could find a corpus of leftist English-language newspapers. But the oppressors have made that impossible. 21:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd say the usage example is just sense 1, but nevertheless, there are some promising hits (although the sense would be better as "Someone who aspires to join or assimilate with an oppressor or the oppressed")

1991, Nancie Caraway, Segregated Sisterhood: Racism and the Politics of American Feminism, Univ. of Tennessee Press (ISBN 9780870497209), page 95
Contemporary Black women remain victimized by — and often perpetrators of — the "wannabe" (as in the "I wannabe white" phenomenon dramatized in Spike Lee's film School Daze) ideology that contributes to their own and their Black sisters' oppression
1994, Carol Camper, Miscegenation Blues: Voices of Mixed Race Women, Sister Vision Press (ISBN 9780920813959)
What I never want to hear again: "Mutt" "Half-breed" "Heinz 57" "Wannabe" I never want to face another door opened by a mother who calls the child of her own body racist names.
2014, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, Outlaw Woman: A Memoir of the War Years, 1960–1975, Revised Edition, University of Oklahoma Press (ISBN 9780806145372), page 261
I'm part Indian but don't know anything about being Indian. I've tried to talk with the Indians here but they called me a wannabe when I told them about my background.

Arguably, there are two separate senses here, with one being a derogatory term for someone of mixed race. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like those citations definitely cite something, but I can't figure out what. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the RFVed definition and added one closer to what was suggested above, based on the first two of Smurray's citations. But it could also just be removed until enough additional citations can be found that the full meaning is clearer... - -sche (discuss) 04:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-resolved Kiwima (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

average

French section. Needs cleanup and formatting if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's remarkably hard to cite because of the number of hits for the English word 'average'. But if you follow the links (copy and paste as they are unformatted links) there are two citations for the word 'average' already in the entry. http://www.atilf.fr/dmf/definition/average provides adequate information to cite it in Old and Middle French. http://www.anglo-norman.net/D/average confirms it just refers to our definition #7 of average. Personally I'd just detag it. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's a French entry, not Old French or Middle French. Two cites won't do for modern French, especially since only one is a use, as far as I can tell. There's also the issue of whether any usage that could be construed as modern French might be construed instead as Norman. This can all be cleared up, but the entry as currently written appears to be wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

English definition 7 must belong to a different etymology. DCDuring TALK 00:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. I've split the English entry into two etymologies based on the Middle English Dictionary and on the Bosworth/Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. You may notice that it's the result of Norman Old French derivational morphology used on a word of Old English origin, so it's a bit hard to pin down exactly what the language was (which is normal for that time and place, I guess). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the SOED (1993) which links that sense to Medieval Latin averagium and the other senses to what we have in the entry. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice in the MED entry I linked to that it gives the origin as both "AF and AL". I suspect the Anglo-Latin has pretty much the same origin as the Anglo-Norman, or is from the Anglo-Norman. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

This is too damn easy. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 14:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, but that can be remedied: those are all cites of an arithmetic sense, equivalent to what's now Etymology 1 of the English. It looks like that should be added. The rfved sense is equivalent to what was definition #7 and is now Etymology 2. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And it gets even more complicated: see the footnote on the last cite. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In ... statuts et coustumes..., suggestion 1 by Romanophile, the section title includes "Des pasturage ..." and in Annales du Midi, suggestion 6 by Romanophile, "de donner à mégerie et cantal de l'average des boeufs, juments, asnesses et autres bestiaux" both seem to describe types of rent from tenants to seigneurs.

In Droit anglais..., suggestion 3 by Romanophile, the section title is "De Le Moyenne (average)" and looks to me like a French explanation of the English term. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 23:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote I referred to earlier: "on entend par averagi les brebis en général et le droit de pâture en certains lieux". Since the word footnoted is average, I think "averagi" is an error for that word. At any rate, it looks like the uses in Provence, at least, refer to grazing animals and some sort of right to pasturage for those animals. That means the first and last of your first batch (the rest are the arithmetic sense), and all of your second batch.

It looks like there really is a French word, but all the original cites which use the rfved sense are mostly something to the effect of "this is what they used to call it in England", which look like mentions to me, and all of your cites are for other senses not found in the entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ユダヤ主義

"Judaism; Semitism". Religious isms are -教, other (political, etc.) isms are -主義. —suzukaze (t・c) 09:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that google:"ユダヤ主義" -"反ユダヤ主義" finds plenty of use -- even after explicitly filtering out 反ユダヤ主義 (han Yudaya shugi, “anti-semitism”). google books:"ユダヤ主義" -"反ユダヤ主義" also generates plenty of hits.

I think the core issue here is that the entry creator doesn't appear to know either Japanese or Wiktionary conventions very well. This particular Japanese term does exist, but the meaning is more like Semitism or Zionism -- Judaism refers more to the religion, which (as you rightly note) would be ユダヤ教 (Yudaya-kyō) instead. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 07:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poking around, it seems that Mekikin (talk • contribs) has made several hundred edits on the JA Wikt, mostly on Hebrew entries, but they have never responded to posts on their Talk page there. Perhaps it's not that their Japanese is weak, so much as their English? Or perhaps both? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 07:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Their new Hebrew entries on jawikt are mostly obvious SoP. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 20:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Eirikr: I think we can count this as RFV passed based on the fact that citations can be found, but it wouldn't hurt to add them to the entry. More importantly, could you please come up with a better definition (and maybe a gloss)? Thank you! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Eirikr: Re-pinging so this can be closed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why no dictionary has 教 as a suffix. Looking at w:ja:Category:宗教, it definitely deserves to be defined as such. Nibiko (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated it to use the alternate definition suggested above, and removed the tag per the comments that this is citable. - -sche (discuss) 01:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

莻

Is this used in Chinese? Also, Unihan gives gòng, but it's currently nū. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a Korean creation. See w:Talk:Gugyeol. —suzukaze (t・c) 06:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three Google Books hits, I can't find it in two (but they're Japanese, anyway), and the character Google OCRs as 莻 in the third one is actually something else. zh.Wikt's entry has only ever been edited by bots. Does anyone from this Wiktionary notify our colleagues at zh.Wikt when we find spurious entries like this? We should. - -sche (discuss) 14:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not spurious. Korean-made characters have corresponding pronunciations in Chinese too, which can be used when the characters need to be used in Chinese (e.g. 乭 (shí) in zh:李世乭). It is used to represent the native Korean syllable 늦 (neuj, root of 늦— (neut-, “late”)) and may be read as nū, nǎi, nūxi or gòng. See this page for some historical usages. Wyang (talk) 09:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niger and other Latin countries

In some cases I don't doubt that these names are used, but that there are durably archived Latin sources. For example, Finish Nuntii Latini and German Nuntii Latini don't seem to be durably archived but might use some of these New Latin country names. -Maggidim (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maggidim: This is a rather counterproductive thing to do. I know for a fact that some of those are citable, and you didn't even check. Try Google Books and please remove the ones that can clearly be cited (which, I suspect, is most or all of these). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't search for all of these at google books, but I searched for some and wasn't able to find any results. Now I've searched for all and removed those which I was able to cite. Kenia and Tanzania can be cited. With some good will and turning a blind eye to some doubts one could say that Quataria and Tzadia exist too.

Chilia gives many results and might exist. But I wasn't able to find an example.
Searching for Dzibutum gives two results. One is in Latin and has "in urbem Dzibutum (Gibuti, Djibouti)". That could attest Dzibutum as a name for a city, but not as a name for a country. But Dzibutum could also be the accusative of Dzibutus like one can find "in urbem Romam" where Romam is the accusative of Roma.
In another Latin text one can find this: "[...] Somalia Gallicam cuius urbs primaria (Gibuti, Djibouti) appellatur Gibutum, i, n." The text might include more Latin terms related to Africa like Somaliensis (Adj.), Mogadiscium (Mogadishu), Congus (i, f.) or Congus Leopoldopolitana (a Congo), Chenia (Kenya), Chenianus (Adj.), Nairobia (Nairobi), but is from 1964 and doesn't seem to have Tanzania or Tansania (the country was founded in 1964).
Searching for Iracum gives some results. But Iracum could also be the accusative of Iracus like Iraci could be the genitive of Iracus, and in "in urbe Iraci persici Qom" which should mean something like "in the city Qom of the Persian Iraq" Iraci or Qom has another meaning as Qom is a city in Iran.
Searching for Irania has too many non-Latin results and adding other Latin words gives results with OCR errors for ironia.
Omania often gives results for "om- nia". In a 21st century results one can find "Omania", but according to the book title "Documentos medievales del Reino de Galicia: Doña Urraca, 1095-1126" it's related to the Middle Ages and thus it should have another meaning.
Searching for Papua-Nova Guinea one can find "atque Papua-Nova Guinea Apostolicum Delegatum" in a text which should be related the Catholic Church. That might refer to the country, but is spelled differently anyway.
Searching for Quataria gives few results. One is in English and could refer to the country. One is in Latin and in a section entitled "Exercitia militaria americanorum" there is "Americani in Quataria exerci- [...]". It's just a snippet, so I can't read the whole text. That could refer to the country, but I can't verify it.
Even simply searching for Swazia didn't have any Latin result.
Kenia and Tanzania brought up a Nuntii Latini text (in the 1990s some of the news were printed) in which one can read "in Kenia et Tanzania sunt". That should be ok. But if that's the only source, shouldn't there be any note informing the reader that the word is rare and was coined in the 1990s?
Tzadia brought up a Nuntii Latini text in which one can read "In Tzadia, quae civitas Africana desertis [...]". It's just a snippet, but could be ok.

-Maggidim (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maggidim: Well, I am of the opinion that three cites should be required for Neo-Latin, but we don't actually have an official position on that yet. Regardless, it appears that you did not bother to search for inflected forms. Searching google books:"Iraniam" haec shows that Irania is easily citable. I've removed the easily cited ones from your list below. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with one cite, but IMHO recent or modern New Latin (20th/21st century) with just one cite should have a note.

In some cases I also searched for inflected forms, but not in all cases and not for all possible inflected forms.

Iraquia: Ok. That can be found in 20th/21st century Latin. And there's also Vietnamia, Afganistania.
Chilia: I'm not sure if that can be found in classical New Latin (like 15-19th centuries), but in the 20th/21st century it can be found, and one can also find Aequatoria, Uruguaia. But it would be interesting to mention dates. There are classical New Latin terms for Chile. So Chilia could be classical New Latin too, or it could be a modern New Latin invention most likely from people who didn't know the older terms.
Swazia: One can find the name Suazilandia. So it might rather be spelled Suazia instead of Swazia. But there could be many other forms using u, v or w and using s or z.
Irania The word Irania can be found in those results. But what about the meaning? Old texts from the 19th century obviously do not refer to the modern Islamic republic. The entry Iran mentions two English meanings. So Irania could refer to all "regions inhabited by Iranian peoples" or a geographical region, and not necessarily to a country or political state (be it an old monarchy or a modern Islamic republic). dictionary.com states: "In 1935 the government of Reza Shah Pahlavi requested governments with which it had diplomatic relations to call his country Iran, after the indigenous name, rather than the Greek-derived Persia." That makes it more likely that Irania refers to something like "regions inhabited by Iranian peoples" and not to a state. Also in old lexica one can find definitions of Iran referring to a geographical region which includes countries like Afghanistan and Persia. That meaning might be the same as the second definition in Iran#English, but might also be another meaning. One can find Irania (or Iraniam) in 20th/21st century texts too and there it might refer to the country. But the google books results don't seem to convey any meaning.
Iracum: I don't know what you searched for and I don't know your results, but here could be to problems: 1. Iracum might be the accusative of Iracus, and some inflected forms of Iracum could be inflected forms of Iracus too. So one needs a result with the nominative or a result which indicates the gender. 2. Similar to Irania, Iracum could have another meaning. In older lexica one can read that Iraq or Irak was a geographical region, maybe partly or at some times a province of Persia. With that one can explain the example "in urbe Iraci persici Qom". It says that Qom is a city in a certain region, and does not refer to the country Iraq.

So while the words Irania and (nominative?), Iraci, Iraco, Iracum, Iraco exist, I can't see a cite for the meaning Iran (country) or Iraq (country) respectively.

-Maggidim (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've split off Irania (after broadening the definition) so it can be archived, since it is citable per this discussion. Some of the others may fail RFV. - -sche (discuss) 20:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The brackets around it, likely already meant that the RFV is resolved (cp. your "since it is citable per this discussion") or at least somewhat resolved (cp. your "after broadening the definition"). -84.161.37.107 00:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omania

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Papua Nova Guinea

I've added two citations. - -sche (discuss) 01:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swazia

I cannot find any citations. RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That could be a la.wikipedia creation anyway where the given 'source' is "Lamprophis swazicus, Crassula swaziensis, Macrotermes swaziae et binomina alia", that is the name is created by la.wikipedia based on some taxonomic terms. (If no name is attested, that's better than making up a name based on nothing, but still it's made up.) -84.161.37.107 00:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dzibutum

Has only one citation, and I can find no others. - -sche (discuss) 01:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One citation is sufficient, but that's another or just one Djibouti. "in urbem Dzibutum" refers to a city, not to a country. Furthermore it could be an accusative Dzibutum for *Dzibutus m. or f. and not necessarily for *Dzibutum n. A neuter *Dzibutum might be more likely (for that younger NL), but that doesn't attest any nominative, and as the Arabic term is m. or f. according to wiktionary (m. in Djibouti, f. in the Arabic entry) one could also argue for *Dzibutus. -84.161.7.226 23:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One citation is sufficient for classical Latin, but not for modern Latin. (This is not explicitly written in policy anywhere as far as I know, but it is how Latin is typically treated in RFV discussions.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK that's neither a rule (Latin is a WT:LDL as it's not a WT:WDL), nor common practice. There sometimes where comments that some users sometimes would like that 3 cites for NL would be required, but expressing that wish means that it is not required. Also, before having such a rule, it could make sense to split NL: From 1500 till 1800 Latin wasn't rare, but in the 19th century it declined and in the 21st century it's rare, almost an extinct language (some people even do leave out the "almost"). So while 3 cites for 1500-1800 NL might be a good idea, for 21st century NL it's less good. (Many terms from Harrius Potter would still be excluded by WT:CFI#Fictional universes.) Compared with other LDLs it could even be some kind of discrimination to require 3 cites for 21st century NL. Of course, one could still try to find three cites, but sometimes that's not possible, also because Latin is a LDL. -84.161.37.107 00:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring three citations for modern Latin is common practice. Here are two examples: Talk:birotula, Talk:Hogvartensis. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's standard practice, to the extent that I can't think of a case where a modern Latin word has been passed with only one citation. To that extent, it's as if modern Latin is treated like the conlangs we include (and for similar reasons; new coinages in it are like conlang words). - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iracum

(Quataria)

(Tzadia)

Cited. - -sche (discuss) 01:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

ふらんすご

This was marked for speedy deletion by User:Fumiko Take on the grounds that "Furansu is not normally written in hiragana". Given that the entry has been there for 8 years, and that there are hits in Google Books, I didn't think this merited speedying. Of course, hits aren't necessarily actual usage, especially since Google has problems with non-Latin scripts and with languages without clearly-visible word boundaries.

Note: if this passes, there's the possibility it could be challenged in rfd as a rare misspelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the previewable Google Books results are of children's textbooks (except for this one bizarre "Glossika" result), and all of the same sentence. Katakana is one of the basic Japanese scripts alongside Hiragana, and I'm guessing the textbooks are for children who haven't learned it yet. It is as legitimate a spelling as English FRENCH or french. —suzukaze (t・c) 03:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Attestable, albeit not very common. It's valid, and there's no harm in us retaining this. Keep. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I said "not normally" which means some authors do use the hiragana form for ruby in certain ways in their writings. It's not a "normal" (=commonplace) practice though. ばかFumiko￥^talk 03:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ふらんすご (furansugo) is attestable in hiragana. Many of these more-obscure terms are not. Does this matter? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ろしあご

No Google Books hits unlike ふらんすご. —suzukaze (t・c) 00:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all where hiragana is used instead of katakana in country names. These can only be used as a sorting parameter, when Lua doesn't do it automatically. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

よーろっぱ, ゆーらしあ, おーすとらりあ

—suzukaze (t・c) 02:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

にゅーよーくしゅう, うるどぅーご, じきてーぷ, こーんうぉーるご

(these are currently hard redirects due to page moves) —suzukaze (t・c) 02:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

emodulo

Latin verb "to measure". Not in Lewis and Short, who do have emodulor (“I sing or celebrate”). Needs formatting if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added some cites, although I cannot verify the meaning. DTLHS (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should be cleaned up now, but shoud be checked if it really is.

The third cite at Citations:emodulo has the word "Sirenes" in it. That should be the plural of Siren, a mythological creature known in English as siren. So the cite could refer to their sining and could have the word ēmodulor (deponent, translated as "to sing, celebrate" in Lewis & Short) in it.

-Ikiaika (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

euwi

Lasch gives this word as ewi, which is proved correct by the reflexes later recorded. This form on the other hand is not clearly reflected in later reflexes, nor do I see how it would come into existence. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CodeCat Projecting the Cat-signal into Gotham's sky. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does Koebler's dictionary have anything? —CodeCa t 20:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ten minutes of futile navigation attempts and two search engines later, he only lists the word with a single consonant. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two observations:

The etymology for euwi is copypasted from the entry at eowu, with "Old Saxon ewwi" replaced by "Old English eowu", but otherwise unchanged (notice the position of Dutch in both).
Philippa's dictionary at etymologiebank.nl (here) mentions both ewi and euwi, which, if I'm not mistaken, should be sufficient attestation for a less-documented-language term according to CFI, though one could quibble about the lack of a list of accepted sources at WT:AOSX. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if euwi is a typo for 'ouwi' on etymologiebank. For one, I think 'euwi' violates Old Saxon phonotactics (lack of umlaut) and for the other Old Saxon 'euwi' would become Middle Low German 'uwe', which isn't recorded. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

etlich, einig

"er ist etlich" and "der etliche" (with der as article and not as relative pronoun) shouldn't exist, "ein etlicher" might exist but should be colloquial or dialectal. Similar "er ist einig", "der einige" and "ein einiger" shouldn't exist for the sense "a few". Note however that "einig" also means "united" as in "ein einig Volk von Brüdern" (Rütlischwur) which is missing in the entry. Maybe compare with [www.canoo.net/services/OnlineGrammar/InflectionRules/FRegeln-P/Pron-Indef/Pron-einige3.html canoo.net].
Also the masculine or neuter genitive singular of both words should be cited with at least one quote as it could also be "einiges" and "etliches" (compare with jeder, manch and adjectives which could or can have both endings). -80.133.102.22 13:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary's entries on words like this are often messy; compare the words described at User_talk:-sche#German_ordinal_numbers, many of which still need to be standardized as to the placement of the lemma and the labelling of the part of speech. Bare etlich is attested in older works (google books:"etlich und" has many citations well into the 1800s; citations ostensibly from more recent centuries seem to all be quoting works from the 1800s or earlier), but the lemma form where the content is should probably be etlicher, based on modern usage. Bare einig with a relevant meaning is similarly (infrequently) attested but obsolete (Citations:einig); the lemma should be einiger, reflecting modern usage. The Duden reaches that conclusion in both cases, though it prefers forms with -e rather than -er — I have no strong preference for one or the other, but Wiktionary's practice has been to lemmatize -er rather than -e when not lemmatizing a bare form. - -sche (discuss) 19:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The examples with einig seem to mean one: einig und zwanzig, einig und dreißig, einig und sechzig, that looks like ein und zwanzig or einundzwanzig etc., that is 21, 31, 61. Well, it could also mean "twenty and a few more". But then ohngefähr in "ohngefähr einig und zwanzig" could be pleonastic. As one can also find "etlich und zwanzig" etc., it might actually mean twenty and a few more. "ohngefähr einig und zwanzig" then could mean twenty and a few more, maybe just ten and some more, maybe even thirty and a few more, like 15 till 35 and not just 21 till 29. However, after searching for "einig and zwanzig" etc. these phrases should be very rare and just barely attestable.
einig as in "wir sind uns einig" is still common, so it shouldn't be moved. Maybe it should be split like einig as an adjective meaning united and einiger as a pronoun meaning a few. In any case there should be two different declension tables. Adjective: das Volk ist einig, ein einig(es) Volk, das einige Volk; pronoun: einiger Wein, einiges/einigen Weines, pl. einige Weine, einiger Weine, and no der Wein ist einig, ein einiger Wein, der einige Wein.
Regarding einiger and einige: Other sources might use the plural as the plural is more common and as the singular is used in "special" cases like with singularia tantum, material nouns, uncountable nouns, abstract nouns. By semantics, "some" and "a few" are in the plural. einiger Wein (Wein as material noun or uncountable noun comparable to water) means a little more amount of the liquid wine, while einige Weine (Wein as an appellative and countable noun) means a few bottles of wine or a few different kinds of wine.
As for etlich, it should be a pronoun etlicher, but as with mancher and manch there is also etlich (eg. "Von etlich~~[en]~~ anderen vierfüßigen wilden Thieren", "Nachdem sie sich etlich~~[e]~~ Tag~~[e]~~ erquickt", "noch etlich~~[e]~~ Meilen sey geritten"). The declension should be like etlicher Wein, etliches/etlichen Weines, pl. etliche Weine, etlicher Weine, and no der Wein ist etlich, ein etlicher Wein, der etliche Wein. -80.133.110.140 10:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bestow

Rfv-sense: "to dispose of". Other dictionaries do not seem to recognize this sense and the only citation does not appear to support the definition: "Here are blank warrants of all dispositions; give me but the name and nature of your malefactor, and I'll bestow him according to his merits." --Hekaheka (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC) Also the sense "give in marriage" seems to be missing from other dictionaries. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The marriage-related sense reminded me of sense 3 of give away in marriage, which at least some dictionaries have as a distinct sense. MWOnline, for example does not have it as a distinct sense as the identity of the subject (eg, father), object (bride, object's relationship to subject, or the name of the bride) and "in marriage" amply restrict the way in which give and away can be interpreted. DCDuring TALK 17:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found a quotation from Shakespeare to "give in marriage" -sense, and consequently removed rfv-tag from that sense. Sense "to dispose of" remains. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

“bestow”, in The Century Dictionary […], New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., 1911, →OCLC. has both senses, each with a single citation. Webster 1913 had the same citation for the marriage sense, which I am about to add to the entry. I still have trouble seeing the marriage sense as not just a trivial specialization of other senses of bestow. DCDuring TALK 21:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A further consideration: should the two senses be labeled "archaic" as they are missing in current dictionaries? --Hekaheka (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "dispose of" sense seems obsolete to me, The marriage sense seems SoP and dated.

The "dispose of" sense makes etymological sense as directly from be- + stow, the other senses seeming to be developments, but I can't base it on our "Etymology" as we don't have definitions for the Middle English terms or entries for them. DCDuring TALK 05:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

kilonova

Rfv-sense -- this doesn't make sense, novae have all sorts of luminosities, saying 1000x times the luminosity of a nova does not make sense. -- 70.51.200.20 11:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

This suggests that scientists might be willing to informally use both nova and kilonova as measures of the brightness of typical astronomical events of the type mentioned. That this use might be imprecise is not a problem to them and less so to us. DCDuring TALK 12:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although that sounds reasonable, the only cites I can find refer to the event rather than the luminosity. Not being a physicist, I am not always sure, however. Here are the questionable cites I found:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

Kiwima (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you. We certainly don't have any unambiguous evidence that it is used that way. I saw some uses that referred to the radiation pattern rather than the hypothesized cause. I'll leave citations to the astrophysicists. DCDuring TALK 22:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

June 2016

Gatorade

I'd like to RFV both senses of Gatorade

A Gatorade sports drink.
(by extension) Any sports drink.

There's a RFD of the 1st sense taking place (WT:RFD#Gatorade) but I'd rather use the RFV process. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The self-referential definition is just plain stupid and needs improving. I don't think the second definition is correct. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SemperBlotto Why do you think the second definition is incorrect? Is there any evidence to say it isn't, or is that just your gut? Purple backpack89 14:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the self-referential definition. I suppose you could use quotes like the following for it:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

As for the second definition, it's hard to show in a quotation that the word is referring to a generic sports drink, rather than Gatorade brand, but I figure the following quotes work because they are talking about a homemade concoction:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

Kiwima (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwima Another thing to look at is the term "Gatorade bath". In American football, especially college, there exists a phenomenon where a coach is showered with sports drink upon winning a big game. It is invariably referred to as a "Gatorade bath" or "Gatorade shower", even if the type of sports drink used cannot definitively be proven to be Gatorade. Purple backpack89 14:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's just evidence that "Gatorade bath" and "Gatorade shower" may be idiomatic, not that Gatorade is a generic term. For one thing, it doesn't have to be sports drink that's used: it can be just about anything handy of sufficient quantity that's cold and wet- even the contents of an ice bucket (see w:Gatorade shower). Chuck Entz (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re "mixing our own Gatorade": the makers of liquid Gatorade also sell Gatorade powder, which users can mix with water on their own to make what is IMO lexically the same (branded) drink. "...without all the extra sugars", in turn, is making a drink which is being likened to Gatorade (brand drink). - -sche (discuss) 01:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "like glorified Gatorade" example looks to be a comparison of the other sports drink with brand-name Gatorade. It does show that the author expects their readers to be familiar with Gatorade, but that doesn't make Gatorade a generic term- just the name of a well-known brand. The "Gatorade-type" quote is an example of someone referring to Gatorade as a brand, and is more about marketing than about Gatorade. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

기쁨조

Needs verification. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In clearly widespread use. Siuenti (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's more like a candidate for RFD, why don't you try that? Siuenti (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

นักการพนัน

The correct term is นักพนัน. --YURi (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@YURi: Thai entered to mean gambler. Entered by User:Alifshinobi, who declares himself to be th-3. นักการพนัน found by Google translate. Apparently found at google books:นักการพนัน in space-free blocks of text. Are you sure the term does not meet WT:ATTEST? We are not here concerned with "correctness", merely with attestation in actual use.--Dan Polansky (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Put differently, how do you explain all those hits at google books:นักการพนัน? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one example from Google books I was sort of comfortable with (can't guarantee a good translation):

Lua error in Module:th at line 262: The word นักการพนัน was not romanised successfully. Please supply its syllabified phonetic respelling, enclosed by {} and placed after the word (see Template:th-usex).

source--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

นักการพนัน is used among Thai-speaking people. นักพนัน and นักการพนัน are both "correct", although the former is used more often than the latter. Just because one form is used more often than other forms, doesn't mean that the other ones are not used at all and therefore are "incorrect". --A.S. (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alifshinobi If you can find citations satisfying WT:CFI, please add them to the page. Otherwise, it is liable to deletion. I also deleted the word above; but again, if you can find cites, do feel free to readd it. If you are unsure what constitutes sufficient attestation, there are many whom you can ask.__Gamren (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

ecky

From economy: slang: "Mass-produced and made to be affordable, with no regards to quality or craftsmanship." Equinox ◑ 21:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two quotes, but can't find a third, unless you want to count related terms such as ecky-beckey or ecky thump. Kiwima (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ecky thump doesn't seem to have a related meaning. Equinox ◑ 13:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it an ancient Lancastrian martial art? Chuck Entz (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means something along the lines of appalling. Kiwima (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

蜼

Rfv-sense

Pronounced wěi? (archaic) a type of reptile (similar to a lizard)
Pronounced wèi? (archaic) long-tailed monkey (similar to a macaque but larger). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

clue card

Rfv-sense: A printed card with basic entries listed for a global distribution system. I'm not sure what this means and I can't find citations for it. DTLHS (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Created by User:Dmol, who adds plenty of aviation stuff and presumably works in the industry. Can we ask him? Equinox ◑ 01:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I work in travel. I had a look online, and almost everything there is a pdf with clue card only in the title. The following links should show some examples.

https://www.virginaustralia.com/cs/groups/internetcontent/@wc-salesagenthub/documents/webcontent/~edisp/12feb16_galileo_clue_card.pdf

http://www.campustravel.com.au/cms_images/pdfs/CampusTravel_SerkoOnline_ClientClueCard_UoA.pdf

https://www.britishairways.com/cms/b2b/tradeOnline/Pacific/content/trade_support_and_groups/Amadeus_Cluecard.pdf

http://elearning.sbta.com.au/www/content/lessons/3677/Galileo%20Clue%20Card.pdf

http://www.gullivers.co.nz/calypsonet/calypsonet_cluecard_07.pdf

--Dmol (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be used in writing... @Kiwima can you find any cites for this? DTLHS (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in my original response, it does only seem to be in the title of the documents shown. Finding text about it is difficult due to a similar named game, and the other definitions discussed below. But it's clearly wide-spread and has been around for decades. I could easily find another dozen examples from different airlines, hotels, car hire companies, etc. --Dmol (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can find quite a few hits for something to do with "stiffened shells of revolution" used by NASA, often capitalised, and containing load distribution information:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19730024070

https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=LDS5LrjSvg8C&q=%22clue+cards%22+-student+-students+-player+-players&dq=%22clue+cards%22+-student+-students+-player+-players&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6iaumxIrOAhXDkJQKHWxkAts4bhDoAQgZMAA

https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=LDS5LrjSvg8C&q=%22clue+card%22+-student+-students+-player+-players&dq=%22clue+card%22+-student+-students+-player+-players&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3wI-VworOAhXKjZQKHUI0A144FBDoAQgdMAE

https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=4ToaAQAAMAAJ&q=%22clue+card%22+-student+-students+-player+-players&dq=%22clue+card%22+-student+-students+-player+-players&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3wI-VworOAhXKjZQKHUI0A144FBDoAQgZMAA

https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=jFAjAAAAMAAJ&q=%22clue+card%22&dq=%22clue+card%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZu7e2wIrOAhVBvpQKHVATCNQ4KBDoAQgiMAI

The other close hits I got were in books by Thomas Sawyer on facilities planning, which are control distribution cards containing location, description, etc for a control location:

https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=FG5YAAAAYAAJ&q=%22clue+card%22+-student+-students+-player+-players&dq=%22clue+card%22+-student+-students+-player+-players&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnpJLyworOAhVEpJQKHf6JA5s4PBDoAQhBMAg

https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=HKGBAAAAMAAJ&q=%22clue+card%22+-student+-students+-player+-players&dq=%22clue+card%22+-student+-students+-player+-players&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnpJLyworOAhVEpJQKHf6JA5s4PBDoAQhFMAk

Kiwima (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kellerism

Some US politics thing. Most Google search results are in scare quotes, introducing a new term. Equinox ◑ 01:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So? Just because they're in scare quotes doesn't mean it isn't a word. You will concede that there is a great deal of coverage in internet news articles, will you not? Purple backpack89 13:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a fair number of BGC hits, referring to a host of different Kellers; there may be enough to cite a sense relating to Albert Galloway Keller, but certainly not the sense relating to Bill Keller in the entry. RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

FUBAR

Rfv-sense: "Fucked up but all right". Ƿidsiþ 08:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked, and all I found was this book, and a few Usenet group discussions. Okay, so let's analyze both of these.

So the first search result that comes up from a Google search of "fucked up but all right" is this Urban Dictionary entry (and unfortunately the second one is the Wiktionary entry we're talking about right now), and UD prioritized the unattested (and even if attested, much more rare) sense of "fucked up but all right". I don't expect much more of UD to be honest, and I'm glad that we never use them as a reliable source. I'm guessing that the user here added that definition because they found it at Urban Dictionary defined as that, in fact I'm almost certain that that's the case. But the motive doesn't matter, just throwing out there that Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source for Wiktionary entries, and I want to really emphasize that.

I looked in Google Books first, which is what I always tend to do. The only thing I found there, as I mentioned above, was this book, and if you're having trouble seeing the mention in this book, look at the search engine instead. As you'll notice, the most common definition (i.e. our first definition) is mentioned first in the book. Then, the characters/figures in the book seem to jokingly come up with a few more possible abbreviations of "FUBAR" (the two that I can see are "fucked up beyond all reality" and then, on the next page, "fucked up, but all right"). So, in the book, the people are basically just, in context of course, listing off a few other possible abbreviations for FUBAR. So that citation is extremely weak, though I suppose it could be used, but only as a last resort.

I did a search on Google News, which is usually my second stop, and found literally no references to FUBAR in comparison to "fucked up but all right" or "fucked up but alright".

The last place I stopped by was Google Groups, which is usually my last place, and I should say, especially for 1980-2005-used words, Groups does the trick very often. But not this time... I found two threads at Usenet mentioning "fucked up but all right" as "FUBAR". Both of them seem to be, once again, listing off possible or alleged definitions to this abbreviation. For one of them, they list eleven alleged definitions, with this one at the bottom, ten of which begin with "fucked up beyond [...]". They are as follows (quoted exactly as they're written):

Fucked Up Beyond All Repair
Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition
Fucked Up Beyond All Reality
Fucked Up Beyond All Reason
Fucked Up Beyond All Recall
Fucked Up Beyond All Recovery
Fucked Up Beyond All Relief
Fucked Up Beyond All Restitution
Fucked Up Beyond All Renaissance
Fucked Up Beyond Any Resolvability
Fucked Up But All Right

Also, as I also mentioned above, the fact that the posts are written in a language other than English (in this case, Dutch), I don't think these would count anyway, even though they're talking about the English language and mentioning English words in parts of it. But, even if they actually were written in English, I still wouldn't count these as reliable, because the posts don't mention the definition of that abbreviation alone; they mention it with other possible or alleged definitions.

In conclusion, and based on my verification analysis, I'm gonna say we'd better delete this one. Unless someone can find durably archived sources that are better than this in places I haven't looked, or if there's a user who is capable (I mean that figuratively) of looking for hours on end through all the Books, News, and Groups references to the word "FUBAR" alone, in hopes of finding two (or preferably three) more references to the term that, by context, seem to mean "fucked up but all right", then it is not attested and should be deleted. Philmonte101 (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any time there's a censorable word, it's hard to find on Usenet using a straight text search, but searching for "FUBAR" in combination with "all right", I found some indication that at least a few people believe the "all right" part: "Fouled Up But All Right" and "F__ked Up But All Right", but not enough for CFI for this form. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This completely disregards the RFV of this particular definition. But I wonder if we could possibly add a definition similar to "Used to indicate many other alleged definitions beginning in "fucked up beyond all [...]".? Would that be allowed here? Since it does seem quite a few people try to play the guessing game with this abbreviation in sources. Philmonte101 (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's only "alleged" to stand for something then it doesn't actually stand for that, so it would still fail WT:CFI. Equinox ◑ 01:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Equinox. Forgive me for not clarifying. I meant that if we can actually find 3 citations for more than one of these other abbreviations that people are using FUBAR for, then could we possibly use a single definition to collect together all of the rarer definitions (those which probably only barely meet CFI)? Or would that still violate CFI or ELE somehow? Philmonte101 (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense to me. How would you define it on the sense-line? "Any of various things that FUBAR may stand for"? That's circular. If it does stand for a thing, attestably, then that gets a sense-line of its own. If it doesn't, then we don't include it, by existing policy. Equinox ◑ 02:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burtonesquely

DTLHS (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples here. allixpeeke (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creator has added some citations at Talk:Burtonesquely but I don't think they meet WT:CFI requirements of being durably archived. Equinox ◑ 00:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 2004 (Marquis-Homeyer), 2005 (Pobjie) and 2012 (Collin) cites seem to be durably archived. Einstein2 (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the Collin quote; it might just be online. BGC and GGC turn up nothing. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

彷佛

AFAIK, it should only be 彷彿 or 仿佛, not 彷佛. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, zhwiktionary has it, but it was added by a bot in 2010. If this is incorrect, I'm tempted to let them know as well. Philmonte101 (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This term seems kinda Buddhist to me... ;) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Philmonte101 The Chinese Wiktionary cannot be trusted since there aren't enough people there looking after the pages. There are way too many pages generated by bots. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Category:Chinese misspellings is always another option. —suzukaze (t・c) 20:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Pleco dictionary lists it as a variant. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Suzukaze-c I guess we could resort to that. @Atitarev Which dictionary in Pleco is it from? Is it computer-generated? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. It's not Pleco's dictionary but CC, which is included in Pleco.

The entry looks like this:

彷⧸仿彿⧸佛〔仿佛〕

PY fǎngfú

ZY ㄈㄤˇㄈㄨˊ

~~JP fing2 fat1~~JP fong2 fat1 --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JP fong2 fat1

I'm not sure how we should interpret "彷⧸仿彿⧸佛". I'm not sure this is strong enough evidence for 彷佛. Also, MDBG clearly has 彷彿 and 仿佛, but not 彷佛. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 11:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"彷⧸仿彿⧸佛" means each character can be replaced in the traditional form. Wenlin only gives 仿佛//彷彿 fǎngfú. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Atitarev I'm not sure if that's what CC meant to say, since MDBG, which, if I'm not mistaken, is based on CC, only has 彷彿 and 仿佛.

(Continuing the discussion from RFD) @Tooironic I think there are all errors in digitizing the original text. Looking at the book scans of the four texts given here (封神演義, 太平御覽1, 太平御覽2, 太平廣記, 儒林外史), I think this would only legitimize keeping it as a misspelling. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 12:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wyang (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

dacry-

Are there any actual prefixations of this? —CodeCa t 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How would you analyze the entries in Category:English words prefixed with dacry-? DTLHS (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no prefixation going on in these words. Prefixation is where a prefix is added onto an existing word, but these words seem to consist entirely of affixes which makes no sense. And additionally: were all of these words formed in English? —CodeCa t 22:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

korephilic

Equinox ◑ 16:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only 2 attesting quotations; 1 in news and 1 in books, 0 in groups. Damn, just need one more but it's not there. Anybody find anything else? Philmonte101 (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

forgetness

This is the first time i'm using RFV. Sorry if this is not done correctly.

The article has 3 quotes, but they seem to be examples of very different meanings, which shouldn't be listed as supporting a single meaning consisting of a list of different meanings, as is the case now.

There seem to be more than 1000 hits at Google Books, but i haven't had time to look at any of them. Most importantly, the word isn't in any dictionary i own or in any free online dictionary, so the article should at least mention that this is a very rare term and not considered to be a "real" or "correct" word by most native speakers.

It's not in the single-volume printed OED or the free online Oxford Dictionaries. Is it in the full version? --Espoo (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think the meanings of the quotes are? They all seem to fit under "forgetfulness" to me. And yes it is in the full OED. DTLHS (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few more citations and added to the definition. I don't think it's as non-standard or rare as it once was, where it used to be a byform to forgetfulness, but it's becoming increasingly more popular now for it's directness and no-nonsense appeal as a term for "the act of forgetting; forgetting" Leasnam (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but according to Ngram Viewer it seems to be extremely rare. I'd found this result but forgot to mention it above and only mentioned that the word is not in any dictionaries i could access. Is it labeled extremely rare in OED? I'm confused by the Ngram Viewer result since Google Books finds more than 1000 hits. I always thought GB hit amounts were more accurate than hit amounts of normal Google searches, which include pages that only have the word in hidden misspellings and synonyms. --Espoo (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books is where most of that inaccuracy comes from, due to scannos, misinterpreted hyphenations, and other problems with OCR. It's also true that any Google search that goes to multiple pages almost invariable overestimates the actual number of hits. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

goal-suck

Requesting unambiguous verbal use. The quotations given are only for "goal-sucking" as a noun. DTLHS (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added two quotes that are clearly verbal uses, although one of them lacks the hyphen. Kiwima (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

lectical

Tagged but apparently not listed. Compare lectic, lectically. A user has added citations, but several are obviously not of this term, e.g. "proposes an ana- lectical method", "is itself dia–– lectical"! - -sche (discuss) 23:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was created with the rfv already in it- appropriately, considering the massive volume of made-up nonsense that IP has added. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a real sense of deja vu on this one, having done searches for lectic, also added by the same IP. There is clear support for the mathematical definition, I have added cites. The support for the "speech or words" definition is less clear - I have added cites so there are three of those now, but I am not entirely sure that they support the definition. Kiwima (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Ancient Greek verb λέγω (légō) from which this is derived can mean both "pick up, select" and "speak, say". I suspect your examples have more to do with the former than the latter. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing the sense "of or pertaining to learning" – although many of the quotations use the term as a proper noun ([13], [14], and [15] (the current 2010 quotation)). Is that etymologically plausible? As for the 2013 Gaskin quotation, I'm not knowledgeable about philosophy and so am finding it hard to understand the sense in which the word is used. What do the Greek words lekton and tunkhanon also mentioned in the text mean? — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

density

Rfv-sense "The ratio of one quantity to another quantity." with the usex "The number of particles per unit volume of a specified volume can be considered to be the particle density for the specified volume.‎" Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 23:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like sense 1, but is the distinction the fact that sense 1 talks about "matter", whereas some particles are massless?! Equinox ◑ 23:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the difference is that sense 1 is mass divided by volume, whereas sense 2 can be some other ratio (in the usex, it's number of particles divided by volume). I've added three quotations to support sense 2. I think it could probably be rephrased to be more specific—maybe something like "A measure of some quantity per unit space"? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not necessarily in space. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

swind

Discussion moved from WT:RFD#swind.

I once heard one person use this word a couple of times, N.B., that person was over 80 at the time. Despite this, I am unable to find any Modern English citations for this word and as such I consider it to be quite inappropriate that this present word should be contained in Wiktionary for it degrades Wiktionary if thilk word, which cannot be independently verified, be contained therein. At the very least it should be moved to Middle English with a note indicating that it was still found in its oral form in Northern England up until the late 1970s. Mountebank1 (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(moved by Renard Migrant (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

resguarder

I think it's not French (not modern French). It has been used by Balzac, but not in a work written in modern French. Lmaltier (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did Balzac deliberately write in Old French? Yeah, I'd imagine that's where I found it. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in one book, he tried to write in Old French (or more probably in Middle French, but I'm not a specialist). Lmaltier (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

巴紮

Does this form exist, or is this from an incorrect conversion from the simplified form? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Cantonese CC Canto dictionary gives 巴扎 as a form for both trad and simpl.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found one mention and one use for 巴紮 and two uses for 巴扎 in traditional Chinese ([16], [17]) in Google Books so far. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 12:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an author, I'm OK to delete it. 巴扎 (bāzhā) is the correct Mandarin/Cantonese form. 巴剎／巴刹 (bāshā) is an alternative. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(once more, Category:Chinese misspellings is always another option. —suzukaze (t・c) 12:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Not frequent enough. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found more uses: [18], [19], [20], [21]. I'd say it could be a t2. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be cited now. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 19:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AACFO

As was noted in Feedback, there doesn't seem to be any evidence for this outside of dictionaries. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found some mentions of the AACFO in local newspapers:

1979: https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/149456503

2002: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=z3giAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Aa0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=6134%2C521617

According to the 2002 source they were founded in 1978. Unfortunately local papers tend not to research their stories very well, and in any case it's impossible to determine whether they actually still existed in 2002. I suspect this organisation, if it existed in a meaningful way, was a bit of a one day fly.

I doubt this is enough attestation though, and I haven't found even a single mention of the abbreviation AACFO used for this association. — This unsigned comment was added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) at 9:59, 28 August 2016‎.

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

饂

The usage notes right below the "noun" definition say that this character is never used alone. —suzukaze (t・c) 09:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could switch it to use {{only used in}}. Actually, if the usage notes are correct, shouldn't we RFV the Mandarin section? - -sche (discuss) 22:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good suggestion. I've removed Chinese and Korean sections. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

churnalize, churnalise

I found exactly one citation for each spelling. DTLHS (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

𨶙鳥

𨶙鸟

Per diff. —suzukaze (t・c) 11:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

something as adjective

It is not obvious that something is an adjective. Merriam-Webster doesn't say it is an adjective. Please either add examples/citations or delete this adjective section. Yurivict (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what the definition is referring to? —suzukaze (t・c) 06:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

county

The adjective - looks more like an attributive sense to me. DonnanZ (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though the citation does seem to be adjectival, not that I can work out the meaning from it. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely attributive uses of the noun, such as county boundary, county court, county council and county town. DonnanZ (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brief GBC searches for "county style", "county girl", and "county man" suggest both attributive and adjectival senses: typical of a county (or a specific county, e.g. "This York County man who executed the fewest stones is…"^[1]) and indicating a relationship or rôle (e.g. "…he uses form 4 in reporting the deficit to his county man.^[2]) I did not find cites suggesting, exclusively, noble association. - Amgine/^t·e 14:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "York county man" cite looks like York County man rather than York County man. Otherwise, the capitalization makes no sense. The rest of the cites are mostly of the same sort: [Xyz County/county] man, with a few where the context suggests a typo for country, and some with "county man" referring to someone associated with "the county". I see no adjectival usage in your links at all- just attributive. As for the quote in the entry, it's hard to tell exactly what it means- you have to wonder if it's a typo or a scanno for something else ("tall and county"?). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I said. The "York County man" is indicating the man is "typical of a county (or a specific county..."

The "county man" of the 1917 government manual refers to the local official at the county governmental level to whom farmers may address federal agricultural reports and filings. It is used adjectivally to make the distinction between municipal, county, state, regional, and federal levels of governance within agriculture, and was exactly the sense I thought of when I saw this RFV, having grown up in a rural setting myself. - Amgine/^t·e 23:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Latin/majusa

To start, I'm not exactly sure what a "mayberry" is (though I can guess "strawberry" based on the descendants). Secondly, while Franco‐Provençal mayossa could plausibly be a descendant, I fail to see how Occitan majofa (-s- > -f-?) and Welsh meddus, mefus could derive from it. KarikaSlayer (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trees of the genus Crataegus are often called may trees, and they bear berries, so I suspect a "mayberry" is the berry of the may tree. The ones native to the southeastern United States (thus presumably not the one the Vulgar Latin word refers to) are called mayhaws. I'm equally at a loss as to how to derive the Occitan and Welsh words from *majusa (which ought to be moved to *maiusa, surely). The Welsh words ought to go back to something like *medūsa/*medōsa and *mebūsa/*mebōsa/*memūsa/*memōsa respectively. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source for this? We've never written a specific CFI for the Reconstructions namespace have we? Obviously WT:CFI only applies to the main namespace (nb this is not explicit and it is something I'd like to add explicitly). FEW doesn't list it and before you say anything it does include Occitan and Franco-Provençal. I'd be happy with one reputable source listing it as a reconstruction. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Romanophile, do you remember where you got this? The big Welsh dictionary ({{R:cy:GPC}}) doesn't venture any etymology of meddus/mefus. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Angr, that would be a question for @Torvalu4. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 03:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? AFAICT you started the page and he's never edited it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Angr: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Reconstruction:Latin/majusa, https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=mefus&action=history. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 12:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair 'nuff. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

deplorable

"To be felt sorrow for; worthy of compassion." The given citation could easily belong to the more common sense 1. Equinox ◑ 19:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not direct evidence, but apparently the original French meaning is actual this, so if borrowed from French it may have had the same meaning at least to start with. Perhaps try some 18th and 19th century uses of 'deplorable' to see. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

“deplorable”, in The Century Dictionary […], New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., 1911, →OCLC. sense 2: "pitiable, contemptible", but no usage citations. DCDuring TALK 21:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might be archaic, then? Chambers gives three senses: (i) lamentable, causing great regret; (ii) sad; (iii) hopelessly bad. (ii) is unhelpfully vague! Equinox ◑ 18:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archaic might be right, though obsolete might be better, but we still need citations. DCDuring TALK 23:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have found citations for a sense "pitiable" (which seems a simpler definition with approximately the same meaning as the one under challenge). One is from Robinson Crusoe. In that work, I also found a citation for the first definition. It occurred to me that the very same situation could be deplorable in both senses, one focusing on a deficiency in a responsible party, the other on the regrettable result. DCDuring TALK 00:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

共和社會主義越南

Insufficiently attested in Vietnamese text. Chữ Nôm fell out of use decades before "Socialist Republic of Vietnam" became the reunified country's official name. The only Vietnamese-language, chữ Nôm uses I can find come from a Nôm revivalist website that hardly satisfies the attestation criteria. Meanwhile, this entry wouldn't be appropriate for any other CJKV language, because it uses Vietnamese word order (adjective after noun). – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 03:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe WT:RFV is better for this? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 12:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to RFV and retagged. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how a user will know otherwise that each part of the term 共和社會主義越南 is Sino-Vietnamese, even if it wasn't used in full when Hán tự (漢字) were used in Việt Nam (越南)? Should the attestation criteria for Hán tự be the same as for other scripts and other languages? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, 社會主義 (“socialism”) in the full country name even uses the Chinese word order, not the Vietnamese. chủ nghĩa xã hội (“socialism”) would be 主義社會 with the 主義 (“-ism”) part before 社會 (“society”). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zacuscă

Attested in English with this spelling and capitalisation? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Lower case would definitely be supportable. DTLHS (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cited zacusca. DTLHS (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

นิดน้อย

The form นิดน้อย (nít-nɔ́ɔi) does not exist; there is only น้อยนิด (nɔ́ɔi-nít). It is probably a misspelling of นิดหน่อย (nít-nɔ̀i). --YURi (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hirquitalliency

Most citations were mentions in word lists, so I have removed them. Equinox ◑ 12:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

2013, Chauntelle Lewis, Sixweeks Event Contributions, cjnlewis.co.uk, sentence 1
Roomthil Hirquitalliency is a ten-second stop motion animation film (collaboration with Steph Wright and Kate Strudwick). It aims to illustrate the old fashioned English word Mungo, which means to find valuable things in the trash.
2008, David Nelson - Staff Writer, Words of the Year - Bang for your Buck - Column, Points in Case, paragraph 1
I might not make six figures, but I know what hirquitalliency means.
1996, Stephen Chrisomalis, Compendium of Lost Words: A-E, The Phrontistery, sentence 31
The wrestler's hirquitalliency compensated for his lack of strength and talent.

--- LexiphanicLogophile <2:59 pm Saturday, 17 September 2016 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)>

Of the five citations now in the entry, three (1996, 2008, and 2013) do not appear to be durably archived, one of those (2008) is a clear mention, and the remaining two (1993 and 2003) are not independent. So we still need two more citations to keep the entry. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

bald

"Of a statement: empirically unsupported." I have just added and cited another sense ("Of a statement or account: unembellished") and I wonder if this was a confused attempt at that. Or does it exist independently? Equinox ◑ 16:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The definition could be revised a bit (to be more like "without evidence or support being provided"), but I think it exists: google books:"bald assertion", google books:"bald claim".

2006, Alastair Fowler, How to Write, page 49:
Many continue with bald assertion after bald assertion; which is unlikely to convince people, unless they agree with you already.

- -sche (discuss) 17:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the proposed revision, and added some citations. With the revision, however, that second definition looks a lot like a subset of the first. Kiwima (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; but why is the "bald assertion" in the 1994 citation sense 3 and not sense 4? Equinox ◑ 21:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like that citation blends both senses, or could be either (and is not definitively not one or the other). Perhaps it is best moved to the citations page. - -sche (discuss) 21:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more familiar with the "without support" sense than the "without embellishment" sense. The senses seem to be separate, though; e.g. a xenophobic rant that immigrants are more likely to commit theft and rape and assault, going into lurid/scary detail, seems like it could be "bald" in sense 2 (without evidence being provided), not sense 1 (lacking embellishment). But if you think it's better as a subsense, OK. - -sche (discuss) 21:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed. It can still be made into a subsense if anyone feels the need to do so. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

miskine

There's a link in the entry that suggests this exists, but absolutely no evidence in Books or Groups for a French term. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the three definitions of this purported noun define it as an adjective, never a good sign. DCDuring TALK 18:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

google books:miskines gets some hits. The problem with google books:miskine is there are a couple of politicians with the surname Miskine and they make up most of the hits. google books:"un|le|la|une miskine" gets a couple more. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

stæfleahtor

An Old English entry created by User:Leasnam in 2009. I can't find any usage in Books, Scholar, News, or Groups. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

stæfleahter is certainly attested. —John C5 20:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PseudoSkull, You might need to search on stæfleahtres (e.g. Swylce betwyx stánhricgum gruttes and stæfleahtres swelgend), as that is the form that is glossed/attested. The nominative could be either stæfleahtor or stæfleahter, as the second element was leahtor/leahter (“moral defect; crime; sin; fault”) which had multiple forms. Leasnam (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

carneter

Can't find very many attestations for this verb, supposedly meaning "to blog". Is it conjugated "je carnette" or "je carnète"? No clear attestations of either. Benwing2 (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two attestations from websites:

A partir d'aujourd'hui, je carnète ! (frenchmba.blogspot.com)
Personnellement, je "carnète" plus souvent sur le diabète de type 2. (recit.org)

Lmaltier (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

abâteler

Can't find attestations of this verb. Benwing2 (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As above abâtelle or abâtèle? Google Books finds neither, and all 5 hits for abâteler are from dictionaries, of which 3 are 19th century dictionaries, one 20th century (French-German dictionary), and one 21st century (French-German dictionary). Even a Google search only finds word lists and these same 5 hits. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact unless some as it in some sources that aren't on Google, this one is over, ladies and gentlemen. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nolente

Rfv-sense "unwanted", as a result of WT:RFD#volente o nolente (to be archived here). @SemperBlotto —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, "volente o nolente" is a translation of Latin nolens volens. Second, unless nolente drastically diverges in meaning from the source, it would mean "not wanting" or "not willing" instead of "unwanted"... AnonMoos (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sphingomielynase

Another uncitable scientific misspelling by SB. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Google Scholar for 7 uses. But there are more than 990 ("internal server error" prevented verification of more) uses of the correct spelling in that corpus. DCDuring TALK 12:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could persuade Visviva (talk • contribs) to omit misspellings form his lists. That would save me time. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SemperBlotto: Visviva's script already tries, but it's hard to automate. I still think you should stop creating them, because we normally don't keep rare misspellings. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I'll forget about them if they seem relatively rare. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ignorable

Rfv-sense: (statistics) Of an experiment, etc.: such that the method of data collection and the nature of missing data do not depend on the missing data.

No hits for "ignorable experiment" in Google Books. It must be collocated with other nouns, but which? May end up being SoP. DCDuring TALK 22:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh. Apparently "ignorable missing data", which does seem SoP to me. DCDuring TALK 22:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DCDuring: Want to move it to RFD, then? I vote delete in anticipation of such a move. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Another pertinent distinction in Rubin's missing data classification system is whether the missing data mechanism is ignorable." Does that mean that the mechanism can be ignored, or something more? I'm not sure. Equinox ◑ 10:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at web usage, I find that a very large share of total usage of the word ignorable is in the context of statistics. But the meaning seems to be "that can be ignored (for statistical purposes)."

I think that one or statistics-context usage examples, citations, a usage note, and reference to

Ignorability on Wikipedia.Wikipedia would make for a good entry. DCDuring TALK 13:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pitch

Sense 8: "A level or degree." The quotation given is:

2014, James Booth, Philip Larkin: Life, Art and Love (page 190)
In this poem his 'vernacular' bluster and garish misrhymes build to a pitch of rowdy anarchy […]

It looks to me like that exemplifies sense 14 ("A point or peak; the extreme point or degree of elevation or depression; hence, a limit or bound") far better. Is the definition a faulty interpretation of Booth's usage of the word, or is the quotation simply misplaced? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

plasma gem

Rfv-sense:

the black inorganic mineral slag with a hardness near that of quartz left over from plasma garbage incineration separate from the metal waste and organics combusted
a black jewel created from the mineral

plasma gemstone

Same definitions

Neither of these spellings with the challenged definitions are to be found on Books or Groups- plasma gemstone gets no hits at all. There are some hits for plasma gem that contain the physics acronym GEM, which refers to a type of plasma, not a type of physical object. This item may indeed exist, but there's nothing durably-archived that I can find to meet CFI for the terms.

These are each accompanied by an SOP sense from the mineralogical sense of plasma (a green variety of quartz), but that can be dealt with at rfd. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

openum

Nothing obvious on the first couple of Google book search result pages. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Used in a well-known work, see The Jungle, in Chapter 24. Also see this. And see this. I've heard before that the fact that a word is used in a notable work like The Jungle alone makes it attested in some cases. PseudoSkull (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The third one is for a different sense (openum closum refrigeratus is pseudo-Latin, not 'open them'). The 'usage in a well-known work' rule was abolished in favor of the the other criteria on the list. I think things only used in well-known works are allowed in appendices. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be that well known, as I've never heard of it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was gonna say that; never heard of it. But we do seem to have two citations so far. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PseudoSkull. Formerly we allowed a word to be included based on its use in a single well-known work. In English this would lead to the inclusion of typography errors from Shakespeare and much of Finnegan's Wake. We repealed that exception to the general rules in WT:ATTEST with respect to works in "well-attested languages" in a vote. The Jungle would probably have not made the cut as a well-known work, as it has never been well-known outside the US and seems dated now. DCDuring TALK 19:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fleeten

Didn't find anything for "fleeted or skimmed milk" outside of dictionaries. There may be an adjectival sense (meaning "skimmed"?):

- Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

I think this may be an adjective derived from a variant past participle (?) (< Middle English fletyn; normally flet (ppt)) of the verb represented by archaic/obsolete verb fleet (“to skim cream from milk”). Not sure if it's a participle though, that is just a guess Leasnam (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty convinced now that the POS is participle/adj. There is an alternative form fletten Leasnam (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fletten seems a little more common: [22] DTLHS (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's also fleeten-face Leasnam (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think "fleeten-face" is only attested in one work (see Citations:fleeten). DTLHS (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

n-word

Rfv-sense

There are no citations for the n-word standing for "The word Nazi."

FWIW, The discussion page also mentions citations needed for this sense since 2004. This sense is also found on the N-word disambiguation page on WP (which states: "Nazi – euphemism for reference to Nazism as broad, political slur by analogy with F-word"), though not on the Nazi article itself.

Sorry all I can do is point this out, but my real-life limitations are acting up so I probably have to leave this to you. Thanks, --Geekdiva (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found a few potential Google Books hits ([23], [24], [25], [26]) of different spellings. I'm sure it is attestable from Groups, though. – Einstein2 (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

firren

Here's one, but I'm not sure it would be considered English. Another, also not (?) English. DTLHS (talk) 03:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both are unquestionably Scots, which we treat as a separate language. If this fails as English, it should be converted to a Scots entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

npov

The all-lowercase spelling is highly improbable. The all-uppercase spelling would need citations showing its use (not mention) in independent sources. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2007, Juha Suoranta & Tere Vadén, "From Social to Socialist Media: The Critical Potential of the Wikiworld", in Peter McLaren & Joe L. Kincheloe (eds.), Critical Pedagogy: Where Are We Now?, Peter Lang, 147.
The NPOV is self-consciously a view, not the absence of all views.
2008, Axel Bruns, Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, Peter Lang, 120.
Similarly, it is also important to understand the fundamental operation of NPOV in full detail: contrary to the synthesis commonly required for the coverage of topics in conventional encyclopedias, NPOV does not require the establishment of a universally accepted consensus description of the topic at hand—a kind of graveyard peace between opposing factions, achieved through arrival at a compromise which satisfies no one and omits any controversial points not acceptable to one of the participants.
2015, June Jamrich Parsons, New Perspectives on Computer Concepts 2016, Comprehensive, Cengage Learning, 18th ed., 332.
Content creators and editors are encouraged to filter material through a sieve of strict standards known to insiders as NPOV, NOR, RS, and V.

All upper-case. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to NPOV. This might have been better at WT:RFM. DCDuring TALK 12:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geflügel

Rfv-sense "angel". Doubt expressed at User talk:Kolmiel#Jahresendflügelfigur. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adelung states: "Opitz [a famous German poet] nennet an einem Orte die Engel [the angels] auf eine sehr seltsame Art, das himmlische Geflügel." But that should be himmlisches Geflügel and not just Geflügel, and it should mean the angels (collectively) and not just angel. -80.133.122.96 20:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

acnemia

Some use in taxonomic names and mentions in dictionaries. acnaemia also appears to be unused. DTLHS (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is one hit in "A Syndrome Resembling Addison's Disease" (1945): "That this patient is not suffering from pernicious acnaemia is indicated by the presence of free acid in the test meal" but this is obviously a scanno for pernicious anemia. DTLHS (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

spill the beans

Rfv-sense:

(intransitive) To fart.

After eating baked beans? DonnanZ (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

quintus

RFV of the Latin sense:

(music, in a piece of vocal polyphony) the fifth voice added to the bass, cantus, tenor, and alto

which isn't listed by any of the usual authorities. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

angelling

"1. A small or inferior angel. 2. Anything dear, yet petty." No hits for angellings plural in Google Books. The entry has one cite for each supposed sense, but the first one seems like a nonce-word verb ("angelling" = doing the work of angels) and the second also looks verb-like, and seems to bear no relation to the claimed definition. Equinox ◑ 22:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second is a verbing of 'angel investor'. (Minor annoyance: journalist named Angel Ling)

"It ends with Snooki spraying herself in ketchup and snow-angelling on Sitch's bed." Cinema Blend
"That, it seems to me, is exactly the point we need to understand about epiphanies, angelling, and the message which arrive from non-ordinary and parallel realities." GBC Dolphin's Leap, Hind's Feet: Becoming a Mystic: Journey, Discipline and Practice perhaps an epiphanous experience.
"Nimbus rolled his eyes at this trite lesson from Good Angelling 101." GBC Trouble with Angels verb of being an angel.
"Or maybe they just don't think Grandma needs any angel-ling when she has this devoted family." GBC Have The Men Had Enough? verb of being like an angel.

- Amgine/^t·e 03:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Snooki" cite is from snow angel pressed into service as a verb. It's not evidence of angelling at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

<confused look> That seems to me to be an arbitrary level of precision, since any specific angel type might be verbed, such as the angel investor(ing), just as angel itself might be. I had another cite for "snow angelling" - in effect, the same as Good Angelling below it. However, none of my cites were intended to support the adjectival use in the article. They were intended to show that it is used as a verb and noun, but not as claimed in the existing definitions. - Amgine/^t·e 17:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly RFVed this because I don't think the supposed definitions have got any link whatsoever to the intended meaning of the cited writers. Equinox ◑ 21:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it was a mistake by myself. Once I read it as a verb, it was clear that that is what it was. Leasnam (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

antigonorrhoeic

Not seeing the noun anywhere. Equinox ◑ 01:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not verified the book is real, but:

1915 The Art of Dispensing Ninth Edition (Revised And Enlarged.), Peter MacEwan, The Chemist And Druggist

"Arhovin
A yellowish liquid, a compound of diphenylamine and thymol benzoic ethyl ester, used as an antigonorrhoeic."

- Amgine/^t·e 20:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More than enough at google books:"an antigonorrhoeic" to mark this as RFV passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

apareon

"The point in an orbit around Mars that is most distant from that planet." Only in word lists? Equinox ◑ 01:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few discussions on Usenet about the equivalent terms to apogee and perigee for various planets and other heavenly bodies, but they're all mentions. There's also a mention in a dictionary of space terminology in Books. Google Scholar has one good cite, which is probably durably-archived (most journals are). There are more cites there for apoareion, though- that looks like it may be the only attestable spelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly I find mentions, but here is one use. Kiwima (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

obimbricate

Some use in Italian, some dictionaries, no use in Google books or scholar. DTLHS (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

atomkræfter

atomkræfterne

atomkræfters

atomkræfternes

All are plural forms of atomkraft, which is regarded as uncountable by Den Danske Ordbog. DonnanZ (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of uses by laymen, in reference to nuclear power; especially people expresing their fear. There are also some older uses, but I'm not sure what it means in this context:

- 1872, Harald Høffding, Philosophien i Tydskland efter Hegel, page 275
  Herved kunne vi ikke blive staaende. Den moderne Naturvidenskab lærer os (kfr. Fechner) at opfatte Materien som et System af Atomkræfter. Hvert enkelt Atom kan ingen Masse have, ligesaalidt som man kan tale om Talstørrelsen af en Ener.
  In this manner, we could not remain standing. Modern natural science teaches us (cf. Fechner) to conceive of matter as a system of atomic forces. Every individual atom can have no mass, just as little as one may speak of the magnitude of a one.
- 2013, J. Thorsen, The Penetration of Charged Particles Through Matter (1912 - 1954), Elsevier (ISBN 9780080871066), page 184
  Problemets Forskel fra Spredningsspørgsmaalet, Indirekte Indflydelse af de indre Atomkræfter, Hastighedstallenes Sandsynlighedsfordeling.
  The difference of the problem from the question of propagation, indirect influence of the inner atomic forces, the probability distribution of the velocity-numbers.
- 1899, Kringsjaa
  Hvert atom i verdensaltet er besjælet af den guddommelige kraft, ligesaa verdensæteren, og man kan saaledes betegne "Gud" som summen af alle naturkræfter, summen af alle atomkræfter og alle ætersvingninger.
  Every atom in the world-everything is soul-endowed by the divine force, likewise the world-aether, and one may as such use "God" to refer to the sum of all natural forces, the sum of all atomic forces and all aetheric vibrations.
- 1886, Rasmus Malling Hansen, Perioder i børns vaext og i solens varme
  Disse livsvækkende Stød, som ramme alt Stofligt, maa i fjærne Tider, i Solens Ungdomstid, have været langt vældigere end nu og maa, hvor de have truffet paa heldigt ordnede Atomer og Atomkræfter, samt gunstige Livsbetingelser for disse, ...
  These life-awaking thrusts/jolts, which hit all that is material, must, in distant times, in the time of the youth of the Sun, have been far grander than now and must, where they have hit fortuitously arranged atoms and atomic forces, as well as life-conditions conducive to these things,...
- 1878, Karl Hendrik Posselt Schmidt, Laerebog i experimentalfysiken: tillige med grundtraekkene af meteorologien, astronomien og den fysiske geografi ...
  Flere eller færre af disse Atomer, alt efter Stoffernes Art, forene sig nu, lærer Kemien os, ifølge de i dem nedlagte Kræfter, Atomkræfter eller kemiske Kræfter, Affinitet, og danne derved, hvad Kemien kalder Molekyler, ...
  More or fewer of these atoms, depending on the species of the substances, now unite, chemistry teach us, in accordance with the forces vested in them, atomic forces or chemical forces, affinity, and thus form what chemistry calls molecules.
- 2008, Wolfgang Pauli, Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel mit Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg u.a. Band II: 1930–1939 / Scientific Correspondence with Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg a.o. Volume II: 1930–1939, Springer-Verlag (ISBN 9783540788010), page 98
  Dersom vi betragter Dispersionen fra et Atom i Normaltilstanden bestaaende af en Elektron og en Kerne med Ladning Ze og forlanger, at Y skal være lille i Forhold til de indre Atomkræfter, ...
  If we consider the dispersion from an atom in the normal condition consisting of an electron and a nucleus with charge Ze and demand that Y must be small relative to the inner atomic forces, ...

__Gamren (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- 1966, Forskning, udvikling, uddannelse
  Ved hjælp af dislokationsteorierne blev man i 30'erne og 40'erne i stand til at beregne metallers maksimale styrke udfra atomkræfter og krystalstrukturer.
  Using the theories of dislocation, one gained, in the 30s and 40s, the ability to calculate the maximal strengths of metals from atomic forces and crystal structures.

__Gamren (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plurals RFV passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pluderhose

English ? Leasnam (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The English would more often be pluderhose Leasnam (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I doubt if there would be a plural form anyway, like pantyhose. DonnanZ (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technical note, please don't use {{l}} in section titles the anchor won't work. I have added an anchor to fix this. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One result here, there may be more [27]. DonnanZ (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ryss

Rfv-sense:

a violent, ruthless, rude, unpolished person (one who behaves like those Russians that once raided the Swedish coasts)

I can see why an IP removed it, but the wording can be fixed- if the sense actually exists. I would think one would need to find someone called this who wasn't actually Russian, in order to confirm that it wasn't using the first sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of info in the attached SAOB link if anyone wants to wade through it, but I suspect you need to be Swedish to answer this point. DonnanZ (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For those who understand Swedish, this excerpt from Svenska Akademins Ordbok [28] shows that such sense exists:

c) med nedsättande l. klandrande innebörd med tanke på vissa osympatiska egenskaper (ss. rått o. ohyfsat uppträdande, vildhet, bråkighet, bullersamhet, krigiskhet) som ansetts l. anses känneteckna ryssarna; i sht i jämförelser. (Kristus) regerar thär (dvs. i himlen) som een Alzmechtigher Konung til ewigh tijdh, thär vthur kan ingen Tyran, Rysse eller Turck honom vthdrijffua. LÆLIUS Bünting Res. 1: 130 1588. (Han hade) slagit honom som ingen braf Karl utan som en Ryss och ingen Christen. HdlCollMed. 8/4 (1723). Gumman hon svor som en Ryss och Kossack. LENNGREN (SVS) 2: 323 (1796). Ryssarne hade landstigit på Åland, och som ryssar foro de der fram. CRUSENSTOLPE Mor. 6: 112 (1844). NORDSTRÖM Luleåkult. 234 (1925). jfr: (Gustav Trolle) lath the swenska fattiga dödha kropper liggia för hund och Ram och begraffues j owijgda jordh somt let han och brenna, som the icke hade warit christit folk, vtan rysser eller kettare. G1R 7: 428 1531.

The "etymology" in brackets was hardly accurate, and I took the liberty of deleting it. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that I forgot to save the removal of the "etymology" that is provided in brackets. Thus, let it remain for the moment. Anyway, I think it should be removed eventually, unless someone can prove that the meaning really goes back to this particular behavior. Swedes and Russians were enemies for more than 1.000 years, and there have been plenty of opportunities to call the other side names. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

rain man

Rfv-sense:

(humorous) An expert at something. Vaneeta is the Rain Man of weed.

I found an added two cites (although one of them capitalizes the term). Kiwima (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see where it's going. People with high-functioning autism are often considered to have very good memories and are knowing for studying areas in great detail. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

壤

Rfv-sense for "rich" definition. None of the online dictionaries I tried seemed to have that as a sense for this character. Bumm13 (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

䍇

Rfv-sense "Cantonese: stool". Possibly a quirk of the Unihan database: google:䍇粵語 does not immediately support the existence of this sense. —suzukaze (t・c) 06:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This website suggests that 䍇 does exist in Cantonese but is only used by people who believe in 本字, and the meaning is not "stool". —suzukaze (t・c) 06:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

gleek

Noun: Rfv-sense of "luck". --Jerome Potts (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Verb: Rfv-sense: "To discharge a long, thin stream of liquid, (including saliva) through the teeth or from under the tongue, sometimes by pressing the tongue against the salivary glands."

The man said he “gleeked” on the woman, but did not intentionally spit on her.

Not in Century 1911. OED? UD? DCDuring TALK 12:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All I could find was [this], and I am not even sure it is acceptable as durably archived. Kiwima (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At least it suggests that the definition is not a hoax. DCDuring TALK 20:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See

Spitting on Wikipedia.Wikipedia and this 2004 blog post. DCDuring TALK 20:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/skukkōną

Discussion moved to WT:Etymology scriptorium#Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/skukkōną.

artuate

Only in dictionaries? There may be another sense in anatomy: [29]. DTLHS (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

watashikomi

No use. DTLHS (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

google books:"watashikomi" "the" generates a hit, and searching on Google Scholar finds another book source. I'm sure another source that meets CFI could be found.

The main challenge is that, as an English term, this is only used in the context of sumo -- which doesn't have a lot of English writing about it anyway. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's no reason to have an English entry as opposed to a Japanese romanization. DTLHS (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

years young

Tagged, not listed. Equinox ◑ 08:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be an idiom, and easy enough to verify. DonnanZ (talk) 08:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clear widespread use? I don't think it's a noun but that's not an RFV issue. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to RFD? I thought we previously removed this sense from young, but maybe it was just a TR discussion. Equinox ◑ 11:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)'[reply]

years young gets plenty of google books results https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22years+young%22 it's used as a euphemism for saying "years old" in order to avoid saying the word "old". 99.101.56.68 17:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be at young ? The euphemism is not on the entire phrase, but on young as meaning "old". In fact, trying to determine a correct POS for this evinces the fact that it's not a valid phrase in and of itself. When one says "He is 85 years young", it's correct to segment this as "He is 85 years" + "young", and not "He is 85" + "years young"...I mean, we don't have an entry for years old do we ?Leasnam (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly citable, so RFV passed. I have sent it to RFD. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

maikong

One cite added (here's another use in German). Any others in English? DTLHS (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This originally came from Webster 1913, which includes a few words drawn only from one source: it might be one of those. (Not the 2004 source of course! So there must be at least one other somewhere.) Equinox ◑ 08:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco

From RFD. Needs cites meeting WT:COMPANY rules. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three citations added. Thousands more easily available. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As an exception to the principle that voting does not belong to RFV, keep as attested in the general terms of WT:ATTEST - Citations:Cisco. The WT:COMPANY "rules" is not supported by consensus as per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names. Note that Cisco passed WT:RFD per Talk:Cisco. Absolutely no value is added for the dictionary user by removing this single-word entry that already has pronunciation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

baste pour cela

Never heard of this; if it exists (and it seems that's the case, since there is a mention in the TLFi entry for baste), it's definitely not common. --Fsojic (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FEW justs lists baste as "[that's] enough", from the verb baster, which is archaic or dialectal. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your link doesn't work and my link for baste doesn't have it. Google Book hits suggests it was in some 19th century translation dictionaries but gets all of zero hits for usage in French. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

different spelling; but it's not of much use. --Fsojic (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reithine

@Angr Seems only attested in Middle Irish? Old Irish roithinech implies its existence in some form. —CodeCa t 19:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to Middle Irish. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Angr: Could you please figure out what language the rest of these ought to be? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

boga

@Angr Is this Old Irish? I don't know of any declension ending in -a, and given what you said about recognising Middle Irish forms (-a vs -ae or -ai), that suggests this is later. —CodeCa t 19:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

brágae

This was formerly at brága, but I moved it per a hint at DIL. However, I don't know if the second meaning is that old. —CodeCa t 19:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Breta

Another form with -a. Middle Irish? —CodeCa t 19:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

calma

Middle Irish? —CodeCa t 19:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

cana

Middle Irish? The form cano is also given, which I presume is earlier. But the actual inflection is rather obscure. —CodeCa t 19:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Middle Irish. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ciúine

DIL has only one quote on this, without any apparent dating. It does say this is the same as ciúnas, but whether that means it's the same noun or merely a synonym, I have no idea. —CodeCa t 19:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comalta, derbchomalta

Seems Middle Irish. The etymology is odd, as it uses a (presumably) earlier form that still has the -e. —CodeCa t 19:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

data

I'm a bit unclear on this one. DIL cites from Togail Bruidne Dá Derga which Wikipedia says is Old and Middle Irish, but that doesn't tell me much about this particular cite. —CodeCa t 19:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ecla

Again, -a suggests Middle Irish, especially as a iā-stem abstract derivative of an adjective. —CodeCa t 20:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

forbba

Probably Middle Irish again? —CodeCa t 20:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

gilla

I think this may already be Old Irish, especially given the cite gilldæ (= gildae?). —CodeCa t 20:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure it's OIr. The quote from DIL "Dauid in gille dána" is in the source (Liber Hymnorum Vol.1 p.26 l.12) "Dauid in gilla dána". The manuscript it's sourced from is Trinity MS 1441 (formerly E.4.2.), which is dated to the late 11C (and doesn't, alas, appear to be up on Irish Text On Screen to check), but the actual text looks like (late) OIr to me:

Snaidsi·um Moisi deg-tuisech ro·n·snaid tria rubrum maire,

Iesu, Aaron macc Amra, Dauid in gilla dána.

--Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 04:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

gúala

I think this is probably Old Irish, but then the lemma form would be gúalae wouldn't it? —CodeCa t 20:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

literda

—CodeCa t 20:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

peta, petta

—CodeCa t 20:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saxa

I see attestations of Saxae and Saxu in DIL, which may be the original nominative singular form. —CodeCa t 20:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

coccothraustes

RFV for the Latin coccothraustēs, which is currently defined as a New Latin adjective meaning "kernel-crushing". It wouldn't surprise me if this existed as a noun, but I don't think it's an adjective. Its Ancient Greek etymon, κοκκοθραύστης (kokkothraústēs, “grosbeak”), is a noun, and its derived binominal species name, Coccothraustes coccothraustes, could easily have its epithet explained as a reduplication of the generic name used in apposition (cf. Lua error in Module:taxlink at line 71: Parameters "entry" and "noshow" are not used by this template., Lua error in Module:taxlink at line 71: Parameters "entry" and "noshow" are not used by this template., etc.). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, coccothraustes began its taxonomic life as a specific epithet in Lua error: The template Template:R:AnimalBase does not use the parameter(s):
i=1
Please see Module:checkparams for help with this warning.Loxia coccothraustes at AnimalBase. Following are other taxa that use it: Lua error in Module:taxlink at line 71: Parameters "noshow" and "ver" are not used by this template. (L.), Lua error in Module:taxlink at line 71: Parameters "noshow" and "ver" are not used by this template. (L.), Lua error in Module:taxlink at line 71: Parameters "noshow" and "ver" are not used by this template., Lua error in Module:taxlink at line 71: Parameters "noshow" and "ver" are not used by this template. Skoracki 2011, Lua error in Module:taxlink at line 71: Parameters "noshow" and "ver" are not used by this template. Bochkov, Flannery & Spicer 2009. All are from the online database Index to Organism Names (ION)], which includes unaccepted names.

My excuse for not providing explicit citations is that the existence of a name is evidence that the taxon was used at least once. If necessary I could probably find actual citations. DCDuring TALK 17:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DCDuring: It goes all the way back to Linnæus? Goodness! Citations for the species' names will not be necessary. I'll try to look for uses of coccothraustēs (preferably as an adjective) outside binominal nomenclature. BTW, I love Lua error in Module:taxlink at line 71: Parameter "noshow" is not used by this template.; I've never seen that kind of re…&nsbp;triplication in taxonomy before. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DCDuring: I found two uses of Coccothraustus — does that mean anything to you? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a genus in Cardinalidae called Caryothraustes (κάρυον (káruon, “nut”)), 2 species of New World grosbeaks. I don't see anything in w:Cardinalidae that has capensis as epithet. DCDuring TALK 23:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any animal name prior to 1758 isn't part of the current system of taxonomic nomenclature, but it looks like it's the cardinal. I notice that the first work treats Coccothraustes as distinct from Coccothraustus, cross-referencing the first to Kirschbeisser- whatever that is. Linnaeus does give synonyms from older works, but in the case of Loxia coccothraustes, they they all seem to be for just plain coccothraustes. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the German name ("cherry-biter") indicates a diet, fruit, for Coccothraustus, that differs from that of the hawfinch (Coccothraustes), nuts and seeds, though the New Latin name indicates nuts and seeds are the diet. I suppose the German vernacular name is based on ignorance of the North American bird's actual diet and may be influenced by the bird's color.

I see no principled lexicographic reason to exclude pre-Linnean "Scientific Latin" names, but, as a practical matter, I see no great return on the extra effort required to document them. DCDuring TALK 10:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other projects extensively document modern taxonomic names. I don't know any that do the same for pre-Linnean names. For that reason it seems worthwhile to me. DTLHS (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Linnaean names are legitimate, but there's less of a system to them, and their continuity with Linnaean names can't be assumed. In a way, they tend to be SOP: quite often they're just a short, descriptive Latin phrase. In this case, it seems to be a calque of an apparently obsolete German term (Kirschbeisser) for the hawfinch, which is now known as the Kernbeisser. All of these names refer to its habit of biting through cherries to get to the pits, which it cracks with its massive beak so it can eat the kernel inside. Another generic name, Carpodacus, has a similar meaning: from καρπός (karpós, “fruit”) + δάκος (dákos, “biter”). Chuck Entz (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

fefnicute

"A two-faced sneaky person." Can't tell whether this is a hoax or propagated from one of those online obscure-word lists. Equinox ◑ 22:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found a relevant blog post from Oxford University Press: [30]. Equinox ◑ 09:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A rare English dialectal word that seems to have attracted an unexpected amount of attention, that got it into dictionaries. Bizarrely enough, the only use I could find (which I left on the Citations page) is from Madame Chiang Kai-shek. Anyway, RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

galacticon

Given as the source of apogalacticon and perigalacticon; but I can't seem to find this standing as a word on its own. Equinox ◑ 17:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only know of this word from Lessov - Galacticon (Blend Remix). I'm amazed to come across it here. According to this webpage, it's used as a suffix for the apsides of an orbit around a galaxy. I never knew that it had a meaning and I'm so happy to come across it here! Serendipity! Anyway, so none of this relates to this as a standalone word, and a suffix doesn't pass CFI either since there are only 2 derivations (we don't have any of the other apsis-related suffixes). Nibiko (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

gynonym

Plausible, but I can only find scannos for synonym. Equinox ◑ 22:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are several versions of a biographical profile out there with the clause "Assuming the gynonym Anna Snegina..." (i.e. feminine pen name). AnonMoos (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see it on the Web but I don't think that meets our WT:CFI criteria. Equinox ◑ 03:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

friend

A Cantonese term. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the phrase "friend返" ("restore friendship with") appears in at least one TVB dub of an anime. It was a terrible show though and I am reluctant to dig it up. —suzukaze (t・c) 07:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to protect the entry, you'll have to find something. Would the dubbing qualify as a citation, though? Could it be just a case of code-switching for some special effect? In environments where English is well understood or spoken, it's quite common to throw in a word or two in English. Not sure if "friend" mixed in a Chinese text/conversation can ever be qualified as Chinese (also). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've just put in some quotations on the page. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

size

A Cantonese term. One citation is provided. Is it valid? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current citation is from Google Books. —suzukaze (t・c) 07:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The citations are good but there needs to be three to pass RFV. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

google books:"唔" "係" "size". —suzukaze (t・c) 08:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

man

A Chinese term. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: both Mandarin and Cantonese usage need to be cited. If only one is cited, the other should be removed, ie Lua error in Module:parameters at line 573: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "Mandarin" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. (deprecated use of |lang= parameter) IPA^(key): /mɛːn⁵⁵/. Admittedly, Cantonese rules are looser than Mandarin.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is very common slang, and noteworthy since its meaning is different than it is in English. ---> Tooironic (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

close

A Cantonese term. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't really consider this to be Cantonese. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

birthgasm

2 uses on Google Books, both quoting the same person. Nothing on Groups. Some usage on the web, but doesn't look to be anything that meets CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archived news cites meet CFI. PseudoSkull (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I rfved this rather than deleting it. There are lots of sites on Google News that are just web sites, others have web content separate from their printed content. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nisba

I can't think of any way nix could be an adverb in English or Italian. I'd guess the meaning is the same as English nisba and that this is just a copypaste error. KarikaSlayer (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is in my Italian dictionary - I have adjusted the definition and added an etymology accordingly. SemperBlotto (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @SemperBlotto Thanks for clarifying that. Do you know where the b comes from? Is the scn.wikt entry the same word? KarikaSlayer (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It certainly looks like the word in Sicilian Wiktionary is the same word. I've no idea where the "b" came from. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - It looks oddly similar to n'est-ce pas, but nothing else about it matches up very well. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

kerfluff

Alt spelling of kerfuffle. Equinox ◑ 20:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Google Books, the Free Library and Brigham Young Corpora of English. I found only one instance, in a children's fiction book, of kerfluff. Kerfluff is not an alternative spelling of kerfuffle, kerfluffle, nor any other word. Since a month has passed since this RFV was opened, and no examples have been cited on the entry page, I suggest that we consider the RFV failed because kerfluff does not satisfy criteria for inclusion, unless there is input from other editors.--FeralOink (talk) 09:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast. See Usenet cites at Google Groups. Since it has a different number of syllables it cannot be an alternative spelling of kerfuffle. The Usenet usage includes a single verb use. DCDuring TALK 14:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point, DCDuring. You said "not so fast" about considering the RFV failed, but then you stated that kerfluff is not an alternative spelling of kerfuffle. That is what I said too, that kerfluff is not an alternative spelling of kerfuffle. What am I misunderstanding?--FeralOink (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to be encouraging someone to close the RfV as failed. You seemed to think it was both not an alternative spelling of kerfuffle and not attestable.

It looks to me like a synonym, not an alternative spelling; and it looks attestable as such. DCDuring TALK 04:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed and modified per DCD. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

edhyn

@Embryomystic http://www.cornishdictionary.org.uk/ (which I believe is trustworthy?) gives the plural as ydhyn instead. Cornish Wiktionary apparently lists both. —CodeCa t 13:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be in a variety other than the SWF. Not sure at this distance. embryomystic (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "edhyn" is SWF/RLC and "ydhyn" is KK. That said, I'm still interested how well this form is attested. Google Books gives one source here. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are also quotations for edhyn in the Cornish dictionary by Williams and he also uses it in a translation in the appendix. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

knuckleballer

Rfv-sense: (baseball, humorous) A knuckleball.

google books:"threw|throw|thrown|throws|throwing a knuckleballer" gets no hits; the one non-book hit it picks up is "I still have serious doubts that the Red Sox would feel comfortable throwing a knuckleballer on the mound in the playoffs, but they may have no better choice." is the other sense of knuckleballer (does throw cover this by the way?) Renard Migrant (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the instances in the Google news archives of knuckleballer referred to the pitch; they all referred to the pitcher. DCDuring TALK 20:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add the sense of throw, which is hard to cite because it's chiefly used with the person's name, and I can't Google the name of every pitcher ever with 'throw' in front of it. I've added one cite to Citations:throw. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about 'throw * "up against"'? Other prepositions or adverbs might also make sense with the putative sense of throw. DCDuring TALK 18:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can have placeholder terms in Google searches, "throw [placeholder] out of the bullpen" would probably do it. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "*" is a kind of placeholder, but can include some number of tokens, perhaps 3-10. DCDuring TALK 17:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

oversit

Rfv-sense: "governance, authority, possession, control". One citation removed that was actually "over it". I suspect the remaining one is actually "oversight", but I cannot find the quote on Google books or archive.org. The OED has no noun sense for this word. DTLHS (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The date on the remaining cite is probably wrong by 3-400 years. Feveryere was apparently an old form of February as well as a surname. Anglo-Norman? DCDuring TALK 02:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't actually view the citation as it's a no preview book, but it's probably just a very old fashioned name but the rest of the spelling looks modern. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, all three versions of it on Google Books, they're all no preview. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

reckmaster

"A professional computer and accountant." Nothing to be found online except our entry. Equinox ◑ 00:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Although it doesn't help with rfv, it's no less found here: [[31]] of all places Leasnam (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting this work: "For the common Logist, Reckenmaster, or Arithmeticien, in hys v∣sing of Numbers: of an Vnit, imagineth lesse partes• and calleth them Fractions." "Reckonmaster" might barely meet CFI. DTLHS (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~I find even more at reckonmaster here [[32]]~~ Sorry, thought that was Cap'd Leasnam (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this can/should be moved to reckonmaster ? Leasnam (talk) 02:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If keeping and moving, always be sure to add the appropriate glosses for such entries, probably obsolete, rare, nonstandard. It is not fair on users to suggest that such obscurities are everyday English that will be understood by typical speakers. Equinox ◑ 19:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I leave it empty because I simply am not sure, leaving it up to the community to fill in my gaps. I try and add them when and where I can. This takes a village :) Leasnam (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've created reckonmaster and labelled it with an archaic and historical tag. I've also changed reckmaster to an alternative form, and likewise labelled it as well Leasnam (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

scathefire

Destructive flames. Apparently only in the fantasy books of Elizabeth Moon, hence would fail WT:FICTION. Equinox ◑ 22:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, a few have been added. Let me know Leasnam (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two are hyphenated, two are one word, and one is two words. Can we get a third hyphenated or one-word? Kiwima (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

卷

Rfv-sense for "to make a comeback" definition. I haven't seen this definition outside the Unihan database.— This unsigned comment was added by Bumm13 (talk • contribs).

Agreed. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The usage originates from the following poem, 題烏江亭 by the Tang dynasty poet 杜牧 (Du Mu) describing the defeat of 項羽 (Xiang Yu) in the battle of 垓下.

【勝敗兵家事不期，包羞忍恥是男兒。江東子弟多才俊，捲土重來未可知。】

If 項羽 had been brave to return to his homeland, he might still have the chance to defeat 劉邦 (Liu Bang), who later established the Han dynasty after 項羽 committed suicide.

The term "捲土重來" / 卷土重来 (juǎn tǔ chóng lái) is a popular 成語 proverb meaning to make a come back. The word 捲 has been simplified to 卷 in mainland China, which may explain why the definition has been incorporated into the Unihan database.

hagok

An anon removed this saying "hilik o higik ang tagalog. walang research?", which roughly translates to "hilik or higik in Tagalog. Was no research done?". I have restored it so it can be RFV'ed. We currently lack entries for both hilik and higik. @Mar vin kaiser, Andrew Sheedy —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The word "hilik" is more common in Tagalog for "snoring", but the word "hagok" is a less known synonym, which is attested in all major dictionaries, such as Leo English Dictionary, Vicassan's Dictionary, Panganiban's Diksyunasyo-Tesauro, and UP Diksiyonaryong Filipino. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mar vin kaiser. Thank you. For RFV, we need to demonstrate that the word passes WT:ATTEST. I think the only relevant cite I see at google books:"hagok" is in Cebuano, right? Can you find uses in print newspapers or magazines? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Metaknowledge Given the current state of the language where the large majority (greater than 50%) of the words in unabridged dictionaries are no longer in common use, due to the current education system and prioritization of English, I won't be able to find an attestation. And also due to the fact that most old Tagalog publications and literature are not digitalized, it's not easy to find. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 05:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried myself after my comment above and I failed to find anything durably archived besides dictionaries. I think this means we should probably take Tagalog off WT:WDL. What other editors should we check with before doing that? @Mar vin kaiser, Atitarev, Stephen G. Brown —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Despite being the national language (given the unification of Filipino and Tagalog), usage of the language in written form is very limited, since most written documents in the Philippines are in English, such as in the government, in business, and in the academe, and in literature. That is why most people are unfamiliar with more literary vocabulary found in the language, which are only privy to those who study Tagalog literature written more than a century ago, which not a lot of Filipinos get to read. Unlike in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand or Vietnam, where their national language is the default language in all cases. My point is that removing Tagalog from WT:WDL has a basis to it. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think hagok, a noun, is good and should be kept. Finding written attestations of Tagalog words ranges from difficult to virtually impossible. —Stephen ^(Talk) 20:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yup

Noun sense:

(informal) A yes; an affirmative answer.

All citations given are mentions, not uses. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIC, if it can be pluralised by adding the morpheme -s, it's a noun. Interjections can't be. Compare "notwithstandings". But I know many others disagree and I remember another such case being deleted — but can't recall what the word was. Equinox ◑ 19:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about the fact that you can say: "there are 5 thes in that sentence"? You can pluralize mentions, but I don't think we want them as separate entries/senses. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's why others disagree. Yups and nopes feel more keep-worthy to me, for some reason, probably because they represent an act, like a nod or a growl. ("He gave me a firm nope.") Not sure if this argument is sound, since perhaps you could compare that to "she wrote an italic the". Equinox ◑ 14:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some comparable entries: nopes, notwithstandings, hallelujahs (and spelling variants), ahoys. Equinox ◑ 19:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...And the redoubtable "etaoin shrdlus". Equinox ◑ 10:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone find the RFD discussion(s) we had about one or more of these noun-sections-based-on-the-pluralizability-of-a-word-meaning-"an instance of word"? - -sche (discuss) 08:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

bienpensant

I cannot find uses, only mentions of this spelling. The usual one is bien-pensant or bien pensant. --Fsojic (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically accurate but some of the 1990 reform spellings are notional, i.e. no-one's actually ever used them, if someone did use the 1990 spelling of bien-pensant it would be bienpensant. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

archchancellory

Appears in one Wikipedia article (not a particularly compelling source) and nowhere else online. Equinox ◑ 19:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

spirit cooking

This is what you get when you take a work of performance art by w:Marina Abramović called "Spirit Cooking", and make a generic term out of it. As far as I can find on Google Books and Google Scholar, there are's nothing but a few mentions of Marina Abramović and her work and an odd assortment of coincidental occurences of the two words together.

On Google Groups there are some bizarre recent discussions about an email invitation that w:John Podesta received related to the performance piece- something that was misinterpreted as evidence that Hillary Clinton's campaign staff were practicing satanic rituals!

Unless this can be shown to be a lower-case term for something other than Marina Abramović's performance-art piece and meeting the definition in the entry, this should be deleted as encyclopedic and misleading. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could unsee some of what I just saw. But...

1996, Samuel, Spirit Cooking: With Essential Aphrodisiac Recipes, Samuel
No previews of this text were available, so no clue if this may be relevant.
2013, Ross Fardon, This Could Be Your Future, Xlibris, pg 127
They set up their brass spirit cooking stoves in the aisle.
2013, Marie Azzopardi-Alexander and Albert Borg, Maltese, Routledge, pg 351
spiritiera: 'spirit cooking stove'
1966, Almqvist Ake Erik Alexander and Boij Karl Oskar Arne, Apparatus for burning spirit and similar liquid fuels US 3290907 A, United States Patents
FIG. 1 shows in sectional elevation a combination spirit cooking and heating stove incorporating the invention;

…but no evidence of the odd performance art. (Many references also to spirit cooker, spirit stove, but these refer to a spirit cooking stove and not some divisible adjective or activity. But this should be an RFD, not RFV, no? - Amgine/^t·e 07:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of this attests the sense in question, but rather a different sense, that would be SOP. RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

vapourescence

I don't think this spelling is legit. Equinox ◑ 18:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

veneerist

Trading name of an Irish business, but I can't see generic usage. Equinox ◑ 19:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

woodnewer

Can't find anything on this at all. Could it be a typo for woodhewer, a bird listed in some other dictionaries? Equinox ◑ 23:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

㐎

As far as I know, this is a relatively new character. Often pushed as a hanja form of "글" as in 한글 (han'geul). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

for what it's worth this webpage seems to have a sourced claim linking it to the nobi caste (historically used in the names of these people?). —suzukaze (t・c) 12:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

coorne

the whole entry. everything. Leasnam (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did a substantial amount of pruning. The contributor basically copied just about everything verbatim from crown, then changed all the instances of "crown" to "coorne"- even in the quotes. If this exists in English (as opposed to Middle English), it's just an obsolete form of crown, so I got rid of almost everything else. I'm not sure what to do with the pronunciation section, since that wasn't copied from crown, but the pronunciations seem odd for an English term. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, especially in regard to the first pronunciation given. I don't think it was ever pronounced that way. Leasnam (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has one quotation that uses it, but under the entry for corn (in the sense of callus). DTLHS (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a use of it in Tyndale's bible translation, but, there again, meaning corn (as in grain). Chuck Entz (talk) 05:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Initially, I wasn't able to find anything correct, true, or factual about this entry...looks to be nothing more than a well-crafted hoax Leasnam (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw something besides Tyndale that raises the possibility of attesting that this was an EME spelling of corn ("grain"). DCDuring TALK 15:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "crown" sense fails RFV; the "corn" sense still needs citations because it's not obvious that there are three modern English citations. Scannos, Middle English and a homographic last name and terms in other languages make it hard to search for. - -sche (discuss) 09:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed for the corn sense as well. Kiwima (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

คุณม่าย

Nonexistent. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For Mrs, this only called นาง. No heard of คุณม่าย. ม่าย means a widow. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pass

Rfv-sense: "(intransitive) To come and go in and out of consciousness." I have no particular reason to doubt this, but it would be nice to verify. After all, a sentence like "After the accident, he passed in the back of the ambulance" just sounds odd.

I have no idea what to search for to check this... This, that and the other (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether someone mistook frequentative use of the present participle of pass for this definition. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: What's with the label "heading" that occurs a few times in pass#Verb definitions? DCDuring TALK 14:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The entry pipe is entirely built of these weird "heading" labels! Equinox ◑ 18:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This diff by User:ReidAA in December 2014 is one that introduced "heading" as second argument of {{lb}}. There seem to be some 60 entries with this. I wonder whether something in {{lb}} has changed. DCDuring TALK 18:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it's just intended to mark a definition as a heading of several subdefinitions. DTLHS (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've never liked it. It doesn't belong in {{lb}}, IMO. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pop

Rfv-sense: "To act suddenly, unexpectedly or quickly." User:Mihia pointed out (at WT:TR#pop) that it has no usage examples, let alone citations and doesn't appear distinct from other definitions. I think definition 14 is particularly close. DCDuring TALK 02:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked the entry history but I also suspect this was a vague attempt at #14. Equinox ◑ 02:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but then #14 may be too narrow for "He popped over for a cuppa" or "a pop from the engine and our holiday travels were over." - Amgine/^t·e 01:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, popping over for a cuppa is #14 (moving suddenly): even if it's not a physically sudden movement, that's the sense of the word that is intended, right? I don't know what you mean by "a pop from the engine" but that can't be a verb; the verb is challenged here. Equinox ◑ 03:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

after e/c:

Definition 5, "(intransitive, Britain, often with over, round, along, etc.) To make a short trip or visit." <I'm just popping round to the newsagent.> would seem to cover your first example.

It makes me cringe but "pop to the loo" (i.e. briefly visit the toilet) is moderately common. The verb can be replaced with various other verbs suggesting rapid motion, like "whizz" or "nip". Equinox ◑ 03:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As to the second example, I don't understand what the use of pop as a noun has to do directly with the rfv of a verb definition. DCDuring TALK 03:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To pop, to hiccup/hiccough, to misfire. - Amgine/^t·e 06:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Amgine: Thanks. Is it applicable to all things misfire is applicable to, eg, firearms, artillery, detonators, attempts ("The plan misfired.")? DCDuring TALK 15:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would doubt it; there are not many things which are universal. Mostly I find #14 unnecessarily narrow and limiting; what it covers are described under #3. - Amgine/^t·e 21:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would make it seem like one of the senses of backfire, rather than misfire. DCDuring TALK 22:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again an instance of over-precision: all backfires (sense #2, of an engine) are misfires. To be precise, to fire at any point other than TDC of a standard cylinder ICE. - Amgine/^t·e 22:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since that sense has not been shown to be distinct, I have removed it, and moved former #14 up into its place. Mihia (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

エイチ

RFV of the definitions under Etymology 2. Usually this is エッチ (etchi) or H (etchi). —suzukaze (t・c) 09:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both Daijirin and Daijisen list this as an alternative spelling for エッチ (etchi). FWIW. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 02:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. エイチ is only for the letter L H. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, you meant the letter H? :)

Also, I do find limited use of this spelling for the エッチ (etchi) sense: google:"エイチしたい". These sites wouldn't seem to meet CFI, but they do suggest that this エイチ (eichi) spelling is for more than the alphabet.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

estelik

Turkish challenged in diff. This process is governed by WT:ATTEST. For orientation only, absent from Turkish dictionaries at Türk Dil Kurumu[33].--Dan Polansky (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are already valid citations. 123snake45 who wants to add his own made-up words to wikis is so mad because theş were deleted in the past. So he wants to be deleted some words because he read these words on some forum posts from the people argued with him even these words have valid citations and are listed on many dictionaries. --88.251.251.254 13:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The citations you mean would be those at Citations:estelik. Looks cited to me; what would be the objections to these quotations? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The IP, as usual, is lying. 123snake45 started out by creating a couple of made-up entries, but stopped when informed of our attestation rules, and has been working since then to stop others from creating similar bogus entries. That's the only truth in the IP's statement. This IP has an agenda to replace ordinary Turkish words of non-Turkish origin with words either constructed from existing Turkish pieces or borrowed from related Turkic languages. They routinely do things like add citations in languages similar to Turkish, and citations of people mentioning the terms as hypotheticals, in hopes that no one will be able to tell the difference. So far their creations have almost invariably ended up deleted, but the IP is hoping that everyone has forgotten about this and they can succeed this time. Even in the few cases where they squeak by on the strength of the bare minimum number of cites, they need to be tagged as extremely rare, and they should be removed from translation tables as completely unknown to the vast majority of Turkish-speakers.

The citations should not be taken at face value, and should only be accepted after someone who speaks Turkish confirms that they're actually in Turkish and are actual uses that meet the requirements of CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just judging from Google Translate, the 1999 and 2001 cites are in archeological reports and refer to some massive object or feature found in excavations, not a memento. The 2003 cite mentions the title of a work, and includes a parenthetical gloss of the word in question, which may be an indication that the word isn't Turkish. The dictionary mention seems to refer to Ottoman Turkish, not modern Turkish. Google Translate is obviously not reliable enough to prove anything, but this does suggest that these may not be what they're claimed to be. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Özbekçe "esdalik" sözünü Türkçeymiş gibi göstermeye çalışıyorlar (At the Uzbek language "esdalik"'s word, They are trying to prove like Turkish). --123snake45 (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

" I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Is this a quote from somewhere (it's not from anywhere on Wiktionary, as far as I can tell), or are you including the Turkish because you're not sure you're saying it right in English? I will mention, by the way, that this entry seems to be different from their usual pattern, because there's a perfectly good Turkish word they're replacing that can be traced back to Proto-Turkic, but their rhetoric and tactics are definitely consistent enough to show it's the same person or group. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chucky I am from Turkey and I speak Turkish. You are talking about Turkish citations by trusting in Google translate? At last you could check them by looking up some online dictionaries such as SesliSozluk, etc. --88.251.251.254 06:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After his made-up words were deleted from wikis, 123snake45 added many fake translations to Tatoeba and then he was banned there. Some Turkish speakers say his Turkish is very bad. See an example: "Last" yazacaktım iken dalgınlıkla "latest" yazmışım. Ask any Turkish speaker, this sentence is not a correct Turkish sentence. He also claims that the word Buzulkuşusu is correct. His Turkish sucks, why do you trust in this person? --88.251.251.254 06:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"estelik" is not Turkish in short, certainly. --123snake45 (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the ÖSYM or my teacher 88..? You are liar and vandal. Your "alısün, çınka, estelik, birdem, sögen, karamazdan, bağdarlama, köpyak..." words are fake, aren't Turkish. --123snake45 (talk) 09:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Yes, I'm sure he also started World War III and wears his clothes upside down. Those aren't the droids you're looking for, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, and we've always been at war with Eastasia. I'm sorry, but you're not going to make me forget your previous lies by telling more of them. It doesn't work that way. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

123snake45 said same things for the words such as çimerlik, haydamak, etc. If you think this word is fake then you may remove it from here. If you remove it from here, this doesn't mean this word doesn't exist. There are already valid citations and many dictionaries contain this word. --88.251.251.254 10:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting we should delete this based on his word, or on my guesses obtained via Google Translate. What I am suggesting is that we shouldn't keep it based on your word or without examination of your cites by someone with at least some knowledge of Turkish whom I can trust not to have an agenda, say @Atitarev, Stephen G. Brown, Anylai, Sae1962, Curious. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a similar discussion at çıngı, the word supposedly had an extra sense meaning electricity. It is obvious there is a group of people trying to make up words and put them in online dictionaries recently. In fact if we had taken the online dictionaries as a source, there were a lot of coined words based on this fake word definitely which is not accepted by any scientific community nor used in literature in the proposed sense, and they should have been here too. Please take a look at here, see also the awkward copy-paste relation between Korean. Are "fake, coined" words bad? Not at all considering we have had many of them during the language reforms like this failed guy, but this truly needs to have recent attestations from various fields to stay here. There are attestations but all belong to nationalist topics. One attestion is from 1934, probably first time as a propasal for an ottoman word, second actually refers to a book called "Türkistan'dan estelikler" so it is not even an attestation, the one belonging to 2001 is from a symposium about excavations appararently done for the Turkic researches.

If it passes the attestation process, we may also consider it a loanword from Uzbek since many words were also borrowed from Chaghatai dictionaries and other Kipchak languages too. Coined or borrowed word's ultimate etymology goes back to here. Unfortunately I have never heard of it, when I google it the only things i get are this wiktionary and nationalist forum entries. --Anylai (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yaşar Çağbayır who is the author of the Ötüken Sözlük (a 5-volume Turkish dictionary) mentions the word cıngılı means electronic in Anatolian Yörük city dialect (Sprachmund). Turkish Language Association's Derleme Sözlüğü lacks of many words in Anatolian city dialects. --2001:A98:C060:80:786C:C7B:F243:D368 08:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"çimerlik" is not Turkish too. It is Azeri. Also, I don't believe in every dictionaries because of your forgery, false pretenses, fraudulence, dishonesty. I believe in rightful/truthful dictionaries. All of you add to dictionaries and says "there are many citations and dictionaries". This is your cheating. I know your cheating. --123snake45 (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If some authors used this word in Turkish, then it is a Turkish word. You can only say it is borrowed from Azerbaijani. --2001:A98:C060:80:786C:C7B:F243:D368 08:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are three groups concerning language in Turkey: one are normal people, the other are the pro-Ottoman ones, the third the Kemalists. As you perhaps know, the Turkish language was significantly modified by the Turkish Language Association (TDK); they changed 80% of the words by introducing some local words, Turkish words of Old Turkish, or mostly created new words. The reason was the turn to the West by Kemal Atatürk, so 'do not use any words from the East or the South'. Other words were replaced with words from French, but later replaced by newly created ones. The result of this explains partly this discussion here. Concerning the words cited about, estelik is unknown to TDK, the official state organisation in Turkey for language issues. The same is true for çimerlik, but I think that this word comes from Azeri Turkish. The third cited word above, haydamak, exist in TDK. I had a lot of problems with entries in the Turkish Wiktionary with words like dilbilim (instead of dil bilimi, the now-accepted orthography). Another need for confusion is the mixed-up minds at TDK. I never forget my teacher for literature that until that year (1979), 17 orthograhy dictionaries had been published with 14 (!) different orthographies. I never checked it, but it shows the precarious way TDK is/was proceeding. My solution to this problem are stricter rules, like it is the case in the German Wiktionary, where you either need a refernce to an accepted dictionary, or at least five citations. By the way: Sesli Sözlük is often imprecise, and Google Translator is worse.--Sae1962 (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice this citation:

1934, Türk Dil Kurumu (Turkish Language Association), Tarama dergisi: Osmanlıcadan Türkçeden söz karşılıkları, 2. cilt

Estelik, Yadigâr.

The word 'yadigâr' is the Ottoman one, and the word 'estelik' is the Turkish one. Notice the date: 1934 If someone says this is a group's lie then this means Turkish Language Association is a liar in this situation. And 123snake45 doesn't check the citations or he tries to falsify them. He said these words were not in Turkish: haydamak çimerlik kol çekmek telefonlamak but there were citations for these words. --2001:A98:C060:80:786C:C7B:F243:D368 08:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

cıngılı

Küçücük.

Türkiye Türkçesi Ağızları Sözlüğü

So "cıngılı" is "very small" in TDK.

"telefonlamak" isn't valid. Turkish people don't use it.

Also "kol çekmek" isn't truth. All of they "telefonlamak, çimerlik, kol çekmek.." have to re-examine. --123snake45 (talk) 09:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Telefonlamak is generally being used in its reciprocal form telefonlaşmak (compare with: karşılamak-karşılaşmak, söylemek-söyleşmek). Some forms may be rare or may even be lost but it doesn't mean they don't exist in Turkish because of you don't know them. --88.251.251.254 09:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is "telefonlaşmak" but there is no "telefonlamak". Both isn't same. "telefon almak" is different, "telefonlaşmak" is different, "telefonlamak" is different too. So there is no "telefonlamak". --123snake45 (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can not compare "telefonlamak" with "telefon almak" which is totally irrelevant. If you look up any etymological dictionary you may see this explanation: telefonlaşmak < telefon-la-ş-mak. Because it is reciprocal form of the verb telefonlamak. --88.251.251.254 15:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to argue about Turkish with educated native speakers of Turkish, but there are many things that can happen to a word. Some words are old and not used much anymore, so a lot of people do not know them (such words are desirable for a dictionary); some words are slang; some words are regional; some words are borrowed from other languages; and many other possibilities. Words that fall into almost any of these categories are good to keep, with proper labels (such as obsolete, rare, regional, slang, colloquial, etc.). In the case of estelik, I see that it appears in the Seslisozluk online dictionary here and here. —Stephen ^(Talk) 13:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Atitarev, Stephen G. Brown, Anylai, Sae1962, Curious Sorry, I wasn't specific enough about what we need to know. This is rfv, so the task at hand is to verify if this word is 1) in use 2) conveying meaning 3) in Turkish' 4) as Turkish as documented 5) in durably-archived sources. Also, the cites only count if they are independent' of other cites

An obscure regional or obsolete term, as long as it's in some form of modern Turkish, is okay, but must be labeled as such, and should not be given as a translation.
If I have a quote that says "let's all call this estelik from now on", that's a mention, which doesn't count, because it's not in actual use.
Using it in an example sentence doesn't count, because it's not conveying meaning.
Any text that's not in modern Turkish according to Wiktionary's interpretation, i.e., Azeri, Ottoman Turkish, etc., doesn't count.
A quote that says estelik is the word for this in [some other language]" doesn't count.
Online dictionaries don't count, especially if they allow addition of words by the public.
Even an official publication that says "this is the correct word to use from now on" doesn't count, since it's a mention, not a use.
If a term is used with some other definition, it won't count for the current definition: a cite that refers to estelik as something 12 meters across that's found in an excavation will not keep the entry from being deleted, unless there's a definition in the entry that's consistent with that cite (and 2 others like it). If there is the sense that isn't supported by cites will be removed, but the other one will stay.

There's more to it then that, but that's all I have time for this morning. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me but I don't know enough Turkish to make a judgement. Like in Turkish, there is a fine line in Russian between Old Russian (Old East Slavic) or words borrowed from other languages (including Slavic), sometimes it's not a real borrowing but a quoted sentence may make readers believe that a term is actually used (this can be said of any language). We have to rely on honesty of contributors and their understanding of our rules. Disproving them may be difficult without a thorough knowledge of the language and citations.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 19:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

tamp

Rfv-sense: Verb: "A disrespectful obscenity." Well the definition is not for a verb, for starters. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reefugium

"A refugium when used in reef aquariums." Originally entered as a mere misspelling of refugium, and was corrected to this, which doesn't seem to be in actual use. Equinox ◑ 19:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

polysporean

Only in word lists? A plural is particularly hard to locate, so if the word exists then it might be an adjective only. Equinox ◑ 20:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the definition, Polysporea is an obsolete taxon in the Coccidia}. So a corpus of 19th-century biological texts is the only place I'd expect to find "polysporean" used. There is a word polyspore that's still in use, but likely with a different, not taxonomic meaning. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

“polysporean”, in The Century Dictionary […], New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., 1911, →OCLC. indicates a likely source of the entry. No joy in superficial Biodiversity Heritage Library search. Does @Chuck Entz: have any ideas about sources? DCDuring TALK 17:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

aillse

Tagged but not listed; creator no longer active at Wiktionary. Not in the main Irish-English dictionary ({{R:ga:Ó Dónaill}}) but maybe somewhere else. There's an ailse, but it means "cancer" (same as the Scottish Gaelic aillse), not "fairy" or "heedlessness". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno about "heedlessness", but Armstrong's 1825 (Scottish) Gaelic Dictionary has

Aillse, s.f. A fairy; a ghost; a diminutive creature; rarely a cancer; delay. Ir. aillse. In some parts of the Highlands this word is pronounced taillse.

Take that with as many grains of salt as you might need. Especially as aillsiu goes back to Wb, and no sign of a "fairy" sense --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 11:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, "heedlessness" is probably from O'Brien's 1768 Focalóir Gaoidhilge-Sax-bhéarla:

Aillis, a Canker, an Eating or spreading sore, hence braon aillse a drop observed to fall upon the tombs of certain Tyrants so Called from it's Cankerous corroding what it falls upon.

Aillse of or belonging to a Cancer vid. aillis

Aillse delay, neglect, heedlessness.

Again, I have no idea how he found the second sense. --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 11:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've refactored the entry a bit, it could probably stand someone else having a look. I've put the two mystery definitions in the same etymology block for lack of anything better to do with them. I mean, they're attested, but they come out of nowhere, seem to vanish afterwards, and have no immediately obvious etymologies. I have also added {{R:ga:O'Brien}} and {{R:gd:Armstrong}}. --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 01:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

çimerlik

This Turkish entry passed RFV last year and has three citations; however, 123snake45 believes that those citations were fabricated. I can see the source of the 2013 citation here; however, the 1990 and 1998 citations do not show up for me, so I can't independently confirm their existence. If they are indeed there, could someone upload the screenshots, so that this issue can be put to bed?
Pinging @Chuck Entz, Renard Migrant, Atitarev, Prosfilaes, -sche, Curious, Dan Polansky, who contributed to the first RFV discussion (IPs omitted). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested that citations may have been fabricated. In any case, they can't be reproduced, so might as well fail the term. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 20:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain I could see these quotations back then. In an unrelated search, it seemed to me I could no longer access Google Books pages that were previously accessible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to try would be which domain you're using for Google. Sometimes it behaves differently if you use Google.com and, say, Google.co.uk, especially if you're not accessing the version of Google for your country. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Google Books has been relisting a large quantity of books from page view or snippet view to no preview over the past few months. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link of the first citation was added by Dan Polansky: [34] --2001:A98:C060:80:7D09:D38C:E87:9412 11:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

across

Preposition sense 3:

(Southern US, African-American Vernacular) On the opposite side, relative to something that lies between, from (a point of interest).

I don't understand how this differs from the standard English usage covered by other senses, and the citations, which also seem to me like ordinary standard English, do not explain it. I am listing it here in case anyone else sees something that I do not. Mihia (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For me, "I parked across the entrance" would mean my car was blocking the entrance. If I had been the one speaking in the 1995 quote, I would have said "I parked across from the entrance". As for the 1994 quote, I'm not sure what it means, but for me "parked across the mall" would have to mean the car was parked inside the mall and was so long that it stretched from one end of the mall to the other. If the quote means "parked across from the mall", then we could say "across" in this dialect means "across from". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, I thought it did mean that the car was blocking the entrance. If it's supposed to mean "across from the entrance" then I agree it is not a standard English sense. I interpreted "parked across the mall" analogously to "parked across the street", i.e. as parked on the other side of the mall. I wonder if it might be possible to come up with usage examples that more clearly show how this sense is distinct from the others -- examples that can't be interpreted in multiple ways. If it does actually mean "across from" then that would also be useful to mention in the definition, I think. Mihia (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I guess you're right, "parked across the mall" can also mean parked on the other side of the mall. And maybe the 1995 quote does mean "blocking the entrance". In both cases I feel like we don't have enough information about the parking situation to judge whether this is a dialectal usage of across or the standard one. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few minutes ago I happened to encounter a use of across in a book I'm reading that might support this sense. It's by an Indian writer but takes place in Guyana and seems to use some Guyanese slang.

2011, Rahul Bhattacharya, The Sly Company of People who Care, page 17:
Across the port health officer I took a seat without being asked and pondered things with indecent laze.

—Granger (talk · contribs) 21:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I don't know whether I somehow misread or misunderstood the definition first time round, but of course it does actually read "On the opposite side [...] from (a point of interest).", so it seems Angr must be right. Ideally I would like to see an example like:

Across [= Across from] the port health officer, ...

That way it will be clear to readers. Mihia (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue is that it's difficult to know, in any one citation, whether the omission of "from" is intentional or a mistake. Recall how difficult it was to cite they as an intentional determiner, in light of how it occurs as an error for the (look at Kiwima's citations on Talk:they#RFV). If the same author or Usenet poster used "across" in this way repeatedly, that would be suggestive that the use was intentional. Or if the authors used "across" only once but didn't also use "across from", and if they could be confirmed to be speakers of Southern / AAVE, that would be suggestive. Whereas, if the same dialect-speakin' character that uses "across" goes on to use "across from", it suggests the bare "across" might be an error. It would help if a reference on these dialects mentioned this usage; that would support the idea that authors who used it were using it intentionally and with the meaning claimed, rather than making a "typo" of sorts or using a different (ordinary) meaning as discussed above. Does DARE include this; does the OED? - -sche (discuss) 03:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's now cited. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

point of interest is a poor choice of words for several of the definitions. Perhaps place or location. Perhaps “across”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. can suggest other wording. DCDuring (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can fix it yourself, because it's a wiki. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

go in

To enter; to join in; to begin participation in.

Perhaps I am being slow, but the only meaning of "go in" that I can visualise is the literal one of "enter", e.g. "I opened the door and went in". Can anyone provide usage examples of where it means "to join in" or "to begin participation in"? Mihia (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some examples to the entry. DTLHS (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't these examples of go in for? Mihia (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I don't know if it can be used without "for". DTLHS (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would prefer this use to be covered at "go in for", with a "see also" link from "go in". I'm not sure that "go in" has a usefully separable meaning in the idiomatic expression "go in for". Mihia (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

“go in”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. surprised me by showing that there are a few non-SoP definitions of go in. What we have is three definitions in one line, none of them substitutable in the citations we have. I think we need to add non-SoP definitions so that we cover the term as well as competing "unabridged" dictionaries. DCDuring TALK 03:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added the sense related to the sun for one. Mihia (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

c.o.w.

Difficult to search for, but there are zero hits on Google ngram viewer. (though some for C.O.W.) SemperBlotto (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This search yields a couple of mentions, but only for "COW" or "Cow", as far as I can see. Mihia (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

skirrett

Metal spike for drawing straight lines, or something. Can't find anything on this. (skirret with one t is a vegetable.) Equinox ◑ 06:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is presumably this, but the usual spelling seems to be "skirret". Mihia (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Wall

Rfv-sense: (politics) Any barrier designed to keep people from crossing a border, e.g. the one proposed to keep people from crossing from Mexico into the United States. Really? -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really. I am short on time this morning, but in a quick search I came up with the following: [35]

I am, generally speaking, opposed to including these kinds of comparative or "referential" senses unless strongly established in the language. I think it is probably incorrect to say that "Berlin Wall" actually means "Any barrier designed to ... etc.". When people say that some other barrier is "a Berlin Wall", what they are really saying is that it is like the actual Berlin Wall, in my opinion. The possibilities for these kinds of references are open-ended and somewhat limitless. In the floods, I could say, of the stream at the bottom of my garden, that I have "the River Thames" flowing through my garden. It doesn't mean that "River Thames" means "Any stream or river carrying a large volume of water". Mihia (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a difference between saying 'like the Berlin Wall' and 'like a Berlin Wall'. By using the indefinite article the author seems to indicate that Berlin Wall does not refer to a specific wall, but to a class of wall. Kiwima (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be correct, but I see this as a regular feature of the English language that allows us to liken one thing to another, not a new meaning of "Berlin Wall". For example, I could say that Hillary Clinton "isn't a Barack Obama". It doesn't mean, in my view, that "Barack Obama" has a dictionary sense of a certain type of person/president. Mihia (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely that the principle, "the English language that allows us to liken one thing to another" (justifying exclusion of such definitions), applies to English nouns. But “White House”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. shows that other dictionaries find some metonymic construals of proper nouns worth inclusion. The principle does not limit including definitions of common nouns at all. See head#Noun for the numerous definitions that spring from similes, metaphors and metonomy. DCDuring TALK 15:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree with the inclusion in the dictionary of the special metonymic meaning of "White House", but I believe that somewhere between "The White House says that President Obama will veto the bill" and the kind of examples offered above for "Berlin Wall", we pass from a genuine extended meaning to regular patterns of the English language that can apply in the same way to virtually any proper noun. Mihia (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second refers to the original Berlin Wall, the third is a mentioning or a comparision/simile ("as a "Berlin Wall""), the fouth is a mentioning and maybe an comparison/simile too ("The .. politican .. described this division as a 'Berlin Wall'"), the fifth is a comparison/simile ("like a Berlin Wall"). The first and the sixth could use some rhetorical figure ("the rope/thing that's a Berlin Wall", "lies behind a Berlin Wall of ..."). -80.133.114.141 23:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given these arguments, I think this belongs more appropriately under requests for deletion rather than requests for verification. Any use that is found can be argued to be a similie. Kiwima (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

cyanope

glaucope

I can only find mentions, not uses — and not even three mentions! Equinox ◑ 23:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try looking in Google Scholar Kiwima (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google cyanope (Books • Groups • Scholar) and Google glaucope (Books • Groups • Scholar) show a lot of English scholarly use, mostly in Google Scholar. DCDuring TALK 20:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it a lot: one or two uses all referring to the same original paper. DTLHS (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

baion

Adjective: "Of or pertaining to a baiao" (a dance like the samba). It might be a noun, though I can't find a plural, but I don't think adjective is right. Equinox ◑ 00:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any meaning that's citable. RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

appeasatory

Noun: something intended to appease. Nothing on the Web for "appeasatories" plural, and I can't find a noun via "an appeasatory" either. Equinox ◑ 01:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can find one supporting cite (two more to go) :

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

Kiwima (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is unambiguously a noun. Nothing else on Google Books for "appeasatory for", however... Equinox ◑ 09:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yếm

Rfv-sense ばかFumiko￥^talk 09:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://imgur.com/a/zorsP in Nguyen Dinh-Hoa's Vietnamese-English Dictionary. Wyang (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wyang It's "Vietnamese bra" which is clearly a rough translation because there's that word "Vietnamese". You can call yếm the Vietnamese equivalent of a Western bra in a way. ばかFumiko￥^talk 05:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(RFV failed? —suzukaze (t・c) 06:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

@Fumiko Take Not quite sure what you mean - the rfv was added to Etymology 2, not 1. Wyang (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wyang My concern was the rfv on the sense of "bra" which I've already removed. But the rfv under the Etymology 2 section should be dealt with too. ばかFumiko￥^talk 13:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with Etymology 2? Wyang (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fumiko Take —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wyang It seems obscure. I got nothing on it from [41]. Could you give citations? ばかFumiko￥^talk 04:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4ºs, 12ºs

They look English and not translingual too me. Maybe see also Wiktionary:Requests_for_cleanup/archive/2012/Unresolved_requests#Translingual_plurals.
Furthermore, the definition could be wrong. 12º is a certain size, how should that have a plural? IMHO it's more likely that the plural refers to pages or books of a certain size. -薫七 (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to English temprarily, but still needs verification. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

overloe

"A shaped block of wood used in conjunction with sandpaper for sanding moulded shapes." Apparently only in the one book mentioned; see discussion at [42]. Equinox ◑ 20:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

nonJapanese, nonjapanese

Many Google Book results (all I looked at) when searching for "nonJapanese" or "nonjapanese" actually contain "non-Japanese" with a hyphen and a capital J. -薫七 (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My entries from 2011. I think they are mistaken; I may not have been checking for scannos back then. Equinox ◑ 09:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ettler

One who ettles. I find only scannos for settler. Equinox ◑ 08:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OED cites John Galt's Ringan Gilhaize: "His father, through all the time of the first King Charles, an eydent ettler for preferment." They mark it Scottish, rare and note: "Sc. National Dict. records this word as still in use in Roxburghshire in 1944." Ƿidsiþ 08:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Real, but so extremely rare that I'd doubt we could attest it in Scots, let alone in English. RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

franconian

Is this attestable in lower case? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

plamasser

"A person who convinces another to do something by means of sweet talk and flattery." Possibly Irish dialect; see the BBC page linked from the entry, which appears to be a list of local words submitted by readers. Equinox ◑ 14:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definite keep, but it's not easy to find in writing. It's used to describe someone who uses plámás (flattery, guile, etc) and plámás is sometimes spelt plamas in English without the diacritical marks.
Plámás is a regular word in Irish and is not being disputed. Plamasser evolved from plámás and is reasonably widespread. It's long-term too, I first heard it about 40 years ago.--Dmol (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rare, but maybe I can just cite this. Two good cites:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

Template:quote-news

and one dodgy one (it's by Suzanne Rhatigan, but I don't think it's durably archived - although I think it might be from the liner notes of her greatest hits collection)

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

ウンウンエンニウム

I should've stopped where Fumiko stopped. No elements above 118 are attested. Nibiko (talk) 05:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it would appear that the other systematic names hardly have any citations at all. The four new non-systematic names already have citations in Google Books, Groups, News, and Scholar, and are only going to get more, so it's not a general problem with the language. Note that some are more dated than others. Each of these needs to be individually verified, however, I couldn't verify any of these in my searching, so I think that very few, if any, would pass. The list starts from element 104 and goes to element 122. Note how the English entries for some of these are marked as dated and lacking a translations table. To be clear, the non-systematic names (such as ラザホージウム (razahōjiumu, "rutherfordium")) are easily attested, whereas the systematic names (such as ウンニルクアジウム (unnirukuajiumu, "unnnilquadium")) are very rare. Nibiko (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sure the systematic names for elements 104-109 were in 理科年表. Elements 110-118 should be easily attested too. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I can't attest them, so for whatever reason, people aren't using the elements with Latin numbers in the name. I get 10 hits on Google Books and 40 hits on Google Scholar for "１０４番元素" and 6 hits on Google Books and 1 hit on Google Scholar for "１０４番目の元素". Nibiko (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ウンニルクアジウム

ウンニルペンチウム

ウンニルヘキシウム

ウンニルセプチウム

ウンニルオクチウム

ウンニルエンニウム

ウンウンニリウム

ウンウンウニウム

ウンウンビウム

ウンウントリウム

ウンウンクアジウム

ウンウンペンチウム

ウンウンセプチウム

ウンウンオクチウム

ウンウンエンニウム

ウンビニリウム

ウンビウニウム

ウンビビウム

Forms of the Latin synaeresis

RFV for some of the declined forms of synaeresis. I know for sure that the dative plural *synaeresibus is unattested, I'll be very surprised if the vocatives exist, and I have my doubts about the isomorphic genitive singular and the dative singular. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't normally do RFVs for specific inflected forms, do we? I thought we accepted terms if any form was attested, and in the lemma form if it's unambiguous. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't afaik -- not for Latin anyway. Don't really see why these should be RFV'd. (though I don't doubt that the vocative plural of synaeresis is unattested) — Kleio (t · c) 19:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it depends on the language. We only have entries for attested inflections in Gothic, though we do include unattested inflections in inflection tables. —CodeCa t 20:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Angr, KIeio, CodeCat: As I've argued before, inflected forms should always be subject to attestation requirements, though with a presumption in favour of inclusion unless challenged (that is, it's perfectly fine to bot-create entries for all such non-lemmata, but if they're challenged, they still need to be cited). See synaeresis#Declension for the way I've handled the unattested and probably-unattested forms of this lexeme (which is probably similar in effect to what CodeCat et al. envision for Gothic). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As User:-sche, User:Ruakh, I, and others have argued before, we should include inflected forms even when unattested (unless there is some reason to think they don't exist, such as the possibility of a verb being intransitive or a noun being uncountable). See Talk:dulcamini for a past discussion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mx. Granger: Thanks for the link to that discussion, and I'm sorry I neglected to contribute further to it at the time. From further reading, I note discussions from October 2011–June 2012, June 2012, November 2013, and the aforementioned one from September 2015–February 2016. The points raised make me a little less confident in my general position. In the specific case of synaeresis, however, I think its declension is sufficiently uncertain as to warrant RFVing particular forms (per Ruakh in this post); why might the dative singular not be *synaereseï or the dative plural not be *synaeresesin? And which vocative singular should we list, *synaeresi or *synaeresis? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 06:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Angr, CodeCat, KIeio, Mx. Granger: Compare the way amaurōsis, diaeresis, dioecēsis, haeresis, and syntaxis decline. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. If I understand correctly, then, the concern is that the challenged forms can't be confidently predicted from the attested forms. In that case, I think RFV is appropriate. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mx. Granger: Yes, that is my lingering concern. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 04:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But some of them can. If the ablative plural synaeresibus is attested, there's really nothing else the dative plural could be. Likewise if the nominative plural synaeresēs is attested, there's really nothing else the vocative plural could be, however unlikely it is that one would be addressing two or more synaereses. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Angr: Dative and ablative plurals nearly always match, but they very occasionally differ in Greek borrowings (presumably because Ancient Greek has the dative case, but not the ablative case), so the dative plural could be *synaeresesin or something. I accept your point with regard to the vocative plural, however. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@I'm so meta even this acronym: When dative and ablative plural differ, then it's most likely just a matter of attestation, and not a matter of any dative-ablative difference. Sometimes just a dative in -sin is attested, sometimes just an ablative, sometimes both. Examples (according to dictionaries, not according to grammar books which might include invented forms): Adryas has dative plural Adryasin, herois has dative heroisin, ethos has ablative ethesin, schema has dative and ablative schemasin. -Ko·mine (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ko·mine: Actually, I have seen dative–ablative differences in the plural, but only in New Latin texts; I am inclined to believe that Classical scriptores would adopt a Greek dative as a Latin dative and ablative (in both the singular and the plural), whereas some Modern authors would adopt a Greek dative as a Latin dative only — believing that since Greek has no ablative it can supply no ablative — and that this is hypercorrection. There are more of these Greek-type dative and ablative plurals beside Ādryasin, ēthesin, hērōisin, and schēmasin; examples include Dryasin (Dryas), Hamādryasin (Hamādryas), Metamorphōsesin (Metamorphōsēs), Thȳniasin (Thȳnias), and probably many others. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been my position that inflected forms should be subject to attestation, but I have not seen consensus on this. Unattested inflected forms could carry the label "hypothetical" or "unattested" and be kept if that would be the preference. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally favour a small disclaimer indicating that the form is predicted to exist, but has not yet been verified. Either way it seems obvious to me that the inflected forms should stay, even when not manually cited or otherwise verified yet. Many people use Wiktionary to quickly look up how a given form could be analyzed; for 99.9% of Latin words which follow very predictable inflections, it's an excellent resource in that regard, on par with something like Perseus. It'd be a great and needless loss to get rid of all those non-lemma entries by unleashing CFI on them all. — Kleio (t · c) 16:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

synaeresis

synaeresis (genitive)

RFV for the isomorphic genitive singular form of synaeresis. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

synaeresis (vocative)

RFV for the isomorphic vocative singular form of synaeresis. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

synaeresi

synaeresī (dative)

RFV for the dative singular form of synaeresis. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

synaeresi (vocative)

RFV for the Greek-type vocative singular form of synaeresis. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

synaereses

RFV for the vocative plural form of synaeresis. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

planetality

There are hits, but not enough searching for both singular and plural in Google Books and Google Groups combined to pass any one sense- though the first one is close. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two cites for the first sense -- all we need is one more Kiwima (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-resolved - first sense passes, second sense fails. Kiwima (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

尼共和国

Unattested. Nibiko (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

尼国人

Unattested. Nibiko (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attested in a government document: [43]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Needs 2 more citations. Nibiko (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

尼国

Is this attested? A quick search on Wikipedia reveals that the Google Books results may be referring to other things as well. Nibiko (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attested in a government document: [44]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One from Google Scholar (海外技術協力事情尼国航空事故調査官能力向上プロジェクト長期専門家派遣報告), one from Google Books (英領と尼国国境). Nibiko (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

尼共和国 and 尼国人 RFV failed; 尼国 RFV passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

enography

Writing about wine. Though oenography (uncountable) exists, I can't find this spelling in either single or plural in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 18:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

narcopathic

"A narcotic addiction driven anti social sociopathic form of behaviour"; however, it's entered as an adjective, not a noun. Very little in Google Books: what I can find on the wider Web suggests it is about narcissism and sociopathy, not narcotics and sociopathy. Equinox ◑ 18:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found and added two citations that clearly indicate narcotic addiction. We still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found one more. RFV passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

claretcoloured

Without hyphen? There are tons of scannos out there unfortunately. Equinox ◑ 14:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the kind of thing that makes you wonder about WT:COALMINE and whether we should have most of the hyphenated terms that we do. DCDuring TALK 15:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative form of claretcolored? It gets worse. Move to claret-coloured. DonnanZ (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"-coloured" can be added to the name of any object that has a characteristic colour. I don't think we need separate entries for all of them, only for those (if any) that have special or unpredictable meanings. An entry for -coloured should normally suffice. Mihia (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Entries for -coloured and -colored won't do, as they're not suffixes, and are only hyphenated when used in combination. DonnanZ (talk) 09:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as SoP (claret + coloured). — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed: no citations provided. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

clarion

Adjective: "loud and clear". The example given is clarion call, which really seems like a set phrase of its own (and two nouns rather than Adj+N). You can't say "that call was clarion", or ask how clarion it sounded, etc. Equinox ◑ 14:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OED treats this (and a few other examples) as attributive use of the noun, not as an adjective. Dbfirs 17:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. We just need to remove he adjective section and add a brief explanatory note. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's attributive. DonnanZ (talk) 10:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adjective sense RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

asantaclausist

One Books hit, which I think might be a use. Lots of Google Groups hits, but these all look like mentions to me - variations on "Why do we say 'atheist' when we don't say 'asantaclausist'?". Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added one cite that is a use, but someone else will have to find others. Kiwima (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wardrobe malfunctioner

Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two cites, but one is rather iffy. Kiwima (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks RFV passed to me. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

crysosporium

This may just be a misspelling of chrysosporium, used for three fungus species listed in MycoBank. See also Chrysosporium, a genus of fungi. Sometimes apparent misspellings are intentional respellings, though that occurs mostly in genus names, AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 20:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. cryo- is cold and chryso- is gold but I don't think I've seen cryso- before. Equinox ◑ 20:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that there are ~30 Google Books hits and many more Scholar hits for this spelling, though I can't find it in MycoBank, Encyc of Life, List of Prokaryotic Names with Standing in Nomenclature, Index of Organism Names, Wikispecies, or Wikipedia. DCDuring TALK 21:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed as a rare misspelling. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

spin

Adjective sense:

(cricket) Describing a spin bowler, or his style of bowling.

Can anyone give an example where it is a true adjective?

洎

Rfv-sense for "till" sense. Listed in the Unihan database but I couldn't find it in other online dictionaries. Possibly a misspelling of "until" (which is a valid sense)? Bumm13 (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the language but since "till" and "until" are synonyms (no misspelling!) we should probably just merge those two lines. Equinox ◑ 08:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sometimes the Unihan database gives too many definition lines. Nibiko (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

≖

Created by an anon today. I searched that codepoint using Google and Google Books, and I looked on Wikipedia, but I don't know what it means. Current definition: "Ring in equal to." It should be replaced by a definition about actual usage if applicable, like maybe "Indicates equality in the context X". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of the symbol (one meaning, anyway) is explained on page 5 of http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~razborov/files/free_group.pdf. It is highly technical, and I don't personally understand it. I could copy-paste together a definition like "In combinatorial group theory, denotes graphical (or letter-for-letter) equality", but really we need a mathematician. Mihia (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The other issue is if this definition is widely accepted among group theorists or whether it was just made up for this paper. DTLHS (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WT:CFI#Independent, I'm pretty sure we would be satisfied if three separate, independent papers use this symbol. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This book seems to use the same symbol with the same meaning. From a bit of searching, some other books use other symbols, such as ≡ or ≐. Pinging User:Msh210 and User:Kephir, who I think know more math than I do. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found another instance in this paper. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be used for other things, like in this (relation of delimitation) and this (Boolean equality). On another note, it is often used in kaomoji to represent narrow eyes. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered asking Wikipedia:en:WT:MATHEMATICS ? -- 65.94.168.229 05:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. See w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Please explain the "ring in equal to" symbol. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, that discussion has been archived to w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2016/Dec#Please explain the "ring in equal to" symbol. I have added a definition based on it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

beatsauce

1. Boring thing. 2. Unattractive person. Nothing much in Books; only a DJ's name in Groups. Equinox ◑ 02:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

barythymia

Added one mention that's probably just a transliteration of the Greek term. There's also a poem called "Barythymia: A Poem, Addressed to the Sons and Daughters of Adversity" from 1810 that may be the origin of the word, but I couldn't see the actual poem. DTLHS (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added one from 2012. That gives us three if we count the poem title, which seems to me more of a use than a mention (since it does bear meaning). Equinox ◑ 02:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, we have counted titles as uses. None of the three are great, but I would still consider this cited. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First half of the poem at HathiTrust. I'm not sure it's really a use; it's a name for the poem derived from Greek, not an English language word used in the title of a poem. The footnote, correctly or not, thinks it's basically Greek, not English. It's not used in the body (I don't think; I didn't look for the second half, though it should be in the next issue.) If a third cite is not found and it is agreed the poem title doesn't count, it desperately needs to go to dictionary-only words.

I've added a usage note about how rare and pointless it is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the word attested in actual Ancient Greek, or was it formed in English? DTLHS (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are attestations for βαρύς θυμός, but Google Books doesn't find any for βαρύσθυμός. Of course, I know no Greek, so there are any number of mistakes I could be making. this dictionary seems to have the Greek word, third column.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

chuff

Verb sense:

Purposefully to fail a standardized test in a conspicuous way.

Can't find any relevant Google hits (e.g. for "chuffed the test").

"purposefully" appears to be a hypercorrection of "purposely".

Originally added here as "To fail a standarized test on purpose, specifically in the conspicuous way that scores it: A.B.A.C.A.D.A". I'm not sure I even understand that. Does it mean to make write out the answers to multiple choice questions without regard to the actual questions but just so as to make a pattern with the letters? Could this be something "made up in school one day"? Mihia (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since no evidence has been found that this sense exists, I have deleted it. Mihia (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

rengo-geiko

One quotation added. DTLHS (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'm not sure the JA etymon qualifies as a singular term -- 連合 (rengō, “combination; league”) + 稽古 (keiko, “practice; training; rehearsal; lesson”). I can't find any JA materials that treat this as a lemma. I'm also finding online cases where the term is read as either rengō keiko or as rengō-geiko, suggesting that both are possible. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

jacobean

Alt form of Jacobean. Just looks wrong without a capital to me. Equinox ◑ 05:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

火の鳥

Is this just merely based on the English name of Tezuka Osamu's Hi no Tori? ばかFumiko￥^talk 14:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most JA reference entries for this at least mention the translated title of Stravinsky's ballet L'Oiseau de feu, also known in English as The Firebird, as one of the earlier appearances of this phrase. It is also the title of various other books, manga, films, and anime. See the entries at Kotobank for examples.

There is some minor reference to this as a gloss for English phoenix, as in the second entry at Weblio. That said, there's not much about 火の鳥 that goes beyond SOP-ness: it is literally 火 (hi, “fire”) + の (no, possessive or genitive particle, also used to make one noun modify another) + 鳥 (tori, “bird”).

I have no objection to removing the entry, if other editors also view it as SOP. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely to be popularized by Tezuka Osamu but it is common enough today. I don’t think it is an SOP because it is not just a bird of fire but usually an immortal phenix. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

nɤ35

This is Sichuanese romanisation, as used in dictionaries, what should be done? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This particular entry is not Sichuanese; it's Wuhanese. I don't think this one is the most extreme of cases; since the cited article used 勒 for this, so there is hanzi used. It is possible that the locals actually write it with some hanzi, albeit not documented in the literature. If it were the most extreme of cases, I think we could allow romanization entries for varieties of Chinese covered by {{zh-pron}}, and IPA entries for varieties not covered by the template. BTW, we probably need some policy on including topolects not covered by the pronunciation modules. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

curry code

This entry started off as a big essay/rant. Now it looks reasonable, and currying is indeed a thing in programming, but I'm not sure about "curry code" as a term. Google Books finds virtually nothing, and possibly nothing at all with this sense. Equinox ◑ 04:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All I can find are references to code written in Curry, but that is capitalized anyway. Kiwima (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the core of the now deleted essay/rant here was probably actually correct. See https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22curry+code%22+indian+programmers. Mihia (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

naked apron

Apron worn while naked. Seems to be a term invented by TVTropes. Equinox ◑ 21:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The citations now added are "naked apron bit" and "naked apron scene": I believe that, here, "naked" modifies "scene" (as in nude scene): it's not a (naked-apron) scene but a naked (apron-scene). So I don't think the cites are valid. Equinox ◑ 07:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some quotes have "naked apron" between quotation marks. I believe this suggests that it's a set phrase.

I got 4 citations (+1 citation for "naked-apron" with an hyphen).

I believe the entry is cited. But if I'm wrong, then maybe this RFV will fail, because I went through all the results for "naked apron" in Google Books and Google Groups and got all the citations I found.

Then again, if we find some uses of "naked towel" meaning "wearing only a towel", "naked bra" meaning "wearing only a bra", etc., then we may want to delete naked apron and add a new definition at naked meaning "wearing only a certain piece of clothing". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn’t it a calque of the Japanese 裸(はだか)エプロン (hadakaepuron), which is quite common? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

arse

"To make, to bother", as in can't be arsed. But you can't arse someone, or be arsing someone to get something done, can you? Equinox ◑ 00:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. AFAIK exists only as "be arsed", as covered at arsed. (I don't understand how it means "make" either, but obviously this is of no matter if it's deleted.) I'm not sure about the first sense either, "To be silly, act stupid or mess around". Doesn't this exist only as "arse about/around", both of which have separate entries? Mihia (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

slavenly

Befitting a slave. Equinox ◑ 07:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some sort of rare confusion between slave and slovenly, it seems. RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

talent stack

Possible protologism. Google Books results are different, along the lines of "how does your talent stack up against the competition?". Equinox ◑ 10:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia article, which is tagged for possible deletion, "Dilbert creator Scott Adams helped popularize the term 'talent stack' in a blog post in which he evaluated the experience and abilities of Donald Trump after winning the 45th US Presidential Election." Mihia (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant Wikipedia article lists seven different references to the term, all from different authors. Also worth noting that some users in the deletion discussion of the article have proposed to "move to wiktionary". Laurdecl ^talk 05:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs don't count for us; see WT:CFI. And "move to Wiktionary" just means "it defines a word rather than a topic": whether that word is worth inclusion by our rules is not what they know about. I've added our hot word template to the entry. Equinox ◑ 23:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning "move to Wiktionary" comments won't win you any points here: we've seen so many misbegotten monstrosities sent here to die slow and ugly deaths in rfd or rfv, like something from a genetic experiment gone horribly, horribly wrong- apparently to spare Wikipedia having to face the unpleasant choices. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another metaphor that might or might not become part of the lexicon, at least in some subculture. DCDuring TALK 13:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... isn't this just talent + stack? Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Words added by Werelopunitre: fapfest, fappability, faptastic, fapstinence, fapstronaut

DTLHS (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three quotations each for faptastic and fapstronaut. I also see two [45] [46] for fappability, but I can't find a third. There are quite a few uses of fapfest on Google Groups, but I'm not sure how many are for the sense in the entry. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

faptastic and fapstronaut are RFV passed; fappability, fapstinence, and fapfest are RFV failed, though the latter is still a blue link because I have added a new definition based on the actual uses. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

mercy me

Sense:

(deprecated use of |lang= parameter) Synonym of pardon me

Never heard it used like this. Mihia (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nuked

"drunk, smashed". Searches for "nuked on whisky", "nuked on vodka" etc don't find anything relevant. Equinox ◑ 03:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Dictionary has a single low-ranked definition for this (also, three low-ranked defs for "stoned"). I tried some google phrases unsuccessfully as well (e.g. "getting nuked on" ~bar); possibly this is too minor and/or local usage to be citable. --Tropylium (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

橫順

Request added by Prisencolin. It should be fully cited now. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you posted this if you had already cited it, but anyway, RFV passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

嫑

Rfv-sense: (Min Nan) a contraction of bô iàu (無要). It seems to be from the article on Hokkien on Wikipedia, tracing back to this edit on Wikipedia. I can't find it outside of Wikipedia. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

アンブロージア

アムブロシア (amuburoshia) seems to be used much more often in reference to the mythical Greek foodstuff. —suzukaze (t・c) 11:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@sukukaze-c: Google Books has a lot of hits. I assume at least three of them fit the meaning, so that this can be marked as an alt-form. Can you confirm that? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I change search settings from "Sorted by relevance" to "Sorted by date", "157 results" changes to "8 results".
1. Transcription of a restaurant's name
2. Used as someone's name(?) in a translation of an English work of fiction (w:Maria_V._Snyder#Study_series)
3. Used as someone's name in a work of fiction
4. Used in the place name(?) "Ambrosia Estate" in a translation of an English work of fiction
5. Used as a simile for champagne?
6. Same as #3
7. Used as a simile for an omelette; its usage is glossed as "foodstuff of the gods that grants immortality" and it's a translation of a 1942 English book
8. Transcription of a restaurant's name
—suzukaze (t・c) 20:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MMD

English + Japanese. —suzukaze (t・c) 11:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is filled with MMDs [47] (switch your preferred language from English to Japanese to see both sets) -- 65.94.168.229 05:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, but specifically "computer-generated cartoon" (akin to powerpoint and photoshop)? You don't even see people talking about blenders and mayas. —suzukaze (t・c) 23:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SFM

Also this one. —suzukaze (t・c) 23:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

湓

Rfv-sense. Copied from Sichuanese dialects on Wikipedia by @Prisencolin. I can't find it with the pronunciation men4 in any Sichuanese dictionaries. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 17:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found it in 渠县方言词语研究, but it doesn't have a pronunciation. I don't think Wikipedia has any basis for this reading other than personal knowledge. I found 澎(𡌂) pen2 in 四川方言词典, which has the same meaning and seems to fit this character well with its pronunciation. @Prisencolin, should we replace men4 with pen2? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 17:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Maybe it could've been a typo too.-Prisencolin (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

goingover

Alt form of going over (noun); I think it's just a scanno. Equinox ◑ 10:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that in most cases, it's a scanno, but I did find the following:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

also, another example, although it's a mention rather than a use, but we are trying to justify a spelling, not the fact that the term is a real term:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

Kiwima (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does one distinguish between a rare but legitimate spelling variant and a typo or spelling error? I can easily find examples of, say, "alot" in books, yet we would all (I very much hope) agree that "alot" is an error. How do we know that "goingover" isn't an error too? Mihia (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For English I use Garner's Modern American Usage, 3rd ed., 2009. They report stages 1-5 of usage: 1 - rejected; 2 - widely shunned; 3 - widespread but ...; 4 - ubiquitous but ...; 5 - fully accepted. Using the word stage implies that they expect a significant portion of the less accepted or rejected usages will become more accepted.

They put alot at stage 2 and don't discuss goingover.

As we are in the business of describing language behavior rather than making style recommendations, we need to accept usage for Wiktionary that we might not use ourselves.

One indication that going over may be increasing in acceptability is that there are some instances of the plural being goingovers, not the more common goingsover or much more common goings-over. DCDuring TALK 16:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One can also find going-overs and going overs. This suggests that there is a great deal of uncertainty about the spelling, which seems to have put the expression in play, for change in acceptability among the forms. DCDuring TALK 16:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this why we use labels such as "rare", "proscribed", and "informal" ? Kiwima (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Going off at a slight tangent ... I see that alot is labelled "proscribed". I am not massively keen on "proscribed". It is a word that many readers -- certainly the type who might be at risk of writing "alot" -- would not understand. Fair enough, there is a link, but people might just gloss over "proscribed", thinking "some technical thing that I don't need to worry about". I would prefer a label whose meaning people could not miss, such as "widely considered incorrect". Mihia (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. It is too similar to prescribed which has essentially the opposite meaning. John Cross (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed. I have added a usage note to indicate that "going over" is the more accepted form. Kiwima (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

啪啦

Rfv-sense: pile (Sichuanese). Taken from Wikipedia by @Prisencolin. After looking at three Sichuanese dictionaries, this spelling is not found. It is only found as 𤆵拉 and 𣲩拉. Also, in all three dictionaries, it does not appear on its own, but only as 一𤆵拉. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

sample

Rfv-sense: "to make or show something similar to; to match". I don't understand what this definition has to do with sampling, nor do I find similar definitions in other major dictionaries. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, but after poking around, I found something that may be what this definition is trying to capture - or possibly two things, one from music and one from image processing:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

Kiwima (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of your examples #1 fits the music sense: "to reuse a portion of (an existing sound recording) in a new piece of music.". The second and fourth examples could be understood as cases of the first definition: "to take or to test a sample or samples of". In the example sentences one takes a sample of a color and then applies this sample somewhere else. In the third one the usage of the verb "to sample" seems to include both phases, i.e. taking the sample and applying the sampled color in another image. I still find the logic behind the wording of the definition quite fuzzy. Also, is the sense specific to image processing? If so, proper labeling would help. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rechtler

Request for verification for German Rechtler - and also see e.g. Strafrechtler.

Words like Forstrechtler, Holzrechtler, Frauenrechtler, Staatsrechtler, Verwaltungsrechtler do exist, but these could be analysed as ([word] + [maybe some interfix known as Fugenelement] + Recht) + -ler, e.g. Staatsrechtler = (Staat + -s- + Recht) + -ler.
Rechtler as a proper noun can be found. It can also be found as a common noun, but this seems to be a short form of Holzrechtler or similar words, which refer to a person having a certain right. Both do not mean jurist, and thus, even if Rechtler exists, it could be that Staatsrechtler has to be analysed only as (Staat + -s- + Recht) + -ler and not as Staat + -s- + (Recht + -ler).
Even if Rechtler as jurist could be attested, it's most likely rare, uncommon, and thus it would rather be Staatsrechtler = (Staat + -s- + Recht) + -ler than Staatsrechtler = Staat + -s- + (Recht + -ler). -80.133.97.211 17:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to German wiktionary de:Rechtler and wikipedia w:de:Holzrechtler, this word has a specific sense, namely someone who has a customary right to provide themself with firewood from municipality-owned forests. It occurs equally often as "Rechtler" and "Holzrechtler". I'm adapting the entry and remove the request, because it's definitely citable. Kolmiel (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV resolved. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

イングランド銀行

English Bank of England has extended senses. It's not guaranteed that Japanese shares these senses. —suzukaze (t・c) 02:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can only confirm the literal sense, not the "building" nor "controlling organization" senses. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

天人

Rfv-sense "Christianity: angel". —suzukaze (t・c) 02:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

トトナム

Rfv-sense "football club". Using トトナム for the place alone already has a rather weak existence in Google. —suzukaze (t・c) 02:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

グレイ

Rfv-sense ばかFumiko￥^talk 08:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don’t you search it yourself? GIYF: [48]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TAKASUGI Shinji: I assume you mean that Fumiko Take tagged this spuriously, but can you can confirm that there are enough citations for the disputed senses? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three citations: [49], [50]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

buv-

Is this attested in Latin script? —CodeCa t 14:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

buo

As above. —CodeCa t 14:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

biitam

As above. —CodeCa t 14:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-cue

As above. —CodeCa t 14:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

gelus

RFV for the inflected forms (except accusative singular gelum). -80.133.96.43 04:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

genus

RFV for the inflected forms with stem genor- (genoris, genorī etc.). -80.133.96.43 04:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When searching at Google Books for genoris one often finds OCR errors for generis and sometimes for Agenoris. Exceptions:

books.google.com/books?id=glNJAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA103&dq=genoris (German text relating to Medieval Latin which also mentions Vulgar Latin and Romance languages): "die Gen. sg.-Form genoris zu genu [= knee]"
books.google.com/books?id=-cMAurDgc0MC&pg=PA45 : "In einem inschriftlichen Gedicht der Antike erscheint die Gen.-Form genoris zu genu⁵⁶⁶ [...]" and "⁵⁶⁶ CE 1253 (= CIL VI 9604), 5 (vgl. ThLL 6, 2, Sp. 1875, 32). That is: "In an inscriptive poem of the Antiquity the genitive form genoris for genu appears".
books.google.com/books?id=QofQAAAAMAAJ&q=genoris (English and Latin, might have a medical context): "In volnus genoris quot subito occidimus: genoris esse τοῦ γόνατος [Greek for of the knee or the knee's] (the knee) viderat Mommsen"
books.google.com/books?id=rRwjAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA99 (about Vulgar Latin inscriptions): "ín volnus genoris quot || subito occidimus." í should indicate an ancient I longa, and the text resembles the one above.

Thus, genoris should be attestable as a Vulgar Latin genitive for genu meaning of the knee or the knee's. But this is different from genus meaning kind, sort. -84.161.5.159 16:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

⿰釒都

Taiwan seems to use 𨧀 now. Is this obsolete? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This site which created in 2002 used ⿰釒都 for dubnium. On the other hand, this pdf file which was used in Taiwan, 2003 used 𨧀 for dubnium. So I think ⿰釒都 was obsoleted during 2002. --飯江誰出茂 (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The latter was also published in 2002. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it was used for about five years (1997–2002), and isn't in Unicode? I don't reckon we'll be able to cite that. RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

馬達

Rfv-sense: both senses in etymology 2. It is still a bit dubious with the references given. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

frapen

Type of ash tree. It seems that this isn't really a general-purpose common noun, as entered, but a rather obscure abbreviation used within something called the "Fire Effects Information System". Equinox ◑ 15:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

speak of

"To be worthy or important enough to mention." I just don't get this; how would it work in a sentence? Equinox ◑ 01:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's probably referring to this sort of usage. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, like "there were some actors there, but no celebrities to speak of". My feeling is that we should extend to speak of for this, as the to-particle is always present. Equinox ◑ 01:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that makes the most sense. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once modified as proposed, I would argue that "widespread use" applies. We just need some usage examples and usage notes showing and explaining that it is always used with a negative (not much t.s.o., nothing t.s.o.) or something like little, small, few. (What is the word for those?) BTW, other dictionaries, including MWOnline, have both “speak of”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. and “to speak of”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring TALK 13:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is used (I would guess much less frequently) with a positive e.g. "Even so, that is something to speak of, sheepherder." - Robert Jordan. It feels a bit more SOP when there is a positive, for no good reason I can come up with. In the example sentence it could easily read "Even so, that is something worth mentioning, sheepherder." - TheDaveRoss 16:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also "like to speak of" when introducing a topic; definitely SOP but includes the same sense of worthy of discussion. - Amgine/^t·e 16:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does feel somewhat more SOP in the positive, but I would still argue that it's idiomatic. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

abolement

Looks unlikely from where I'm standing. French probably has a meaning tho. --Quadcont (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be from this dictionary. DTLHS (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any uses, but found it in another dictionary as well - that one defined it as a disorder where the patient barks like a dog. Kiwima (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most b.g.c hits appear to be scannos for aboiement, the French word for "barking". This, that and the other (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

inaniloquous

Could only find one actual use, the rest on Google Books seem like mentions. Looks like a dictionaryism to me. — Kleio (t · c) 18:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, I suppose? — Kleio (t · c) 13:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ~~and I wasn't even able to find the one you found~~. (OK, found it.) I'll move it to "Appendix:English dictionary-only terms". — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CLSC

English sense - somehow defined as itself. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, it's defined as the initialism of the French form, which is not defining it as itself (the English form); click on the bluelink and it will lead to French, not English. -- 65.94.168.229 06:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the blue link is part of the French definition, not the English one. Kiwima (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The blue links in the English definition state it is an initialism of the French, and originates from the French. The French definition states that the English term for CLSC is CLSC. I don't see the problem there. -- 65.94.168.229 06:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"initialism of" has to be followed by a string of words, not a string of letters (see our definition of initialism). SemperBlotto (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

qinpu

Is this actually used (outside of Wikipedia)? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be used. All the cites I found were in italics however. DTLHS (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i電話

Weird partial calque of iPhone? I don't see anything relevant in Google Books. —suzukaze (t・c) 23:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

va fa Napoli

This was posted in RFD, but belongs here instead. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it is used in some way in English. Not an Italian idiom. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] _{(parla con me)} 15:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

all-over oneself

"Feeling self-satisfied." I suspect the hyphen is wrong, but I can't easily find the phrase in either case. Equinox ◑ 06:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can find this in a few dictionaries, and also in the following:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

I'm not sure the blogs count as durably archived, so it may not be enough. Kiwima (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, found a third book quote:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

Kiwima (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like Equinox says, I doubt there should be a hyphen. DonnanZ (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hyphen looks wrong to me too. Mihia (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I suspect the hyphen is there because it appears that way in at least one dictionary. Kiwima (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two of those ("Best Original Score" and "Kingdom Come") and don't seem to match the definition given - rather, they seem to be using as a synonym for (or malapropism of?) fall over oneself. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-resolved : moved to remove the hyphen, sufficient cites now exist for non-hyphenated form. Kiwima (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ice perry

Equinox ◑ 06:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found a mention on a blog, but nothing durably archived. Kiwima (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's found on labels on the wine bottles themselves, so is durably archived. (just look for piles of empties in the trash pits of the world) -- 65.94.168.229 07:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Midden heaps of the world preserve fragile materials in a stratigraphic manner for millennia, so better than any other archive; modern archaeology of recent landfills find decades old well preserved newsprint -- 65.94.168.229 07:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying it is durably archived, but this product (dang, just slid into typing md rather than mediawikitax) would support both ice perry and poiré de glace. - Amgine/^t·e 03:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

洽

Rfv-sense for "a river in Shenxi [province]" definition. There is no "Shenxi" province in mainland China; regardless, I can't find a sense for this character referring to a river name. Bumm13 (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should be Shaanxi. I've added a quotation for it, but I think this is probably the only one out there. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wizitch

Humph, is anyone able to provide attestation for this term? A couple of sporadic hits on Google, but I'm still not convinced. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found one on Google Groups:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

Also, the review on Amazon.com indicates that the term is used in Brian, His Granddad & the Cup of Ages by P. J. Taylor (2012) -- Kiwima (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

フラワー, スターズ

Are these used outside of transcription of English? —suzukaze (t・c) 23:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

フラワー is okay. There are tons of examples: [51], [52], [53]. スターズ is just a transcription. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is フラワー "compounds only" like ファイヤー? —suzukaze (t・c) 09:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

gnasp

To snatch at with the teeth. Google Books appears to have only scannos for gnash and grasp. Equinox ◑ 06:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Search on "gnasp" and "Palsgrave". It's an old dialectal slang word. Apparently it also means "vex" Leasnam (talk) 06:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, an earlier form is spelt gnaspe Leasnam (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I knew the word before, so I'm surprised to find that it's so rare. I'm just not sure where I would have read it... Reminds me of immeasurate, which wasn't in any online dictionaries until I added it to Wiktionary, though I was positive it existed and had used it before. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it'd

"It had" and "it would", yes, but "it should"?? Equinox ◑ 04:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, if it's a UK use of should for NA would, but isn't that normally restricted to first person ? Leasnam (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only instance where should = would that is not first person that I can think of off the top of my head is the passage in Numbers 23:19 where it say "God is not a man, that he should lie" where should there clearly means would, but this is archaic usage at least Leasnam (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot think of any context in BrE in which "it'd" could mean "it should". I question even whether "I'd" can reasonably mean "I should". "I should" in the sense of "I would" (e.g. "I should like to ...") feels formal or dated, and I'm not sure whether anyone would understand "I'd" as meaning that. Mihia (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

鴯鶓

Does not appear to be use in credible Japanese(-language) sources [54]. ばかFumiko￥^talk 09:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be rare and dated. It appears in the table of contents of at least two books (1934 and 1953): google:鴯鶓 site:ndl.go.jp (click on 詳細レコード表示にする to show) —suzukaze (t・c)

陌

Rfv-sense for "mound" definition. That sense was added by an anon IP and I can't find it in any of my regular online Chinese dictionary sources. Bumm13 (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

嘰

Rfv-sense for "take small" definition. This doesn't appear to be a proper English phrase and only shows up in the Unihan database. Bumm13 (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on other definitions from a quick online search it might be a truncation of "take small bites". —suzukaze (t・c) 05:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/mysljati

Apparently descendants are not real. I don't see reason why this entry should exist. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably to explain prefixed forms in daughter languages, no idea how to handle it properly though. Crom daba (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Author could create entry with prefix (for example *orzmysljati, *otъmysljati). —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as i understand, *mysliti is imperfective, so what is *mysljati? —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Useigor, CodeCat, Benwing2: What ought we to do with this? Edit: Sorry if that ping directed you to the wrong section; there was an edit conflict. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If *mysljati has no direct descendants, then we have to ask where the derived verbs that have it as a base came from. Could these derived verbs themselves be of Proto-Slavic origin? If so, then there should be a Proto-Slavic page for those, and the existence of *mysljati is only guaranteed for Pre-Slavic, not Proto-Slavic. If they can't be posited for PS, then is it possible/feasible that the languages created these -mysljati verbs independently? If so, then there's no merit for a PS page, but if not, then reconstructing *mysljati for Proto-Slavic seems warranted. —CodeCa t 20:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the above are the case. -jati, producing Russian -я́ть (-játʹ), is a common imperfectivizing prefix that is added to prefixed perfective verbs to form imperfectives. Hence *orzmysljati was formed directly from orzmysl(iti) + -jati, and similarly with *otъmysljati. This means there was never a *mysljati, and the entry should be deleted. Benwing2 (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

亞曆山大

Is this spelling ever used instead of 亞歷山大? Or is it a result of simplified-traditional conversion error? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, there are some cites on Google Books. Wyang (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wyang: Sufficient to pass RFV? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is likely sufficient to pass. @Justinrleung Looking at Google Books, a lot of the cites are from three publishers (which is not ideal), but there seem to be some (for example [55]) valid ones. Wyang (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The one you picked (東正教修道主義) only uses it in 亞曆山大利亞. I can't find any other good cite from Google Books at the moment, but there might be some from Google News. I'll look through them later. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

толстый троллинг

Is this idiomatic? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be; see e.g. [56]. However, as defined on that page it refers not to lazy trolling but to direct, in-your-face trolling, the sort that is nothing but insults and gross violations of a site's rules, whereas the opposite "тонкий троллинг" seems to refer to more subtle trolling. Benwing2 (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

病癥

As it now stands, 病癥 is clearly a wrong traditional form of 病症. Is there a separate word from 病症? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It probably is. It is now cited, but lacks a definition. @Wyang, Tooironic, any ideas? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a variant traditional form of 病症, isn't it? ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tooironic: I don't think so. 癥 is only read as zhēng, never as zhèng. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, 古代汉语词典 and CEDICT are wrong. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it:

徵/征

zheng1, zing1

"(strictly) disease signs; (loosely) signs and symptoms"

among other non-medical meanings and the music zhi3, zi2 pronunciation

症/症

zheng4, zing3

"symptoms of disease; disease"

癥/症:

zheng1, zing1

"abdominal tumour; (fig.) sticking point"

(alt. form of 徵/征 - "signs and symptoms of disease")

(alt. form of 症/症 - "disease")

Wyang (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wyang: I agree, with one exception. If 癥/症 is read as zhēng, would it really be an alt. form of 症/症? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alt. term would be more appropriate (for example, at 病癥). Wyang (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tozy-mozy

Entered to mean drunk. Can three independent attesting quotations be found to show this meets WT:ATTEST? If not, this could be a dictionary-only word. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two more cites. Kiwima (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

punctus (genitive punctus, sense point)

From dictionaries:

L&S: "punctus, ūs [...] II. A point: mundi, Plin. 2, 68, 68, § 174; cf. Isid. Orig. 11, 1."
Georges: "Spät. Nbf. pūnctus, ī, m., Gromat. vet. 360, 29 u. 374, 11 13. Boëth. inst. arithm. 2, 30. Isid. orig. 1, 19, 3; 3, 12. no. 1 u. 6."
Gaffiot: "punctus, i, m. c. punctum: Isid. 1, 19, 3"

Pliny the Elder's Natural History (e.g. here) contains "mundi puncto", Isidore's of Seville The Etymologies (or Origins) (e.g. here) contains "punctus oculi", and in New Latin it's also sometimes punctus, -i, m. in mathematics while other authors use punctum, -i, n.
Thus, it looks like L&S contains an error which was copied into the English wiktionary. -80.133.125.177 22:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

城隍廟

Rfv-sense: Yu Garden, the shopping district around the Shanghai city god temple. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All words in Category:Cia-Cia lemmas in hangeul

According to the Wikipedia article Cia-Cia language, writing Cia-Cia with hangeul has never been official and seems to have been already abandoned. Isn’t it just a linguistic experiment rather than actual use? I’m afraid they don’t meet our criteria. Japanese Wikipedia has decided to delete them. @Visviva : do you have a source of Cia-Cia words in real use, not a word list? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a linguistic experiment. I do not believe that Cia-Cia was ever written in Korean Hangeul. I read somewhere that there were 190 students (out of 79,000 speakers) recruited to try to learn it. I believe that the individual who originally proposed the idea wrote some sample transliterations in Hangeul. Supposedly there is a little Cia-Cia book that used Hangeul, but I could never locate a copy of it. Perhaps the original proponent of the idea wrote an example text, transliterated it into Hangeul, and printed a few copies on his inkjet printer. That would explain why I was never able to obtain a copy of the book. That would mean that the Hangeul examples are simply protologisms. The specific booklet that I was searching for was a story called 뼁겜발라 돔바 마이 스리갈라 (penggembala domba mai surigala, "the shepherd and the wolf"). I can’t find the book. —Stephen ^(Talk) 09:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the book “바하사 찌아찌아 1” but I can only find Korean translations: [57], [58]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we only need one citation, and many of these entries are cited. I'm really not sure what the best course of action is here. @-sche, any thoughts? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the citations are valid, i.e. the book in question contains Cia-Cia text written in hanguel, then AFAICT it is fine to have these entries, but according to what has been said above, they should all be alternative forms of Latin-script entries, rather than main entries. (If the issue is the categorization of the entries into the "lemmas" category, that seems unavoidable without a shift in what we consider lemmas for the purpose of categorization, not just in this language but also with regard to e.g. Arabic-script Afrikaans, which is currently in the Afrikaans lemma category.) - -sche (discuss) 21:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

puttocks

"A local form of continuous cricket played in Surrey". Mentioned in Andrew Collins' book Where Did It All Go Right?: Growing Up Normal in the 70s (p. 47: "One of the games we played, made up I suspect, was a variant on French cricket called 'Puttocks'") and apparently nowhere else. Equinox ◑ 13:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

南沙

Rfv-sense: Nansha, short for Jianyanansha, one of the shoals of Jiuduansha off Shanghai in the East China Sea — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 17:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

cross cover version

Song cover version by an opposite-sex artist. Equinox ◑ 17:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

spotdesk

A team of foreign exchange traders. This seems to be pure invention. Equinox ◑ 15:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

kredemnon

While this is used, it is always italicized which suggest to me that it's simply a transliteration of the Greek term. The content could be moved to an Ancient Greek entry. DTLHS (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the Ancient Greek entry anyway (κρήδεμνον), however, please see:

--FocalPoint (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

glomax

Any takers? Needs formatting and putting in some categories if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Old English; nor Middle English Leasnam (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a dialect word, and an alternative form of clomax. Leasnam (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've created clomax and labelled glomax as an alt form. I found only one cite for clomax, and it isn't all that great. None for glomax, although there are many for the trademark name GloMax. The fate of these two are now in the hands of due process. Leasnam (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if that "clomax" cite is a misprint for "climax". SemperBlotto (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. It was an obvious misprint in several others I found, but this one kinda sorta made some sense (?)... Leasnam (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SemperBlotto, yeah I think you're right. I've removed the cite. The word is now citeless Leasnam (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

filetype

"A command that creates...etc." Equinox ◑ 20:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

cyun

Obsolete form of scion. Curiously, the plural cyuns failed RFV, while the singular was never challenged. In my experience (though I don't necessarily agree with it), we don't normally do this, and allow unattested hypothetical inflections to stand as long as the lemma is legitimate. Equinox ◑ 22:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case of Latin there are already RFVs for inflected forms above. But well, it might be different for Latin:

In Latin one sometimes has to know inflected forms to know the declension.
In case of Latin words, especially words with Greek origin, the inflection can be disputed, i.e. it might be unclear how a hypothetical inflection would look like.
There can be doubts whether or not a plural existed or exists. Even if English has water and waters, who know whether or not Latin has aqua and aquae or just a singular aqua? But one could most likely ask this for some English words as well.

Similary in case of German the inflection can sometimes be disputed.

So, to sum it up: RFVs for inflected forms can be justified and can make sense. -84.161.44.63 02:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

darkside

Isn't this just dark side? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't encompass farside, and not completely nightside either -- 65.94.168.229 05:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some cites. Not every sense is fully cited yet, however. Kiwima (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

alphabetist

One who discriminates based on the first letter of a name. I think this word means something, but not that. Equinox ◑ 11:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sense does appear on Google Groups a few times: [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69]. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

suck off

def: "(slang, transitive) To fellate a man, usually until he ejaculates."

I question whether this definition is correct in two regards:

Is it limited to "man"?
Isn't it always to the point of ejaculation (excluding instances of interruption)?

Isn't there a sense of off#Adverb that we lack, to wit, that reflected in get off, suck off, jerk off, wank off and any similar expressions. (You may guess where this is going.) DCDuring TALK 13:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't necessarily have to be a man, since pre-surgery transgender women have penises as well (though, depending on your politics, you may or may not view them as men still). Anyway, I suppose you could go out and find porn where dildoes are sucked off as well. Given that last point, and given the existence of coitus reservatus and orgasm control, I don't think the sucked-off object, be it a penis or a pseudo-penis, necessarily must ejaculate during a sucking-off. There's a few sentences I didn't expect to write today. — Kleio (t · c) 17:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me. I meant to also require support for "he ejaculates" (rather than "orgasm"). Lastly one can find abundant citations of "[suck] her off", so "fellate" seems wrong.

IOW, can we show that the existing definition is correct, rather than simply wrong in multiple ways. DCDuring TALK 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found this citation:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

Also, the definition is not worded as a transitive verb, the object being expressly included in the definition and the object is solely a person rather than being worded to include "sexual organ". The more I think about it the more amateurish the definition is. DCDuring TALK 20:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

purplewashing

Really? Protologism? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added some citations in English and Spanish. DaddyCell (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of the four citations currently in the English section of the citations page, two (Irving and Rivera) do not seem to be durably archived and one (Suárez) seems to be in Spanish. I'm not sure whether Suárez and Crespo are durably archived. So I don't think we have enough quotations to keep any of the senses yet. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need three citations that support unambiguously each definition (possibly rewritten) that we keep. DCDuring (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deuts

I cannot find any evidence that inflected forms of "Deut" are used, other than accusative singular (as in the idioms, in which "Deut" is used). --Bruno413 (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

übel

Inflections seem wrong. Should be übler, übles, ... --Bruno413 (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boths forms exist and are easily attested, e.g. simply doing a google books search for "übler Geruch" and "übeler Geruch". Also zeno.org's search has enough results for both forms ("üble Laune", "übler Nachrede", "übles Nachreden" - "eine übele Gewonheit", "übele Bedeutung", "in übelem Rufe", "eine übele Vorbedeutung"). -Wilhelm-231 (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are these forms archaic then and should be described as such? --Bruno413 (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lumina gold

Apparently a registered trademark, Lumina® Gold. Does it exist in this form, with both senses? Equinox ◑ 07:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

continue

Video game noun #2. Not the option allowing a gamer to resume play after "game over", but "an option allowing a player to resume a saved game". Certainly that might be described as continuing a game, but is it called "a continue" (noun)? Equinox ◑ 16:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

做穡

Is this actually used with the pronunciation chò/chòe for 做? This could be a variant of 作穡, but that would mean it should only be read as choh. chò-/chòe-sit is only found in a database that seems to have some errors. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

做穡人, 做田, 做田人

Same with these ones. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hippie

Adj. sense:

Of or pertaining to hippies: e.g., “the hippie era”.

The example does not seem like a true adjective to me. It seems like an atributive noun. Is there a true adjectival sense here?

A quick Google search gives a lot of results for "very hippie", so that suggests it's an adjective. —CodeCa t 19:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good thinking, I have changed the example. Mihia (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... I changed the example to "That dress looks very hippie", but is this definitely an adjective now? It's not like "That dress looks very drag queen" or "That dress looks very Michelle Obama", is it? Mihia (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

蒙古山猫

+ 蒙古ガゼル, 蒙古野馬, 蒙古馬, 西蔵砂狐, 西蔵野驢馬, 嘴白啄木鳥, コディアック羆, 日本氈鹿, 白氈鹿, 白岩山羊, スマトラ氈鹿, 鬣狼, 蟹食犬, 蜜穴熊, 小爪獺, 小爪川獺, 斑ハイエナ and maybe more?

See Talk:亜米利加白鶴. —suzukaze (t・c) 08:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @Eirikr: if it isn't too much trouble, could the content from the deleted pages be restored under the "proper" Katakana spellings? —suzukaze (t・c) 08:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to katakana. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess of entries. I just had a poke around the web re: 蒙古山猫, and I have no clear idea where Fumiko ran across this. I did find this Weibo page that uses the term in Chinese, but I can't find it in any Japanese books: google books:"蒙古山猫" "は" generates zero hits. Even searching in the broader web (google:"蒙古山猫" "は") doesn't find much, only 195 ostensible hits, collapsing to 45 as one pages through. But even then, many of these are Wiktionary mirrors or other dictionary sites of dubious value. After filtering these out, there are enough hits to suggest that this might meet CFI, but even then the entry would require a clear indication that this is not a common term for this animal -- マヌルネコ (manuru neko) gets around 176K hits on the wider web, even after filtering out wikis and some dictionaries, but we don't seem to have an entry for this yet.

Similar situation for 西蔵砂狐 versus the much-more-common term チベットスナギツネ (chibetto sunagitsune).

<sigh.../>

These need vetting to find out if they pass CFI. It looks like a few of these might, while others won't. The entries also need expanding to at least add usage notes explaining the rarity of the terms, and referring users to the more-common synonyms.

(PS: the ping didn't work, sorry for the delay. I only just saw this today, and quite by accident.)

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 07:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

尾黒

My own creation, why not. —suzukaze (t・c) 08:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

beetroot

Rfv-sense: "A normally deep red coloured cultivar of the beet". I say that this is simply a synonym of beet. Any evidence for a separate sense referring to a specific cultivar? DTLHS (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MWOnline has a somewhat similar definition as being "UK". DCDuring TALK 22:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is the only meaning that I recognise (Beta vulgaris). SemperBlotto (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beta cicla is the one used to make sugar. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original 2005 definition for the entry was "A normally deep red coloured cultivar of the beet. A root vegetable usually cooked or pickled before eating". It looks to me like the "normally deep red" part is parenthetical, and the "cultivar" was thrown in without thought about its meaning. This was later split up into what became the two senses we have now. I don't think the original creator of the entry (Judging by their IP, they were in Lancashire) intended anything except the normal UK meaning of what the US calls a beet, but their definition was misinterpreted due to poor wording. By the way: you can find usage for yellow beetroot, sugar beetroot, and even beetroot greens. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this helps the RFV, but as a British person I'm not really familiar with the word "beet" but I know "beetroot" as the deep purple-red thing that can be bought pickled. Equinox ◑ 06:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you picture it with leaves, ie, as what I might call a beet plant? How do rural folks and agriculturalists use the term, referring to the plant, the foodstock, the prepared food, some or all of the preceding? DCDuring TALK 13:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who was originally American that has been transplanted to New Zealand (where usage is the same as the UK on this one) I can verify that beetroot is just a synonym for beet, in all senses (the plant, the foodstock, the prepared food, etc) Kiwima (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Mapp and Lucia: “‘—and he used my coal and my electric light as if they were his own, not to mention firing,’ said Elizabeth, going on exactly where she had left off, ‘and a whole row of beetroot.’” Here it's pretty clear the (British) speaker is using beetroot to refer to the entire plant, and not just the edible root of it. As an American, I would have said "a whole row of beets", so I agree that beetroot is simply a synonym of beet in all relevant senses. It is neither more specific nor more general than beet; it's merely preferred in different parts of the English-speaking world. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Equinox So you're saying you would never use the word "beet" on its own, but always "beetroot"? And that this is common in your dialect? DTLHS (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd never use it, and yes, I don't recall hearing it or seeing it on packages. I've also heard of "golden beetroot" and "yellow beetroot". Equinox ◑ 22:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. In the UK I have only ever heard the word "beet" used to mean "sugarbeet", the agricultural product. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A great example of the complexity of plant names from a great site (Univ. of Melbourne). One conclusion is that the term seems to apply to, at least, Beta vulgaris, Beta vulgaris subspecies vulgaris, and Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris (Conditiva Group). BTW, Beta vulgaris subspecies vulgaris includes sugar beets. DCDuring TALK 19:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remove "normally" at least, beetroot are always red. I was responsible for red as a beetroot, but I notice Equinox has been at it. DonnanZ (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, beetroot can be other colors as well, at least here in New Zealand it is. Kiwima (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed. — This unsigned comment was added by Kiwima (talk • contribs) at 22:04, 4 May 2017.

I disagree. The challenged definition refers to a "cultivar", which is a specific variety of a plant. That would mean that only a specific variety can be called beetroot when, in fact, every variety of the vegetable is known as beetroot in the UK, NZ, etc. In other words, the definition says that plain old, ordinary beets can't be called beetroot because they don't belong to the "beetroot" cultivar. Without quotes referring to a cultivar called beetroot, you can't call this passed- and there are no quotes in the entry at all. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's just because the definition needed tweaking, not because more citations were needed. How about now? Kiwima (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the definition is fixed, so "clear, widespread use" applies- but the rfv was for the old definition. I would call it resolved, rather than passed. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

starvate

To starve. Listed in a handful of textbooks as a non-existent form. Equinox ◑ 22:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also found in a number of texts, but I am inclined to at least give it a proscribed. Kiwima (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC):[reply]

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

Kiwima -- your cites strongly suggest that it's used mainly by non-native speakers... AnonMoos (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I noticed the same thing. Kiwima (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Only a couple of them seem to be written by non-native speakers (although I can't say I looked them up to read the surrounding text). It seems to be limited to scientific contexts though. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A simple glance at author names and locations suggests non-nativeness. I checked a few of the quotes, and found (working backward up the list):

2010, Z. Ogumi -- text here, definitely non-native.
2003, Tang-Long Shen -- text here, but I can't see enough to judge the native-ness of the writing.
1992, Eero Tikkanen etc. -- text here, definitely non-native.
1985, Masakuni Suzuki etc. -- text here. Not much to go on, but there's a conspicuous case of a missing "the" that suggests non-native.
1976, European Poultry etc. -- text here. Again, not much to go on; looking elsewhere in this same text shows non-native.

I'm not spending more time on this, but so far, every indication is that this is non-native usage: a mistake only made by language learners. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 08:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Azərbaycancalaşdırmaq

I really like this word, but I am beginning to become concerned that I can't seem to find it anywhere else on the Internet... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a correct derivation. I think this is a valid citation: Nizami Xudiyev (2013) Azərbaycan ədəbi dili lüğət tərkibinin inkişafı, ali məktəblər üçün dərslik: seçilmiş əsərləri, Bakı:

«…Yüzlərcə, bəlkə minlərcə əcnəbi kəlmələr var ki, onları türkləşdirmək (azərbaycancalaşdırmaq – N. X. --88.251.227.42 13:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

脫布

Variant of 拖布 seems dubious. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I see plenty of hits on Baidu and Bing. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tooironic: I see lots of hits on Google, too, but I'm not really sure if they're referring to 拖布. There seems to be other (SOP) meanings like "to take some sort of cloth off". — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 08:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

trip over the wire

To make a mistake. A Google search only seems to find cases of people literally stumbling over a cable. Equinox ◑ 00:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

cikán

There are 3 meanings in this Czech entry, but the last two need verification. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Polansky? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The RFV-ed senses:

(informal) A gypsy (itinerant person), a vagabond.
(informal) A liar or a thief.

Both senses seem present in Template:R:SSJC, which, however, is no attesting quotation for WT:ATTEST purposes. In particular, the senses seem to be "tulák, dobrodruh" and "lhář, podvodník, zloděj". Attesting quotations could be sought in google books:"cikán" and Template:R:KNLA. The latter source of quotations contains various non-literal uses but I do not see ones specifically in the above senses. I seem multiple uses of "cikán" to refer to child, perhaps a loud child. If someone wants to give it a try, they may. User:Jan.Kamenicek or User:Droigheann? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There can be found examples for the verb cikánit in both senses "to wander from one place to another" and "to lie", but I also failed to find any quotation attesting the senses for the noun cikán. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that wading through the quotations found by the above sources is a lot of work. Many of the quotations are for the literal sense of Gypsy, so it takes a lot of patience to fish for the rrelatively rare figurative senses if they exist. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that in my youth I occasionally heard a parent tell their child "Ty jsi ale cikán" meaning "a liar", but I doubt it ever appeared in print. --Droigheann (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

檂

Rfv-sense "Cantonese: burnt". Added by an IP user. Usually written as 燶. —suzukaze (t・c) 08:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

боҙтау

Can this term entered as Bashkir be attested per WT:ATTEST? --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

itmək

Existence questioned by User:80.12.27.148 in RFD. Entered as Azeri. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This can not even be questioned. It has a very common usage:

itmək : f.

1. Yoxa çıxmaq, qeyb olmaq. [Koroğlu:] Nigar, Düratın itməyi; Yandırır məni, yandırır. “Koroğlu”. // Azmaq, azıb qalmaq, başqa yerə düşmək. [Səriyyə və uşaqlar] bu qarışıqlığın, bu qaynar bataqlığın içində itməkdən qorxaraq, bərk-bərk bir-birinin əlindən tutur(lar). M.İbrahimov. _ Gözdən itmək – görünməmək, görünməz olmaq, çəkilmək, yox olmaq. Bağır həmişə gülümsəyəndə gözünün qarası itərdi. Çəmənzəminli. Şirzad yavaş-yavaş addımlayaraq yastı-yapalaq kənd evlərinin arasında itdi. M.İbrahimov. // Gizlənmək, örtülmək. Ay buludlar altında itdi. _ İtib-batmaq –
2. yox olmaq, yoxa çıxmaq, məhv olmaq, itmək. O gedən uşaq itib batdı. – Hər gün itib-batmadadır xanları; Mollaları, şeyx və işanları.. Ə.Nəzmi;
3. görünməz olmaq, gözdən itmək, yox olmaq. Yolun alt-üstündəki kövşənlərdə küləş göy otun içində itib-batmışdı. Ə.Vəliyev. O, bəzən dalğaların arasında itib-batır, sanki bir müddət suyun altı ilə gedir. M.Rzaquluzadə. [Carçıyevin] gözləri qırışlar arasında daha da kiçilib, dərin çuxurlarda itib-batdı. İ.Hüseynov;
4. tamamilə yox olmaq, puç olmaq, heç bilinməmək. [Rüstəm:] Mənim ağlım belə kəsir ki, sənin savadın gərək itib-batmasın. S.Rəhimov. İtib getmək –
5. başqa şeylər içərisində, arasında qeyb olmaq. Hər şey dəniz kimi bərq vuran bir sərab içində itib gedirdi. İ.Əfəndiyev;
6. bir yerə gedib qayıtmamaq, yoxa çıxmaq. İki saatdır hara itib getmisən?
7. yox olmaq, yoxa çıxmaq. Pirkətanqulu pirinin şöhrəti və nüfuzu xalqın içində yavaş-yavaş bilmərrə itib getdi. E.Sultanov. İtib yox olmaq – yoxa çıxmaq. [Dostəli:] Tamam neçə aydır ki, şəhərimizin adamları itib yox olur. Ü.Hacıbəyov.
8. Əvvəlki keyfiyyəti yox olmaq. Yuyulandan sonra parçanın rəngi itib. Yaşa dolduqca gözün nuru itir. – Amma gənclik keçəndən, qocalıq gələndən, bədəndə təravət itəndən .. sonra, elə bil [Mirzə Cavadın] isti başına soyuq su töküb qəflətdən ayıltdılar. Mir Cəlal.
9. məc. Puç olmaq, heçə çıxmaq, hədər getmək, boşa çıxmaq. Vaxtım itir. Yaxşılıq itməz. Əməyi itmək. – Bizim dünyamızda itməz zəhmətin; Həyatın qəlbidir şerin, sənətin! S.Vurğun.
10. məc. İçində sözü ilə: ...içində itmək – bir şeyin bolluğunu, çoxluğunu bildirir. Qızıl içində itmək. İpək içində itmək. – Müqim bəy vurnuxur, zər-ziba içində itən Zərintac xanımın mərhəmətini qazanmaq istəyirdi. S.Rəhimov.

(Azərbaycan dilinin izahlı lüğəti)

Note to everyone else: this has apparently entered into our long-running Turkic purism wars, which are especially frustrating when we lack trusted admins or editors proficient in Turkish. The anon who left the above block of text (copied from a dictionary?) has also left comments on two other Turkic RFVs in favour of keeping them (despite those two clearly not having enough citations). I am sorry to say that I don't know whether the anon who nominated this word or the anon who seems to have cited it is more trustworthy. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ایتمک

Existence questioned by User:80.12.27.148 in RFD. Entered as Azeri. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just an alternative script form. Whether it passes or fails should follow the (Latin script) lemma. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peñeyrúa

I'd say it's a rare misspelling of Piñeyrúa. --Quadcont (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found one case of a clear misspelling, but a bunch more legitimate uses as an alternative form of the surname, seemingly all from Uruguay. I added five citations to the entry. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pollus

As mentioned in the Tea room, this seems to be a dead end: it's said to be an adjective, and to be an alternative form of polus. The only problem is that there's no adjective sense at polus, nor can I find a likely candidate in Lewis & Short at Perseus. There is pollulus, but that's an alternative form of polulus, a diminutive of polus. We thus have an entry and a complete set of inflected forms, but no definition and no examples of usage. Is this a complete figment of User:SemperBlotto's imagination, or is there a real word out there somewhere?

By the way, I tried searching for this, but there are scannos that mistake just about any letter with a vertical stroke for one or more ls. If it helps any, SB was apparently working on taxonomic names from User:Pengo/Latin/Most wanted at the time he created this. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a cockup. If nobody can dind anything, I'll delete it all. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is said that DMBLS, "The Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources", contains "pollus v. 1 pola, 3 polus, 3 pullus". So it might be a British Mediaeval Latin spelling. -84.161.4.231 21:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

same old same-old

Really? with only one hyphen? I actually found two quotations that do this, but I have to think it is simply a copyediting error. Kiwima (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a rare misspelling. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It could be read as ADJ(same) ADJ(old) Noun(same-old), which seems SoP to me. DCDuring TALK 14:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also reminds me of the w:Firesign Theater:
"Where am I?" "You can't get there from here." "But I'm looking for the same old place." "Oh, you must mean the old Same place.

Their radio scripts had lots of word play that might make for amusing citations. DCDuring TALK 15:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because one or two people once made an illogical hyphenation of something doesn't mean that we are obliged to list it. Mihia (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC) I have struck my comment because, looking more closely, I now don't think that the hyphenation is illogical. Mihia (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind people that this is RFV and voting here is rare. We come to RFV to search for evidence in the form of attesting quotations meeting WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

do well

To benefit; to favour. This does not match either "you would do well to stay out of trouble" or "I did well in my exams". Any ideas? Equinox ◑ 20:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I did well in my exams" is simply SOP. "you would do well to stay out of trouble" is more ideomatic, meaning take the advised or prudent approach. Kiwima (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the given definition fits neither. What sentence would it make sense in? Equinox ◑ 20:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- I have added the meanings that I can find, with supporting quotes, leaving the RFV on the original definition. I suspect the author was trying for the "flourish" meaning. Kiwima (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. To benefit can mean to accrue, as in the principal accrued, through compounded interest, over time. (The insurance benefit sense I would oppose through principle that such benefit is (always) less than the sum of the payments.) - Amgine/^t·e 21:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but "favour" on the other hand is always transitive. Equinox ◑ 21:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is supposed to be do well by, as in "She was a good mother; she did well by her children." —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that User:Alumnum, who created this entry, is still active—maybe they can give us an example of what they meant by this definition? —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reordered the definitions, and inserted a grammar label for each of two of the definitions, including the one being challenged. To me the last definition "succeed, flourish" seems to be non-idiomatic, being just intransitive do + well. I believe that the do well by usage is widespread, though usage examples are always nice, especially to illustrate the meaning of a terse grammar label. DCDuring TALK 01:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done, thanks! - Amgine/^t·e 17:18, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who added the "succeed, flourish" meaning -- I can see where it is close to a literal meaning, but I think it goes a bit beyond that - it is not that there is something one does well, it is not really about doing any particular thing, it is about being. Kiwima (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I created this entry after reading this idiom somewhere, but it was more than two years ago so I can't recall it and bring back the context. "Do well by" seems to be a fitting variation, so User:Mx._Granger is most likely right. Moreover, Google Translate also translates "do well" to my native Portuguese as "beneficiar", which means to benefit, favour, advantage, avail, etc., so it may have prompted me to create this entry at the time. - Alumnum (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

𢲸

Rfv-sense of senses under translingual (added by @Suzukaze-c). They come from the Unihan database, which got them from “The Representation of Cantonese with Chinese Characters”, which got them from Meyer and Wempe's The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary (which I cannot find a full copy of). It seems to be a rare/obsolete variant of 撈／捞 (lou1). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unjudgemently

Added as "humorous". Evident nonce word made up on the spot by the single cited author. No other cites available. Equinox ◑ 03:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would call it a misspelling of unjudgmentally, unjudgementally. —Stephen ^(Talk) 21:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not common enough to be a misspelling. RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

安提瓜島和巴布達

Seems to be a mistake, since the pronunciations are all for 安提瓜和巴布達／安提瓜和巴布达 (Āntíguā hé Bābùdá) instead. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 17:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wyang (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

働 and 𫢙

RFV for Chinese. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For 働, see the talk page.

For 𫢙, I wonder if the evidence for inclusion in Unicode can be located... —suzukaze (t・c) 00:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode got 𫢙 from 中國大百科全書, according to its G source (GBK-1000.40). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know about that part; I meant specifically within the patchwork PDFs they assemble and dump into http://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/. —suzukaze (t・c) 00:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That will take some fishing. As for 働, why don't we just have a {{zh-see}}? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 00:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've traced 𫢙 back to the extension D submission by the PRC (IRGN1262), which lists it under characters used in personal names. I don't see evidence from the original source, though. (It might be there, but I can't find it at the moment.) — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a good idea to verify ALL kokuji and Japanese shinjitai, which are different from Chinese simp. forms for their existence in Chinese and Korean? Unihan just does a misservice by providing reading for characters that are not used in these languages, IMO.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

chrȳsocarpus (adjective)

RFV for the adjective chrȳsocarpus (alternative form chrȳsocarpos, from Greek χρυσόκαρπος (khrusókarpos)).
Dictionaries:

L&S: "chrȳsŏcanthos, i, f., I a kind of ivy which bears gold-colored berries, App. Herb. 119; called in Plin. 16, 34, 62, § 147, chrȳ-sŏcarpus, = χρυσόκαρπος."
Gaffiot: "chrȳsŏcanthos, i, f., Apul. Herb. 119 ou chrȳsŏcarpus, i, f. Plin. 16, 147 [...]"
OLD: "chrȳsocarpus ~um, a. ~os ~on [Gk. χρυσόκαρπος] Having golden berries.
duo genera huius (sc. hederae) faciunt a colore acinorum erythranum et ~um Plin.Nat.16.147; hedera quam ~on appellauimus 24.77.
Georges: "chrȳsocanthos u. chrȳsocarpus, ī, f. [...] Ps. Apul. herb. 119. Plin. 16, 147"

Latin texts:

Pseudo-Apuleius Herbarius: That work contains pictures. BL mentions "Chrysocantis (or Crisocantis)" and on f.40r and f.40v it has: "Herba hedera chrisocantos · ideo q; g^na [page turn] fert coloris au[line break]rei · Hec g^na ·xx· ĩ uini sextario c̃t'ta, ex eo uino t̃ni ciati bibant^v q' p^ urinã exinaniunt^v." (I can't type most of the special characters and diacritics, especially where I put ^), and "Crisocantos" next to a picture. CML IV contains in CXX on p. 206: "Herba hedera crisocantes, ideo quia grana fert coloris aurei, haec grana XX in uini sextario contrita, ex eo uino terni ciati bibantur per dies VII, qui per urinam exinaniuntur. A Graecis dicitur cissos crisocantes."
Pliny's Natural History book 16, 147: "alicui et semen nigrum, alii crocatum, cuius coronis poetae utuntur, foliis minus nigris, quam quidam Nysiam, alii Bacchicam vocant, maximis inter nigras corymbis. quidam apud Graecos etiamnum duo genera huius faciunt a colore acinorum, erythranum et chrysocarpum." In book 24, 77: "hedera, quam chrysocarpon appellavimus, bacis aurei coloris XX in vini sextario tritis, ita ut terni cyathi potetur, aquam, quae cutem subierit, urina educit; Erasistratus eiusdem acinos V tritos in rosaceo oleo calefactosque in cortice punici instillavit dentium dolori a contraria aure."

Conclusion:
Pseudo-Apuleius' Herbarius contains chrȳsocanthos and thus is irrelevant for this. Pliny has "chrysocarpum" once in book 16 and "chrysocarpon" once in book 24. That would only attest 2 words and not 4 (2 parts of speech and 2 forms make 4 words). Compared with dictionary entries, Pliny's book 16 should attest chrȳsocarpus f. and his book 24 chrȳsocarpos, on.
So the adjective with unusual and questionable nominative, chrȳsocarpus, us, um, isn't attested by this. -80.133.113.199 19:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is in use as a specific epithet (chrysocarpus, -a, -um), ie, in New Latin. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

chrysocarpus, -a, -um is not chrysocarpus, -us, -um.
Specific epithets are not necessarily Latin. It could very well be non-Latin, e.g. English or Translingual. Google books had no result for "Rhachidosorus chrysocarpus", several English and one German and one French result for "Rumex chrysocarpus", some English and one German result for "Juncus chrysocarpus", some French results for "Diospyros chrysocarpa", and some English results for "Archidendron chrysocarpum". I haven't searched for Rubus chrysocarpus, Styrax chrysocarpus, Crataegus chrysocarpa, Diospyros chrysocarpa, Duguetia chrysocarpa, Hedera chrysocarpa, Pyrausta chrysocarpa, Rollinia chrysocarpa, Myrceugenia chrysocarpa, Senna chrysocarpa, Geronema chrysocarpum as that are several terms and as I expect similar results. One can't attest a Latin term with non-Latin usages in non-Latin text, but just attest a Latin term with Latin texts. That's like one can't attest English terms with non-English texts (cf. anglicisms and pseudo-anglicisms), but just attest an English term with English usages in English texts.

-84.161.27.3 15:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a number of citations of running Latin text at Citations:chrysocarpus, on Citations:chrysocarpo (one of which refers to R. chrysocarpus) and on Citations:chrysocarpa. I think this is cited. - -sche (discuss) 02:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

back gammon player

As with much of Category:Classic 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, this looks fishy. --Quadcont (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It can certainly be found in a lot of other dictionaries of slang. I found one very clear usage:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

and one quote that is probably of that meaning (as in this context, mentioning the game seems odd):

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

but most of what I find refers to the game of backgammon. Kiwima (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, the following text explains the bit of verse quoted below as referring to sodomy:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

Kiwima (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

workloom

Penis. Equinox ◑ 17:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

penumbrous

shady, disreputable, dishonest. Penumbrous means shady in the literal sense, but in the figurative one? Equinox ◑ 18:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can find a figurative sense, but it is closer to ill-defined than to disreputable. (I have added this with supporting quotes). For the disreputable sense, I can find two quotes:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

And of those, the second is a bit iffy. Kiwima (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fullend

None of the three existing cites actually has "fullend" in it. Equinox ◑ 22:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear in the Middle English Dictionary, though fulenden does, nor in Lexicons of Early Modern English, nor Century 1911, nor any of the OneLook dictionaries. That leaves only the OED among major dictionary sources and indirect sources suggest they have it. One source says the OED has a cite from 1425, normally considered Middle English AFAICT. Also, fullendian (Anglo-Saxon) appears in A Concise Anglo−Saxon Dictionary and shows it to have been used in Bede's w:Ecclesiastical History. They reference the OED's entry for fullend, if I read their explanation of their entry notation correctly. DCDuring TALK 23:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything in Books or Groups that isn't a scanno for full end/full-end, a noun, an adjective (as fullended), or in some other language- with one exception here. Given that there's an adverbial sense for full, I would be skeptical of multi-word spellings being anything but SOP full modifying end. As for the one use, it may be relevant that the author, w:is:Eyjólfur Kjalar Emilsson, is Icelandic- though his English is quite good. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the citations in the online OED - not properly formatted:-

OE tr. Bede Eccl. Hist. (Corpus Cambr.) iii. xvii. 232 He ða bæd Cynebill..þæt he ða arfæstan ongunnennesse fullendode & gefyllde [eOE Tanner gefylde & geendade, L. conplere] þa he ne moste.

a1225 (▸?a1200) MS Trin. Cambr. in R. Morris Old Eng. Homilies (1873) 2nd Ser. 61 We hauen ure penitence fulended.

a1300 (▸?c1175) Poema Morale (Jesus Oxf.) 239 in R. Morris Old Eng. Misc. (1872) 66 Þeo þat gode were [read werc] by-gunne and ful-endy hit nolden.

c1300 Life & Martyrdom Thomas Becket (Harl. 2277) (1845) 2205 If he ful in feble stat, that he ne miȝte hit ful ende, The penance he nom upe him silve.

▸a1382 Bible (Wycliffite, E.V.) (Douce 369(1)) (1850) Ecclus. xxxiv. 8 With oute lesing shal be ful endid the wrd of the lawe.

▸a1398 J. Trevisa tr. Bartholomaeus Anglicus De Proprietatibus Rerum (BL Add. 27944) (1975) I. ix. iv. 522 So it is acountid for[þ] anon to þe nyntenþe ȝere whanne þe cicle and þe cours of þe mone is fulendid.

a1400 tr. Lanfranc Sci. Cirurgie (Ashm.) (1894–1988) 354 (MED), Wiþout which grace is no þing fulendid [L. perficitur].

a1500 Eng. Conquest Ireland (Rawl.) (1896) 43 Such martirdomes..whych in no mannes hert may be thoght to ful end.

1537 Coverdale tr. Goodly Treat. Faith f. xvv, Beynge assured that the worde of God hathe fullended a glorious worke in vs.

SemperBlotto (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I've added blank lines above to make it easier to read.) The original NED/OED can be found on the Internet Archive; all but the last volumes were published before 1923 and are PD in the US. This entry doesn't seem to have been updated since 1901, so it matches the entry from the Online OED.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To me only the Coverdale citation is English and spelled as the entry. There is a use in Finnegans Wake, which of course is quite unclear as to its meaning. The following is an indirect citation, but I can't see anything in the tiny6 snippet window:
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

DCDuring TALK 21:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

banana principle

I see a few "banana principles" on BGC, but none of them are the one in the def (I don't know whether any are citeable). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwima has added some cites. For the first sense, the 1995 cite is good, but the 2000 cite is using the term green banana principle, the 2015 cite is for the hyphenated term, and the 2016 cite is mention-y. The second sense has two good cites, but still needs one more. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

endobicategory

The supporting quotation is the only one I can find. Kiwima (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ananas

Any evidence of this in Latin? —John C5 04:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are species Fusarium ananatum and Salmonella ananatum. There's also one hit for "ananatibus" in a modern work (Classical Folia). DTLHS (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All three google book results for "Fusarium ananatum" and the one result for "Salmonella ananatum" were in English, which does not attest a Latin term.
Indeed, there was one result with ananatibus, this one (from 1966 according to google) with this snippet: "... malis, bananis; campi qui ananatibus pleni sunt; pomaria quae tam lata et magna sunt quam hoc oppidum.'".
Before the 20th century one can find "Ananas" in Latin works too, especially in biological works. But one can also find "De Ananas" and "cum Anana sylvestri" (both from the biological text Historia plantarum by the Englishman John Ray), as well as "Ananas siluestres" besides "Ananas siluestris" (from the biological text Universalis plantarum historiae) in Latin. So there could be more inflections: ananas, indecl.; ananas, ae - first declension; ananas, atis - third declension. But well, the attestation of other inflections is not the matter of a RFV for one inflection. -84.161.27.3 15:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any more evidence for the third declension paradigm, though its use in scientific nomenclature probably deserves a usage note in the entry once actually attested declensions are added. But the RFV is for the term as a whole, so this is evidence enough to pass it; we simply need to figure out how to treat it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed on the basis of the citations above, but I've commented out the declension table until we can figure out what declension the word actually had. - -sche (discuss) 19:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

coenonymphic

Only in the one cited book? Equinox ◑ 15:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pieker

Dutch. All the currently listed noun senses. It is possible to find some nouns, but the most common sense I found was "worry". If the first sense is attested, it almost certainly comes from pieken (“to peak”). Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

mucidious

"terrible, deathly, sickened, nauseous, horrible, vile, repungnant". DTLHS (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

bakterav

Volapük for bacteriology. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also absent from Wikisource. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

headass

Tagged, not listed. Equinox ◑ 20:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can only find one:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

Kiwima (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that may be chicken head + -ass, i.e. dismissively saying that she looks like she has a chicken's head...? Equinox ◑ 21:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. It's pretty ambiguous. Kiwima (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed that I'm right, since the book also says: "When she finally caught a glance, she noticed that he was skinning and grinning all up in some chicken head's face. Feeling a little jealous, she rolled her eyes..." So this book won't help us. Equinox ◑ 09:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

rogue

"Deceitful software pretending to be anti-spyware, but in fact being malicious software itself." Note this is entered as a noun. Equinox ◑ 20:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what I find refers to this type of software as "rogue software" or "rogue anti-spyware" or "rogue spyware". Kiwima (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look and turned up:

* chance that at least half of you reading this will be attacked by a rogue this year.

* But, whenever you buy computer antivirus in USA, be careful while downloading it as there are several rogues or fake programs out there.

* It merely scanned and detected the infections (several rogues etc.), what I ...

* ... run against a rogue pack that I have which installs several rogues at ...

seems okay. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is, okay as a noun. The def seems to be over-specified, in that I am not sure it absolutely has to be pretending to be anti-spyware. Also, we need an adjective def for this. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ambicide

The current definition is "An antimicrobial that attacks more than one type of organism (such as both bacteria and protozoa)." Equinox above said "It's an error for amebicide: amoeba-killer." All the medications in the quotations are potentially amebicides. Can we find unambiguous uses that support the current definition? DTLHS (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty big ask, as most ambicides may have some effect on amoebic infections. However, my son, who did his masters thesis on antimicrobials, assures me that the current definition is correct. For example, Metronidazole, mentioned in the third quote, is used here regularly for surgical patients, and not because they are routinely worried about amoebic infections.Kiwima (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's fortunate that we have access to that kind of expertise, otherwise it would be difficult indeed to answer this question/request. I tried searching for works that might mention both ambicide and amebicide (which, if the context supported this conclusion, could provide evidence that they were different), but found none. Another idea is to check if there are any ambicides that kill two things, neither of which is an amoeba. Wikipedia does say "Metronidazole [...] is an antibiotic and antiprotozoal medication", killing two things. [ispub.com/IJS/18/1/11990 This website], Primary Pyogenic Liver Abscess: Current Treatment Options, says "In the treatment of an amebic liver abscess, metronidazole is the amebicide of choice. [...] For cases that fail to respond to therapy with ambicides, closed drainage [...]"; whereas, another website says "Mixed ambicide - Flagyl Selectively toxic for amebae and anaerobic bacteria and for anoxic and hypoxic cells." So, some uses may indeed be typos while others are indeed ambi- (two-) -cide. Ugh. Another idea is to look for spoken citations, perhaps in interviews with doctors. - -sche (discuss) 22:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After further research, I have removed the first citation, of an article titled Two New Preparations,

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

because I can also find the same text, Two New Preparations, in Practical Druggist and Pharmaceutical Review of Reviews (1915), as "Boremetine is a one-half per cent solution of Emetine Hydrochloride (an amebicide) and Boric Acid (a bactericide). The preparation is recommended in the local treatment of pyorrhea." Furthermore, the 1915 Nursing World rephrases things a bit and uses adjectives: "Boremetine is a one-half per cent solution of emetine hydrochloride, together with boric acid, zinc sulphocarbolate and aromatics. The emetine is amebicidal, the boric acid bactericidal, and the zinc sulphocarbolate astringent. So, that citation seems to be a typo.
I have also removed the second citation,

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

because this edition has "amebicides".
I cannot find the third citation anymore,

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

Some writers/speakers may intentionally use ambi- "two", but apparently not often enough to meet CFI.
- -sche (discuss) 20:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

kalburabastı

Attested in English with the dotless i, or even with dotted i? Should perhaps be coverted to a Turkish(?) entry. - -sche (discuss) 04:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the dotted i, I can find two citations:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

(the second has a recipe for how to make it). Kiwima (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

kalburabasma

Even if attested, this is surely not an "alternative spelling" of kalburabastı! - -sche (discuss) 04:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

exomoonologist

Nothing on BGC for singular or plural. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a number of quotes, most on sites that are not archived, and all referring to the same person (David Kipping). Here are some archived quotes:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

There is also something in the archives of FeedBlitz, but it is behind a paywall. Kiwima (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

exomoonology

Two cites on BGC (haven't checked if they're any good), but I can't find a third. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

klansman

I have seen no attestations for it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added by the notoriously unreliable Luciferwildcat. Equinox ◑ 16:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should have mentioned that it is the sense of a slur against white people I am requesting verification of. Of course, the sense of a member of the Ku Klux Klan is attested. Sorry, I am new at this. Thank you, Equinox, for your help on this. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. The one citation in the entry was:

"But he's a fucking Klansman" — which was what Tim called any white man who was too crazy to talk to him politely.

which is a different capitalization and probably just using the "member of the Klan" sense. Compare "'but he's a Laborite', which is what she called anyone to the political left of her", "she called all conservatives Republicans", etc (or even Renard's old example that if someone mistakes a frog for a toad, that doesn't cause "toad" to mean "frog"). - -sche (discuss) 04:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

bases loaded

Is there really a figurative sense? All I can find are baseball analogies, but which still sit quite clearly in the realm of baseball (and the occasional pun like the joke about drunk base players). Kiwima (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly potential for this phrase to be used figuratively, but the same could be said of almost any word or phrase. It doesn't mean these need to be listed when the figurative sense follows in an obvious or self-evident way. Only figurative uses that have developed a clear, strong identity need to be mentioned, in my opinion. Mihia (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

eglomerate

After checking Google Books and Groups and Issuu, I can only find one work which uses this word, which I've added to the entry. It seems like a candidate for Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. - -sche (discuss) 21:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have found and added one more quotation, leaving only one more to go. Kiwima (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

kilai

It's kilay. Same spelling as Hiligaynon kilay and Tagalog kilay. Cognate with Waray-Waray kiray and Kapampangan kile. 'ai' is 'ay'. 'ai' only appears in borrowed words like siomai. Even siomai is not fully accepted but is a common spelling. kilai does not appear outside texting. Not a common texting word either. It's a Jejemon way of spelling. Jejemons are ridiculed for their fancy but unnecessary respelling. They make short words long and long words short. Carl Francis (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hvøm

Claimed to be a common misspelling. I've never seen this, but the IP that added it has a history of good edits.__Gamren (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tryde

“fortryde” in Ordbog over det danske Sprog makes reference to this, claiming it to be an Old (or should we call it Middle?) Danish word (glda. is short for gammeldansk).__Gamren (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mont Order

A secret society. I see a few Web references but probably nothing meeting WT:CFI. Equinox ◑ 21:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is secret isn't it. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to find two that are truly distinct, but everything else I find is by L'Ordre, and I already have one quote by him. Kiwima (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sex

Rfv-sense "woman". Someone tagged this but never listed it.__Gamren (talk) 07:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tagger was me; sorry; thanks for listing it. Specifically, the sense in question is "a woman", as distinct from use of the sex (“women collectively”), which at the time was a separate sense in this entry, confirming that "a woman" was intended to be distinct from that.
(Another sense added by the same user was "Membership in these categories", with a citation that wasn't even English! The entry has been significantly cleaned up since that time.)
As an aside, with regard to the move of "the sex", I've started WT:BP#Where to record usage of the form "the X". - -sche (discuss) 07:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

jeiner

I find nothing on Google Books. Searching Google gives some mentions; Urban Dictionary, Slangster, Vi Unge (a magazine for early-teen girls), some blog, I don't even know what this is. Actual use is hard to find.__Gamren (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

misogynism

Sense 2: "The act of conditioning women to feel bad about being women." Equinox ◑ 19:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added in diff by someone known for other definitions that were sometimes redundant, sometimes unattested. - -sche (discuss) 19:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unothi

The Nguni languages (and perhaps most Bantu languages?) don't have a "numeral" part of speech. Instead, words for numbers are grammatically adjectives or nouns. Which one is this? —CodeCa t 22:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hee

Rfv-sense "(obsolete) me". The sense below it is the "obsolete spelling of he", which is trivial to cite, but I don't know where to look for evidence of this, if it was ever real. google books:"to hee" turns up nothing obvious in the first several pages of results. Added in diff. - -sche (discuss) 00:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a copy-pasting error, because the same user was editing mee at the same time. - -sche (discuss) 00:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

waltsome

The only citations I see are some editions of Chaucer (Middle English? or are there modernized printings that use this spelling?), and Mirror for Magistrates, which does appear to be modern English, at least: A Glossary of Tudor and Stuart Words mentions its use of this word and says it was "probably an intended improvement of ME wlatsom, in an imitation of Chaucer". - -sche (discuss) 00:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wlate

Does not seem to have survived past Middle English, which is a shame, since the sound is so expressive. The citations in the Dictionary of Medical Vocabulary in English, 1375–1550 are all from before 1500 (indeed, from before 1476), our cutoff for Middle vs Modern English. - -sche (discuss) 00:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC) - -sche (discuss) 00:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

flate

Seems to be Middle English only. The citations in the Dictionary of Medical Vocabulary in English, 1375–1550 are all from before 1500 (indeed, from before 1476), our cutoff for Middle vs Modern English. - -sche (discuss) 00:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wlat

Seems to be Middle English only. - -sche (discuss) 00:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

benim

Which senses are citeable as post-1500 modern English? Note to closer: the entry should be transferred to Middle English regardless of the outcome of this RFV. The question is what, if anything, should be in an English L2. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added some that are translations from Middle English (Chaucer) into Modern English, which keep benim Leasnam (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary to have 3 senses with overlapping meanings ? Can we not simply lump them all together (with their citations) under one sense meaning "to take away (from); deprive; rob" ? Leasnam (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sentema

Rfv-sense "without a subject". A valid construction, surely, but Google Books gives mostly the first sense. ReVo has only the first one. By the way, it might be interesting to categorize Esperanto words with multiple analyses, like aroganta.__Gamren (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mx. Granger, Lingo Bingo Dingo: Anything? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The ping didn't work—from what I understand, a new ping requires a whole new post, not just a new signature. Therefore, pinging User:Lingo Bingo Dingo again.

I looked on Tekstaro but could only find the other sense. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

刃形魚

It only gets 19 webhits, of which one is Wiktionary. Nibiko (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. google books:"刃形魚" "は" (adding the "は" to filter for Japanese) generates zero hits. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirikr, NibikoFrom http://www.zukan-bouz.com/nisin/etu.php "漢字◆漢字「刃形魚」。参考文献／『新釈　魚名考』（栄川省造　青銅企画出版）". A description of this book can be found here: http://www.onsenmaru.com/book/B-100/B-130-gyomeikou.htm 馬太阿房 (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirikr Does this count as an attestation? (Asaka-ku Chorus Group News letter): http://asahi-lirio.org/chorus/zatsu/zatsu83.pdf 馬太阿房 (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a mention, not a use ("this term is also spelled as `XXX`") -- and only uses are acceptable as attestation. One of the distinct challenges with Japanese and alternative spellings is verifiably nailing down when a given spelling is used in running text with a given reading. Finding a spelling isn't so bad; Google helps. Finding a spelling with a particular reading is much harder, and is often limited to those cases where 1) the reading is rare and readers are unlikely to know it, and 2) the author is kind enough to include the reading somewhere. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eirikr I see what you're saying. I only found one web site ( http://www.fish-food.co.jp/message141.html ) where 刃形魚 was called 別名, and I don't think that is correct based upon the following. At http://www.zukan-bouz.com/syu/エツ it says, "漢字「刃形魚」...由来・語源漢字は形から、音の意味、由来は不明" which is stated directly in reference to the headword エツ. Some of the web sites I found have "エツ（刃形魚）" which to me makes it look like 刃形魚 is the kanji spelling for えつ and they also provide an alternate name for the fish which is a transliterated Chinese word, フォンウェイイ which diretly relates to the Chinese Spelling (風尾魚), but neither フォンウェイイ or 風尾魚 are ever given in parenthesis next to the kana spelling エツ the way 刃形魚 is. One other web site, http://d.hatena.ne.jp/fishinfish2010/20120904/p1 has, "「斉魚／鱭（魚扁に齊）／刃形魚／比魚／鰽（魚偏に曹）／鮆（「紫」の糸の部分が魚）のエツ」" and this seems to be the most clearly defined usage that I can find, but other Japanese writers have clearly taken 刃形魚 to be a spelling of エツ. See the blog site http://maruk-skn.jugem.jp/?eid=92 where えつ appears as furigana next to 刃形魚.馬太阿房 (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC) By the way... a little about myself (which I may or may not put on my user page some day)... I am a Fisheries major with a minor degree in Food Science, and a major interest in Japanese language/culture, hence the interest in the various spellings of Japanese fish names. I find it facinating how fish like Etsu and so many seemingly insignificant little fish are so valued by the Japanese and I have had the pleasure of eating some of the dishes which use them. Note: If this entry is deleted it will then also need to be removed the other wiktionary pages where I have provided 刃形魚 as an alternate spelling (see えつ and 斉魚).馬太阿房 (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

𤇾

I'm pretty sure it's only used as a component of a character. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a variant of 𬊇 (U+2C287, ⿱炏乂): [70]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eminem

[Relocated from RFD.] This seems to just be an analogic usage and not a real word. —John C5 01:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about Citizen Kane and John Travolta? Siuenti (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Send to RFV; see what comes up. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"All words in all languages". What's to verify? "Citizen Cane" and "John Travolta" are not words. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But, of course, the definition is wrong. It is a proper noun identifying a single person. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entry isn't one big typo. It's clearly claiming that you can be "an Eminem", like an Einstein or a Sherlock Holmes. Equinox ◑ 19:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any citations to prove that it is further lexicalized beyond the analogic usage? —John C5 21:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now PapiDimmi has now added Eminems. I'd like to see a fair bit more proof, or I say both of these entries should be deleted. —John C5 01:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plural use on Forbes, the Evening Standard, MTV, the Worcester Telegram and Billboard seems all analogical to me as well. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

red piller

(manosphere) One who believes that society is gynocentric.

Nothing really clear in Books or Groups. Given that the red pill metaphor can be applied to any belief claimed to represent a reality suppressed by society, I'm not sure this should be so specifically defined, if it exists. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuck Entz: Sadly, it's real. This user is adding all the terms associated with that subculture, who are a very scummy set that luckily almost never take to the media that would qualify under CFI. I don't really want to look any harder at this stuff, but it's probably worth your time to check their other creations and bring them here. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I can cite fuckstrated and fuckstration, though neither gets more than a page of hits; perhaps they should be labelled rare and neologisms. Wikisaurus:incel needs to be moved to a better title if kept (when there are only a few entries, we tend to just like synonyms in the mainspace entries, don't we?). For one thing, I think we tend to prefer more common phrases as titles to rare words, even when the phrases are soppy (they are not mainspace entries, after all), cf. Wikisaurus:sports shoe, Wikisaurus:sports fan. For another, I think "incel" is used mainly by people with the POV that Meta alludes to. "Blue-baller" is probably citeable although the definition will need tweaking, pun possibly intended. "Thirsties" and "AWALT" should probably be RFVed. - -sche (discuss) 17:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cf. Talk:red pill. In books, I find "piller" mainly as a typo or scanno of "pillar", with "red piller" hence a red pillar; I don't find a Matrixy sense. (Checking "piller of" vs "pillar of" in an effort to only find that typo, I see it's about 1/600th as common as "pillar".) I see only two uses of "red piller" on Usenet, one of which seems to be a (greengrocer's pluralization of) a general sense, "Red piller's of course, those who don't. Most of us are caught somewhere in between full commitment toward 'reality', [and...]", and one that I can't make heads of tails of: "What I don't understand is the reference to Queen Elizabeth. Is it a veiled reference to red piller male boxes?" - -sche (discuss) 16:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely legit; see etymology at red pill (and I've more often seen these people self-described as redpills); the opposite (someone whose eyes have not been opened to THE TERRIBLENESS OF WOMEN!!!) is a blue pill, and I think there are also purple and black pills, but am not certain what those are. Needs to be marked as Internet slang at least. Cloudcuckoolander was good at citing this kind of stuff (from the obscurer durable sources like "Issuu" magazines). Equinox ◑ 19:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, one of User:Pass a Method's obsessions (other than Islam and US identity) was "incel", and I wonder whether he's back yet again. Equinox ◑ 19:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've slapped a couple of quotes from online media on it, but:

I haven't verified that these have all appeared in print;
the upper-case spelling "Red Piller" is more common in those quotes, which may be a reference to the subreddit instead.

Feel free to ping me if other quotes are needed. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

prolixs

This is a typo. We say prolixos. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 02:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oenophlygia

Drunkenness. I see one usage in Books, which is more of a mention (a character is checking the word in a dictionary). If it does manage to pass, please gloss appropriately (rare and perhaps humorous?) and add to Wikisaurus:drunkenness. Equinox ◑ 18:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it sure appears in a lot of dictionaries! Another one for the list of dictionary-only words? Kiwima (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

arithmosofia

No Google Books hits in English, and only one in non-English, which might well be a typo for aritmosofia. Equinox ◑ 19:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

petaampere

Cf #exaampere, above. I see two Google Scholar results which might be printed journals using(ish) the word in appendices of abbreviations. - -sche (discuss) 00:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed and converted to a no-entry, as is standard for unattested SI units. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yottacandela

The only example I can find is a kinda-mentiony instance in Dodds' Using SI Units in Astronomy when he's explaining various standard and nonstandard ways of writing a certain value. - -sche (discuss) 00:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed and converted to a no-entry, as is standard for unattested SI units. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

philtrum moustache

Wikipedia lists this as a synonym for this type of facial hair, but it's suspiciously lacking elsewhere. The phrase "a p~ m~" gets only four Google hits; there's nothing in Books. Equinox ◑ 02:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we can find enough citations, I would oppose this as SOP. Kiwima (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely all moustaches are philtrum moustaches, so it isn't a 'type of'. — Salt marsh. 05:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite all. Maybe 99%, judging from an image search Siuenti (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does everyone agree that the philtrum is the bit in the middle? Siuenti (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a little philtrum. Wherein my spilltrum flows. When I am feeling illtrum. And runny at the nose. (Willard Espy, I believe) Kiwima (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eew? - Amgine/^t·e 21:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A philtrum mustache is not any mustache that happens to cover the philtrum; it's a moustache only over the philtrum or only slightly wider than the philtrum, also known as a toothbrush mustache, a Hitler mustache, a Charlie Chaplin mustache, or an Oliver Hardy mustache. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

flounderish

Ety #2: resembling a flounder (fish). Equinox ◑ 22:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The cite Kiwima just added is already in the entry, under the other (floundering, struggling) sense, so need to establish which sense it really means. Equinox ◑ 23:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

illic and istic

For the inflection, as sometimes the templates in Wiktionary create incorrect forms.

Dictionaries seem not to mention a genitive or dative singular or most of the plural forms.
Allen and Greenough's grammar has only nom. sg., acc. sg., abl. sg. and neuter nom. and acc. pl., which might mean other forms are unattested.
Imman. Joh. Gerh. Scheller's grammar has similar forms as Allen and Greenough, without genitive and dative singular and without many plural forms too.
BTW: He mentions alternative forms with h for istic, as isthic, isthaec, isthoc which might be Medieval or New Latin alternative forms. L&S has "istic (not isthic), aec, oc, and uc" (bolding added).
T. Hewitt Key's grammar has illic with gen. illiusce (ilius + -ce), and dat. illic but as "D*. illic, illic, illic." with the note "* The dative illic is only used as an adverb.". In the plural he has different forms than Wiktionary. Wiktionary's plural of illic resembles the plural of ille, except of some neuter forms. Key's forms often resembles the plural of ille + -ce, with some exceptions. He has dat. and abl. of all genders illisce (illis + -ce), nom. illice (illi + -ce) / illaec / illaec, acc. illosce (illos + -ce) / illasce (illas + -ce) / illaec, gen. illorunc / illarunc / illorunc (-or- and -ar- as in -orum and -arum but with -unc from acc. sg. instead of -um?). In an addition he says, that to the forms ending with c an e might be added as illunce.
Some forms with -ce are also mentioned by others, e.g. by Allen and Greenough who give illiusce, isce as examples, but not as forms of illic.
Wiktionary's forms in the singular could be formed in analogy with hic, but that doesn't attest forms for illic and istic. In the plural many forms should come from bare ille/iste without the -ce or -c part, which doesn't attest forms for illic and istic too.

So it might be that Allen and Greenough and Scheller are correct. Forms of ille and iste are forms of illeand iste and not of illic and istic. Forms of ille with -ce could be mentioned in a usage note, as related terms or as see also in illic. -84.161.18.15 02:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

84.161.18.15 -- as far as I can tell, the templates are just applying the basic inflectional pattern for "hic" to these words (except the non-oblique neuter singular of illic is given as illuc instead of illoc). The most obviously fishy-looking one is illūc for neuter ablative, since the neuter is normally the same as the masculine in cases other than nominative, accusative, and vocative -- but I don't know what is and isn't actually attested in ancient texts for these words... AnonMoos (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That does better explain Wiktionary's forms, but doesn't change much:

illī as plural of illic looks like illī from ille.
many forms should be unattested, namely genitive and dative singular and most plural forms except the neuter forms illaec and istaec. An Allen & Greenough: archive.org/stream/allengreenoughsn00alleiala#page/66/mode/2up (p. 67) - which BTW has neuter abl. illōc and istōc.

-84.161.4.63 22:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then neuter ablative illūc on the illic page is most definitely an error. The others are merely extrapolations -- and such templates do a lot of extrapolating all the time (whenever there's some combination of verb person/number/tense/voice/mood or noun number/case or adjective gender/number/case which doesn't happen to be attested in ancient texts). AnonMoos (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case of nouns and verbs one often can 'extrapolate' forms, but even for that there are exceptions, and extrapolating forms of 'normal' nouns and verbs is different from extrapolating pronoun forms. In case of nouns and verbs, one can compare words: For example one can compare laudare and amare, so one can assume a form laudat if one finds amat. But what word could be used to compare it with illic and istic? illic and istic come from -ce - but hic? The c in hic might be related to -ce, but that doesn't mean that it's obviously related or that hic is considered to have -ce in it. As Allen and Greenough mention terms like "hûiusce" (hujus + ce) and "hunce", hic maybe wasn't seen to be formed as some term suffixed with -ce. Also illī is already the plural of ille and istī is already the plural of iste, while for hīc with plural hī there's no *he with plural *hī. So hic is different from illic and istic. -84.161.19.68 18:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

horkarl

Rfv-sense "male prostitute". ContraVentum cited it with section 216 of Skånske Lov, where it may as well mean the same as in Modern Danish. §215 begins with "hittær man annær man i siangu mæþ aþulkunu sinni . ok drepær bondæn horkarl i siangu...", which I interpret as "If (one)/(a man)(?) finds another man in bed with his (noble? lawfully wedded?) wife, and if the (peasant? farmer? husband?) kills the adulterer in the bed...". However, our def of adultery indicates that the person not involved in the marriage is not engaging in adultery, so maybe the translation needs to be changed.__Gamren (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

衺

Rfv-sense: Can't find this sense in any dictionary. Only found in the Unihan database. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

collusitate

Made-up word from Uncle Tom's Cabin, and says so. We don't allow such nonces any more, I believe. Compare the James Joyce "thunder words" that were deleted. Equinox ◑ 22:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fœcundity (fecundity), fœtus & foetus (fetus)

RFV for the "hypercorrect".
"hypercorrect" (cp. hypercorrect, Appendix:Glossary#H) seems to be wrong, because it's most likely not like some English-speaking people hypercorrectly and thus incorrectly changed e to œ or oe, but that œ or oe already appeared in Medieval or New Latin which lead to non-hypercorrect English spellings with œ or oe. While the spelling in Latin could sometimes be hypercorrect, it could also sometimes be simply erroneous, or sometimes simply be a medieval spelling.

{{R:L&S|fētus (foet-), ūs|fetus2}} has "fētus (foet-)" implying that foetus was or maybe is considered to be a rarer alternative classical Latin spelling.
{{R:du Cange|foecunditas}} has "fœcunditas" which could be Medieval Latin, and in New Latin texts one can find "foecunditas".

Maybe the etymology should be extended or corrected like English fœcundity from Medieval/New(?) Latin fœcunditas/foecunditas, from Latin fecunditas, but that's not a matter of RFV but should rather be a matter of RFC or RFE. -84.161.4.63 22:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

stlatus

Is this actually attested in Classical Latin? And if not, is it in Old Latin? —CodeCa t 00:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionaries state it's Old Latin, e.g. from L&S: "lātus, a, um, adj. old Lat. stlātus, Paul. ex Fest. p. 313". The edition at archive.org/stream/deverborumsignif00festuoft#page/454/mode/2up however has "Stlatta" for p. 313. So maybe it depens on edition, or maybe L&S reference is insufficient, cp. with stlata/stlatta where L&S has "stlāta, ae, f. 1. latus, q. v. init". -80.133.99.90 19:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On Google Books, all Latin-language books I found that contained the word were either mentioning it, or didn't really contain it but were the result of OCR software misinterpreting & lat-, strat-, etc. - -sche (discuss) 21:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recovered from abuse filter log:

Dictionaries state it's Old Latin, e.g. from L&S: "lātus, a, um, adj. old Lat. stlātus, Paul. ex Fest. p. 313".

The edition at archive.org/stream/deverborumsignif00festuoft#page/454/mode/2up however has "Stlatta" for p. 313: "Stlat-ta ..... latum mag ..... appellatum ..... consuetudin ..... tem antiqui ....." and "Stlatta genus navigii latum magis, quam altum, et a latitudine sic appellatum, sed ea consuetudine, qua stlocum pro locum et stlitem pro litem dicebant.". So maybe it depens on edition, or maybe L&S reference is insufficient, cp. with stlata/stlatta where L&S has "stlāta, ae, f. 1. latus, q. v. init".

The edition at archive.org/stream/deverborumsigni00fest#page/312/mode/2up has "Stlata": "Stlat-a genus erat navigii latum mag-is quam altum, sic appellatum a latitudine, sed ea consuetudin-e, qua stlocum pro locum, et stlitem antiq-ui pro litem dicebant."

The French translation at has remacle.org/bloodwolf/erudits/Festus/s.htm: "STLATA, sorte de navire plus large que profond, et ainsi appelé de sa largeur. On disait stlata par une modification semblable à celle que l'on trouve dans les mots stlocus pour locus et stlis pour lis."

Looks like Paul. ex Fest. doesn't use the word.

80.133.99.90

sophos, sophus

Most of the references have it as masculine only, which would mean that feminine sophē or sopha, neuter sophon and sophum either don't exist or are ML or NL. Furthermore: Wiktionary has it as adjective which can be used substantively, while most references have it as substantive which can be used adjectively. This could explain the lack of feminine and neuter forms. The "A new Latin-English school-lexicon" (Philadelphia, 1867) by G. R. Crooks and A. J. Schem exceptionally has "SŎPHOS, or SŎPHUS, a, um, adj. [= σοφός]. (Lat.) Wise (pure Latin, sapiens)".
Additional RFC matters for sophos:

The entry has feminine sopha in the header but feminine sophē in the declension table. This is contradicting.
It has the meaning "(substantive) A wise man, a sage." which lacks the gender of the substantive. Well, it's masculine and it might be quite obvious, but it's not mentioned.

-80.133.99.90 21:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twitler

Unclear if any sense is citeable per WT:ATTEST. At least one usable citation comes up on Google Books, but in lower case. I see some results in Google Groups, but they support neither of the given senses, instead referring to Donald Trump. I did not check Issuu. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From commentary I see, using the term to refer to Donald Trump would suport either of the given senses. Kiwima (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tutulemma

I find only mentions in CFI-compliant sources. Equinox ◑ 23:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dexterity

Sense "(role-playing games) Skill in using ranged weapons." I'm not deeply familiar with computer roleplaying games, but I am with tabletop ones and it feels like this is at best a misunderstanding of how the word is used. In D&D 3, yes, Dexterity affected how well you used ranged weapons, but that's far from the only thing it affected; it also affected Armor Class and attacks with melée weapons and Reflex checks, among other things. 1st Edition AD&D says "Dexterity encompasses a number of physical attributes including hand-eye coordination, agility, reflexes, precision, balance and speed of movement." Whatever the mechanical advantages, I suspect the basic meaning is sense #1.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah delete redundant, don't bother citing. Siuenti (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

bovulokarno, bovulo-karno

Ido, I've just had a look at attestations for bovulo and I doubt that these derivatives can make it. Simple Google searches don't give any uses, most results are spammy mirrors. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

進道

Japanese surname. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find anything clear, and it's not listed at w:Shindō (surname) either. RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nerislav

An IP triggered an abuse filter trying to redirect this to Berislav. Their stated reason was that it's a common typo for that name, but I don't see enough usage in Serbo-Croation to pass CFI, and I see zero English usage, so I think it would be better to see if we can delete it as nonexistent so we don't have to figure out how to tell if it's a misspelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are already entries for misspellings as appilation, tripple, and categories for misspellings do also exist: Category:Misspellings by language. So it could be easy "to figure out how to tell if it's a misspelling". Are greater problem could be how to determine that it is a "Common accidental misspellings" (that's the text in the language specific misspelling categories). -84.161.56.85 21:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

bumpy bits

(Woman's) breasts. Searched for "her bumpy bits" and found other (probably SoP) things (e.g. Kim Kardashian loves her bumpy bits: "I have cellulite, so what!"), not breasts. Equinox ◑ 10:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After an extensive search on Google Books, I found only one quote that uses "bumpy bits" to refer to a woman's breasts: a translation of Aristophanes' Wasps. Most quotes are simply SOP, but there are enough quotes if someone wanted to make an argument for the metaphoric use meaning "difficult times" - personally, I would still consider that SOP. Kiwima (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

meecrob

Alt form of mi krop, Thai crispy noodles. Equinox ◑ 14:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ungroundable

"Unable to be grounded (kept in as a punishment)." Only in South Park? Equinox ◑ 18:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you ground that which is ungroundable? --Wiki Tiki 89 18:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It could have an electrical sense too. Is that attestable? —CodeCa t 18:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what I can find, while it may be an independent use, refers to the South Park episode. I found one quote that did not refer to the South Park episode:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

Perhaps a third could be found on Google groups? Kiwima (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unkonventionelle Spreng- und Brandvorrichtung

The German Wiktionarians decided to delete this vocablon. Perhaps we should too. --G23r0f0i (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If attested and not SOP, it should be moved to unkonventionelle Spreng- und Brandvorrichtung. There's no reason for the u to be capitalized. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a reason to have it as Unkonventionelle Spreng- und Brandvorrichtung, namely attestation (WT:ATTEST). One can indeed find it with a capital u (that is inside of sentences, not just at the beginning), but I don't know if it is attestable for en.wt which requires three durably archived German sources.
Maybe also compare German Schwarzes Brett (which is not necessarily schwarz in the sense of black or illegal) → 1996 reformed (§ 63 & § 64) schwarzes Brett → 2004 rereformed still only schwarzes Brett or already schwarzes or Schwarzes Brett (?) → 2006 rerereformed schwarzes or Schwarzes Brett. -84.161.56.85 20:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dict.cc has the same entry, but with a small "u", and the abbreviation USBV. DonnanZ (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entry has been moved, and there is an entry for improvised explosive device, so providing it's correct this can be kept. DonnanZ (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pleasurable

The second (undefined) meaning - Is this clearly distinct from the first? If so, can we find more quotes that make the distinction clear? Kiwima (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blotto has now defined it as "that can be pleasured", but I don't think that's likely to be right. (Sounds a bit risqué for the 1723 citation!) See also the curious Ben Jonson use of this word at Talk:pleasurable. What are we missing? Equinox ◑ 18:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you find curious about these citations that they don't fit with the first sense? DTLHS (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People aren't described as pleasurable in modern English. Even foods aren't. Only, I think, experiences and feelings. Equinox ◑ 11:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. I have added a quote about pleasurable food to the first entry. Kiwima (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

女仔

Rfv-sense: alt spelling of 女子. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ergophilia

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added two quotes to the entry itself, albeit one surrounds the word in quotation marks. In addition, I added two more cites to the citations page (one where the quote was cut off and one which was a byline). Kiwima (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vantucky

Radio slang isn't often attestable... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a number of cites, although some of them are rather mention-y. Kiwima (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. RFV passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

chaverim

What even is this? All I see is codeswitching and maybe Chaverim, but not what supports an entry like this. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One use not italicized: [71], two uses italicized: [72], [73]. However, it looks like it has a more specialized meaning than just "friends", but I can't quite tell what. Perhaps "member of a Jewish society or organization" (chevra)? Also, I notice that all three books I linked to above do use the singular chaver as well, so the bit about chaverim being plural only in English isn't true. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, even italicized/codeswitching uses may be worth keeping since Hebrew isn't written in the Latin alphabet. If someone is reading an English-language book with Spanish-speaking characters and one character calls another mijito, the reader can find the Spanish entry here even without an English entry. But if an English-language book has Hebrew-speaking characters one character addresses his friends as chaverim, the reader wouldn't find it here unless we had an English entry for it, because the Hebrew word is written in a different alphabet. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Made into a regular plural form entry and RFV passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hic et nunc

This is a deleted entry. Apparently it failed RFV in 2007, but nobody participated in the discussion (Talk:hic et nunc).

It can be re-created as an "English" entry for a Latin phrase, like quod erat demonstrandum, right? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand our criteria correctly, "English" entries for Latin phrases depend largely on how integrated the phrase is into the English. There are certainly no lack of examples where hic et nunc appears in English texts, but in most cases it is either quoted or italicized, indicating presumably that the author considered it Latin rather than English. However, I have found a number of cases where the phrase is not italicized or in quotes - especially when used as an adverb rather than as a noun:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

I also found one use as an adjective that did not use quotes or italics:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

And even one use as a noun:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

I notice that most of these examples were published after 2007, when the phrase failed RFV, for what that's worth. Kiwima (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I restored the entry, updated the layout and copied your quotes there. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

negotious

It has only one sense. Apparently it should be split into two senses, assuming both pass RFV.

Engaged in negotiation; Occupied with a conversation.

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have split it into not two, but three senses (two of them obsolete), based on the citations I can find (and the old dictionary entries I found). Kiwima (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tir-kesto

Ido. This spelling appears in a lot of dictionaries, but I can only find uses of the other spelling. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

trip out

"To have as an image in one's mind." Equinox ◑ 13:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure it is what Jackofclubs intended, but I have added a number of quotes that I think represent what this is getting at. I also added some missing senses. Kiwima (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

摸摸具和

RFV of this specific kanji spelling. No Google Books, Aozora Bunko, or National Diet Library website Google hits, and doesn't appear in other online dictionaries. —suzukaze (t・c) 07:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly enough, I have easily found three attestations : [74], [75], [76]. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So a search for the expanded spelling brings up tons of unreliable sources and a search for the abbreviated spelling brings up a decent handful of printed sources... Should the entry be moved to 摸々具和? —suzukaze (t・c)

Personally, I think it makes the most sense to leave it the way it is mainly because to have 々 in the kanji table with a reading under it wouldn't make much sense, since it just means to use the same reading as that of the first kanji. 馬太阿房 (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The kanji table shouldn't be a concern; see 蝶々 for example. —suzukaze (t・c) 04:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the three sources say it is read モモングヮ, old pronunciation of モモンガ. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

nivofloko

Ido, nothing on Google Books, very little on Google Search. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ехать

Rfv-sense "to come, to visit". Never heard of it, and not in the few dictionaries I checked. Perhaps whoever added this confused it with прие́хать (prijéxatʹ)? --Wiki Tiki 89 15:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can use imperative forms colloquially:

"езжа́йте к нам" as "visit us", "поезжа́йте к ним" as "visit them", does it count? d1g (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't see why that isn't covered by the other senses. It doesn't specifically mean "visit". --Wiki Tiki 89 16:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

autostop

Hitchhiking. DTLHS (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can find support for its use in English, but only for a specific form of hitchhiking that uses coupons to pay drivers. I have altered the definition and cited this. Kiwima (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a genericized trademark? DTLHS (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say - the programme (instituted by the government) was dubbed autostop, but then, that is the word for hitchhiking in may European countries. Kiwima (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sheer-lhaider

Manx. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's attestable it's probably under the spelling sheer-lhaihder, cf. lhaihder (“reader”). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Embryomystic: Do you remember where you found this? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of his protologisms, then. RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dorkface

"A foolish or unattractive facial expression." One inadmissible citation from Reddit. Equinox ◑ 14:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can find another inadmissible one on Tumblr. Kiwima (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

þeodisc

Rfv-sense: language. Is this really used synonymously with spræc? —CodeCa t 18:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please see the second entry here [[77]] Leasnam (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Could it perhaps have meant "vernacular language" in first instance? —CodeCa t 20:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Etymologically one might think so, since the root of the noun is literally "of the people", but unfortunately we don't have a record (afaict) of that usage. I have added the snippet of that passage to the entry Leasnam (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

поплавок

see second def d1g (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wanjuscha, Atitarev, can you cite this? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sense is used in some dictionaries and also as a name (capitalised) of restaurants, cafés on water but I can't find a real usage example. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

vyhodíte ho dveřmi, vrátí se oknem

@User:Jan.Kamenicek: Do you know of any attesting quotations for the phrase, that is, quotations meeting WT:ATTEST? I cannot find any. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Dan Polansky: Here are some: [78]. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I wonder whether these are "permanently recorded media"; they are neither from Google Books or printed media, nor from Usenet. They are from online periodicals such as tyden.cz. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hear the proverb often and so I did not really think somebody might feel it needs verification. I believe the above mentioned periodicals are OK. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Anyway, here are some printed quotations from Google Books that come close to the phrase:

Blaník by Smoljak, Svěrák, 2001: Podle něho tu zřejmě zapůsobila letitá zkušenost pregnantně vyjádřená příslovím „Vyhodíš-li ho dveřmi, vrátí se ti oknem."
Královský nach tě neochrání by Vaňková, 2003: Darmo by vypukly spory. A Habsburk je dotěra. Vyhodíš ho dveřmi, vleze ti oknem.
Démon z jiného světa: Pátrání po tajemství Adolfa Hitlera by Duffack, Jensen (I am too lazy to find the translator), 1997: Mohli bychom ho charakterizovat slovy „vyhodíte ho dveřmi a vleze zpět oknem!"
title:Jurist, Volume 146, Issues 7-12, 2007: Vyhodíte ho dveřmi a vrátí se oknem. Jestliže je naše běžné chápání charakterových rysů jen iluze, pak je to iluze neobyčejně hluboce zakořeněná a dokonale rezistentní proti jakýmkoli „lékům" z laboratoře Racionalita.
Projevy a stati by Antonín Novotný, 1964: Situace je taková, že ho z jednoho místa vyhodíme a on vleze jinam. Jak se říká, vyhodíme ho dveřmi a on leze oknem.
Odvrácená tvář moci: zločiny českých králů by Antonín Polách, 2008: Prostě vyhodíte-li ho dveřmi, vrátí se vám oknem. A defenestraci, abychom trochu parafrázovali Járu Cimrmana, měly Cechy vynalézt až o více než dvě stě let později.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viber

Does it fulfil our criteria for inclusion? I'm not all that convinced. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

nero / Latin

Seems to be a misspelling of Nero. -84.161.56.85 19:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In which language do you think it is a misspelling? In Finnish it isn't [79]. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the edit log. The anon contributor has tagged the Latin section. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

彈頭

Rfv-sense: bullet. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

beachside

beachside, the adjective only. attributive ? Leasnam (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

found only one hit for "very beachside" btw Leasnam (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added that one hit, plus two other quotes that look like adjectival use to me ("If you'd rather be beachside..." and "the priciest are beachside). Kiwima (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same applies to many other entries, e.g. beachfront, woodland, country. Do other dictionaries treat these as adjectives? Equinox ◑ 18:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dictionary.com has country, woodland, beachfront and beachside as adjectives (examples there: "a winding country road", "country manners"; "a woodland nymph"; "beachfront property"; "a beachside hotel"). -80.133.119.108 01:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"If you'd rather be beachside..." --this almost feels like an adverb to me. Is it ? Leasnam (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's normally attributive use of the noun rather than an adjective, so I suggest scrapping the adjective entry. DonnanZ (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At best I've added a rare label to it Leasnam (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

werdbar

Really? Nothing obvious in a quick Google search. Not on de.wiktionary. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be very rare, about as rare as its English gloss, but there are a few hits on Google Books, most of which are in scare quotes. You can find a few more usages by searching for inflected forms like werdbare and werdbaren. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

becomable failed RFV in 2011, by the way. Equinox ◑ 17:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ᎫᏇ ᏗᎦᎾᏌᎢ

Cherokee for guinea fowl. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's good. —Stephen ^(Talk) 21:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. RFV passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

graveyard

Rfv-sense ばかFumiko￥^talk 03:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sideboard

Is this a universal terms used in all CCGs? ばかFumiko￥^talk 03:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

library

Is this a universal terms used in all CCGs? ばかFumiko￥^talk 03:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of the four citations currently in the entry, two (the two from 2010) are mentions, so we still need one more citation to keep the entry. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from the Criteria for inclusion: "This filters out appearance in raw word lists, commentary on the form of a word, such as “The word ‘foo’ has three letters,” lone definitions, and made-up examples of how a word might be used. For example, an appearance in someone’s online dictionary is suggestive, but it does not show the word actually used to convey meaning. On the other hand, a sentence like “They raised the jib (a small sail forward of the mainsail) in order to get the most out of the light wind,” appearing in an account of a sailboat race, would be fine." By this statement, I would consider those mentions as supportive of the use. However, if it makes you happy, I have added another quote that is not at all mention-y. Kiwima (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The new quote looks good to me, thanks. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

mill

Rfv-sense ばかFumiko￥^talk 03:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wrath

Rfv-sense ばかFumiko￥^talk 03:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

bewerkingsoorlog

Dutch. Nothing on Google Books, only one result on Google News. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hür yazılım

hür yazılım is not used in Turkish as Synonym of özgür yazılım (free software), the user is trying to force the word hür in here and in the Turkish wikipedia.--Paseyn (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have moved this from RFD. We have had a long-running conflict between Turkish language purists and the interests of Wiktionary, but in this case, I believe that hür is the "less pure" form (being Arabic, rather than Turkic), so I will not necessarily assume that Paseyn, who just started editing here, is a purist.

As for the relevant evidence, I see no hits in BGC for this term in the lemma form and more than enough for özgür yazılım. If it fails RFV, please be sure to delete the inflected forms that were created as well. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sae1962 has added a citation, and removed the RFV tag. I'm not sure if they know how RFV works; you don't self-pass RFVs, you have to let others check the citations first. Also, Turkish is a WT:WDL so three citations are called for. —CodeCa t 22:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've already told that User:Sae1962's only reason to add the word is vandalism, User:Sae1962's submitted references use Wiktionary. The user is trying to force this and other Arabic words, one may check Açık Kaynak and the user's other contributions in Turkish wiki, almost all of them are replacing modern, popular Turkish words with old and unused Arabic words and there is an ongoing discussion about the user in Turkish wiki's complaint page.--Paseyn (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two uses of this word outside of dictionaries. The references section shows that this seldom form is registered already. The discussion in the Turkish Wiktionary is a positive discussion about usage of synonyms and is still ongoing.--Sae1962 (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sae1962, we have had long-running problems with your entries in multiple languages, not just Turkish. Please read WT:ATTEST; none of the citations you have added are relevant to this RFV. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think 'hür yazılım' is OK, because özgür is an adjactive which was derived by analogy with hür. You may see there are some other usages such as serbest yazılım, too. --88.251.227.42 14:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

windfucker

On the talk page, someone has claimed that this is a misinterpretation of "windſucker" and should thus have a definition at windsucker rather than the current page. Note that if this fails, the link in the etymology for windhover will have to be changed. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some books have cited earlier sources that use the word, but it's possible they have been misread and thus not quoted faithfully. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does the OED reference say? DTLHS (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. ‘Windfucker’ is clearly in use in the 16th and 17th centuries in many well respected sources – Chapman, Nashe, Rowley, Ben Jonson, etc etc. Ƿidsiþ 05:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to an example of an original text that uses it (not quoted in a secondary work)? DTLHS (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a subscription to Oxford Scholarly Editions Online, you can see the Jonson example here. Ƿidsiþ 06:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what sense of fucker is this? DTLHS (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few works suggest that it preserves an old meaning of (the predecessors of) fuck which is also found in some of the cognate terms that entry lists, namely "beat, strike". - -sche (discuss) 05:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be evidence of use for both terms. For every quote (but one, from a work written in 2008) that uses windfucker, I can find another source that uses windsucker for the same quote. I haven't found any sources old enough to see which spelling is included in the originals, but clearly both entries deserve a definition - the question is which is the alternative form? Most of the "windsucker" quotes I find date to the 1800s, while the "windfucker" quotes tend to be in more modern works. Kiwima (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of the five quotations in the entry, 1599 and 1611 may actually be using "windsucker" (the form that appears in some versions), in which case "windfucker" is presumably a scanno or error made by someone unfamiliar with long s; 1956 is quoting 1611; 1965 was originally published in 1596 and is by the same author as 1599, Thomas Nashe; and 2008 seems to be using the form "windfucker", though I'm not sure what it means. Widsith also pointed out a Ben Jonson quote. So I think we have four independent citations, of one form or the other (Nashe, 1611, Jonson, and 2008). Here is a 1745 version of one of the Nashe quotes, the earliest version I can find, which looks like it uses a long s. Here is the 1611 Chapman quote, apparently its original version, which seems to be using an f. And here is the Jonson quote, which looks like it uses a long s. The 2008 quote is surely using an f. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for Nashe I can find many versions with "s" but also a few with "f"; until we find the original, it's hard to know which is the error. Frederick David Clandfield's 1981 Books and Readers, 1616 agrees with your finding that Chapman uses "f" (but has sometimes been misquoted as "s"), so Chapman is a good citation of the spelling with "f". The edition of Jonson you link above definitely says "hear ſuch a Wind-ſucker" with a long "s" and a hyphen, so Jonson does not seem to be a good citation of this spelling, and Alex Horne's Wordwatching opines that Jonson is using sense 2 (the term of abuse), anyway. I agree/can independently confirm that the 2008 quote from Akhtar is using "f". We need one more citation that clearly uses "f". Then we could try to suss out which spelling is original... - -sche (discuss) 05:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Come on – there are no "windsucker" citations before the 19th century – surely it's clear that they are a result of later editors' prudishness. "Windfucker", with an F, is cited in the OED and the evidence has been examined and discussed by lexicographers for a long long time. Along with pissabed or arsesmart, it's a classic example of the way "swearwords" were once more common in natural daily vocabulary. Ƿidsiþ 11:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the "windsucker" citations I linked were published before the 19th century. The edition of Jonson I linked was printed in 1692, and the edition of Nashe I linked was printed in 1745. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, I didn't see those links. I agree that the Jonson, at least, looks like a long s in that edition. Ƿidsiþ 17:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Resolved. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unstriking. Unless I'm missing something, we need one more citation in order to keep this, as -sche said. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If windsucker is treated as a mere alternative form of windfucker and thus essentially the same word, then all quotations with the form windsucker are valid for windfucker as well. However, I noticed that -sche has just removed those from the entry. Is it suggested that we should treat windsucker as a synonym rather than as an alternative form, thus requiring another citation? — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, we've always required each spelling to have its own citations, even in cases of clear alternative spellings (compare Talk:gaplapper), and that seems even more prudent in this case where it seems likely than one spelling or the other was originally a typo for the other. (We could combine the two rather disparate definitions into a disjointed Frankendefinition which would have the three cites already in the entry, but it would be better to find a third cite, and it actually shouldn't be that difficult, if we allow editions of works that have windfucker even where earlier editions have windsucker.) It's tricky to say whether either entry should be called an alt form or synonym of the other; perhaps the best thing is to move the second half (basically) of the etymology to a usage note, which could either be templatized and placed in both entries, or placed in one entry with a pointer from the other. - -sche (discuss) 17:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pooling citations of alternative forms is a perennial source of disagreement here at RFV. Talk:gaplapper was closed by -sche as RFV failed, whereas Talk:gutbread was closed by Smuconlaw as RFV passed, even though they apparently had pretty similar sets of quotations. But in both of those cases, the alternative forms in question were very close to each other, the difference being a space vs. a hyphen vs. nothing. In this situation, the difference between windfucker and windsucker is significant, even implying a difference in pronunciation. So while I don't have a strong opinion about whether or not to combine quotations for alt forms like gaplapper/gap-lapper, I don't think we should combine them for windsucker/windfucker. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more RFV discussions where pooling citations was discussed: Talk:skinnymalinky, Talk:tewit, Talk:witenagemot. My impression is that, like -sche said, our usual practice is not to pool them. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few more quotations to windfucker and one to windsucker. See if you think that they suffice – two are from old dictionaries but are in the definitions rather than the headword, so I feel they don't count as mere mentions. I am also leaning towards treating windfucker and windsucker as synonyms, rather than regarding windsucker as an alternative form of windfucker given the rather different spelling and thus pronunciation. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Do you think the word is too inadvertently rude to feature as a Word of the Day? — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of the five quotations for this sense currently in the article, I think all but 1991 are uses (though 1648 might be debatable). But they're of three different spellings, so unless we pool citations for windfucker and windefucker (or windfucker and winde-fucker), we still need another citation.

Re WOTD: Yes, I think it violates the "No offensive words" bullet point at WT:WOTDN, as well as the last bullet point, which says to avoid "words whose definitions are only obsolete, archaic, rare or similar". —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced by the argument that each variant spelling needs to be separately verified with at least three citations. This is difficult to achieve for archaic words, and doesn't seem to adequately account for the fact that there was less consistency in spelling in the past. If there isn't already a policy on this, perhaps we should have a full discussion on the matter. Concerning the word at hand, I would treat windfucker and windsucker as different words which are synonyms given the fairly different spelling, but wind-fucker, windefucker and winde-fucker as mere variant spellings of windfucker. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, I think we have at least three citations for the spelling windfucker for sense 1 (1611, 1991 and 2008) and sense 2 (1980, 1987 and 2016). Can we treat this matter as resolved? — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one more citation to the citations page, which is a clearer use than "the days when the [...] windhover could be called the windfucker", so both senses are adequately cited now, thanks mainly to your excellent efforts to find citations, and Mx Granger's efforts to track down the originals of some of the early citations. :) - -sche (discuss) 18:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche: hmmm, regarding the 1991 Udall transcription of The Birth of Merlin, an 1869 edition rendered it windsucker (q.v.). — SMUconlaw (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there are a number of copies where it's impossible to tell whether the letter in question is an f or a long s, but at least one (shown here) has a clearly visible crossbar, thus proving the original to have the f spelling. It's not surprising that an editor in Victorian England would choose the less vulgar of the two possible readings if their original was ambiguous, even if the context suggested otherwise. And indeed, this would seem to be a very broad double entendre meant for laughs. The character's sister has just given birth to a fully-grown adult child (with a beard!) out of wedlock, and the father is literally the Devil. This line comes as the character is faced with having to explain this to the others. The whole point of the joke depends on an innocent word for a type of hawk sounding like a word referring to a sexual act. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. I've added the 1662 reference to the entry; this is actually the first published edition of the work. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like this is resolved. Regarding pooling citations: I think it's not a problem when the pronunciation would be the same, simply due to the fact that it's often the only way of documenting words that were spoken, but rarely written, and for attesting archaic words with no standard spelling. It would be a shame if every spelling absolutely had to be attested. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of information, regarding whether or not there is a need to pool citations: the number of words which have more than one spelling without any one spelling managing to have 3 citations (but with all of them taken together having 3+ citations) is exceedingly small. The only words I recall being in such a situation are gap-lapper and gyneconome, both of which actually have 3+ citations and were able to be restored in at least one spelling within one year of initially failing RFV, because Google digitized enough additional books over the course of that year that it became possible to find enough citations of at least one spelling, and gutbread, which was passed over objections and which I suspect (hope) is in the same position of having become thrice-attested in at least one spelling by now, at which point the unattested spellings could be made {{only in}} redirects. There was also some discussion of Judenlaim, a variant spelling of Judenleim which lacks three citations, but in that case the spelling Judenleim always had enough citations. - -sche (discuss) 18:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

feliniforme

Rfv-sense Italian noun. An Italian adjective may exist, but I am unsure if enough cites exist for it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Römertopf or römertopf

Is either of these attested in English? Wikipedia's Clay pot cooking describes the process rather than the cookware, and puts Römertopf in italics, suggesting it's just citing the German word for it. If it's not attested, what should go in the definition for Dutch römertopf? —CodeCa t 19:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My mother used to have one of these that she referred to as a "Römertopf". —John C5 19:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. - -sche (discuss) 19:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Compounds with quis

quisquam

For the feminine quaequam and the plural.
Dictionaries and also some grammars are a bit vague about the declension and usage of compounds with qui and quis.

Some dictionaries mention quaequam, but as far as I saw without cite, and as far as I saw dictionaries don't mention a plural. However, dictionaries mention that quisquam is used for the feminine (in "Plaut." and "Ter."), and BTW they mention that quīvīs is also an ablative of quīvīs (in "Ter.").
One dictionary had an example with "quaequam lab. qualitas, Cael. Aur." under the word labilis. However, in Caelius Aurelianus' text it is "aut cujusquam labilis qualitatis" (or "aut cuiusquam labilis qualitatis") and the dictionary should have changed the case from genitive to nominative (which BTW is done not rarely).
Maybe note that the conjunction quamquam which looks like a feminine accusative is an own word.
Maybe also note that Wiktionary's table has feminine quaequam with ablative quōquam and not *quāquam. Maybe also compare with Wiktionary's quispiam where the adjectival feminine is quaepiam with ablative quāpiam while the substantival feminine is quispiam with ablative quōpiam.
Allen & Greenough state this: "The indefinite pronouns quispiam, some, any, and quisquam, any at all, are used both as substantives and as adjectives. [...] Quisquam is both masculine and feminine; the neuter is quidquam (quicquam), substantive only; there is no plural."
Friedrich Neue, Formenlehre der Lateinischen Sprache, 2nd part, 2nd edition, Berlin, 1875, p. 241-246: "Das Neutrum von quicumque ist überall quodcumque, welches gleich dem einfachen Pronomen relat. quod auch substantivisch gebraucht wird. Zu quisquam und quisquis ist nur das Neutr. quicquam oder quidquam und quicquid oder quidquid nachzuweisen, wiewohl Diom. 1 S. 321 ein quodquam und Mar. Victor. 1 S. 2460 neben quicquam und quicquid ein quocquod aufführt. [...] Quicquam facinus hat Plaut. Men. 3, 1, 2 und Merc. 1, 2, 43; suum quidquid genus talearum Cato R. R. 48, 1, quidquid solamen humandi est Verg. Aen. 10, 493, und quidquid est nomen Plaut. bei Serv. [...] Die übrigen oben angeführten Composita haben doppelte Form des Neutrum, mit quid substantivisch, mit quod adjectivisch. [....] Quivis und quisquam gestatten den Ablat. Sing. quivis und quiquam, vergl. über den Ablat. qui und aliqui unter 36 und 41. [...] Auch quisquam dient als Femin. [...] Nicht allein auf weibliche Personen wird quisquam angewandt, sondern auch [...]. Quisquam hat keinen Plur. [...] Quisquam steht gern substantivisch. Doch auch si cuiquam generi hominum und si cuiquam ordini Cic. Verr. Acc. 2, 6, 17, cuiquam legationi Fam. 3, 10, 6 [...] cuiusquam rei Quintil. 10, 2, 6, a quoquam incepto Suet. Cäs. 59." — i.e.: [shortend and paraphrased: quodcumque is also used substantivally.] For quisquam and quisquis only the neuter quicquam or quidquam and quicquid or quidquid are attestable, although Diom. has a quodquam and Marc. Victor. besdes quicquam and quicquid a quocquod. [...] [cites, see the quote]. [...] The other above mentioned compounds have a double form for the neuter, with quid substantivally, with quod adjectivally. [....] Quivis and quisquam can have the ablative singular quivis and quiquam, compare about the ablative qui and aliqui under 36 and 41. [cites.] [...] Quisquam serves as feminine too. [Mentioning that old grammarians declined this word through all genders and numers.] [Cites.] Quisquam is not only used for female persons, but also [cites which show quisquam used with or in reference of things]. [...] Quisquam has no plural. [...] [Mentioning of an old incorrect reading with *quibusquam which is quibusdam.] Quisquam is often used substantivally. But also [cites with adjectival use, for some cites see the quote].
Mentionings in grammars don't attest words. The mentionings can be mentioned, but in usage notes and not in the declension table. An old misreading maybe could be mentioned too, but shouldn't attest anything and should belong into a usage note and not the declension table.
The masculine and feminine is used both substantivally and adjectivally.
Plautus uses quisquam adjectivally for the feminine: "quod neque ego habeo neque quisquam alia mulier, ut perhibent viri" (Plaut. Cist.; LCL: "A mind is something I haven't got, or any other women, either, according to the men").
The neuter dative, any maybe also the genitive or ablative, is used adjectivally too, compare with the examples in F. Neue: "Quisquam steht gern substantivisch [= Quisquam is often used substantivally]. Doch auch [= But also] si cuiquam [dat.] generi [dat. of the neuter genus] hominum [gen. pl. of homo] und [= and] si cuiquam [dat.] ordini [dat. of the masculine ordo] Cic. Verr. Acc. 2, 6, 17, cuiquam [dat.] legationi [dat. of the feminine legatio] Fam. 3, 10, 6 [...] cuiusquam [gen.] rei [gen. of the feminine res] Quintil. 10, 2, 6, a quoquam [abl.] incepto [abl. of the neuter inceptum(?)] Suet. Cäs. 59.". Even an adjectivally used quidquam or quicquam seems to be attested although Allen & Greenough do not mention it and the adjectivally used cuiquam could also belong to an unattested (or New Latin) *quodquam. Besides F. Neue's examples an older grammar stated that Plautus used quicquam adjectivally (in "numquam/Numquam quicquam facinus feci peius/pejus neque scelestius" in Menaechmi III. LCL has "Plus triginta annis natus sum, quom interea loci, | numquam quicquam facinus feci peius neque scelestius, | quam hodie, quom in contionem mediam me immersi miser." with "More than thirty years I've lived, and never in all that time have I done a worse or more accursed deed than to-day when I immersed myself, poor fool, in the middle of that public meeting." Well, in this English translation a word like any does not appear, but that doesn't say anything about the Latin text.
The ablative quīquam seems to be used substantivally in Plautus: "ne a quoquam acciperes alio mercedem annuam, nisi ab sese, nec cum quiquam limares caput" (Plaut. Bacch. at Non.; LCL: "Not to let you take a yearly fee from anyone else but him, or rub heads with anyone"). F. Neue also has examples with adjectival use. So it should be a form of both the substantival and the adjectival pronoun. The ablative quīvīs however could, by attestion, be restricted to the adjectival pronoun.
Doubtful forms, below in the summary table mentioned in []:
- Dictionaries mention a masculine nominative quiquam.
  "old form QVIQVAM, S. C. Bacch." or "QVIQVAM, S. C. de Bacch." This should be senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus. www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lsante02/Bacchanalia/bac_orig.html once has "QVI[S]QVAM", and w:en:Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus has "QVISQVAM" (under "Text") or "qui[s]quam" (under "Transliteration into classical Latin"). As the text often has "QVISQVAM" or "quisquam", the single "QVI[S]QVAM" or "qui[s]quam" might look like an error.
  "quīquam = quisquam, Verg. georg. 4, 447.". www.thelatinlibrary.com/vergil/geo4.shtml and the text at perseus.tufts.edu have "Scis, Proteu, scis ipse; neque est te fallere quicquam sed tu desine velle." there; latin.packhum.org/loc/690/2/0#3 has "scis, Proteu, scis ipse, neque est te fallere quicquam:".
  So this form seems to be doubtful. With *quaequam the form *quiquam would make some sense, but as *quaequam seems to be less correct, *quiquam too seems to be less correct.
- Older grammars have quenquam besides quemquam, and the form with n can also be found in New Latin texts and older editions of ancient authors. Maybe it's a ML or NL mistake like isthic for istic? For the conjunction quamquam dictionaries mention the form quanquam too and refer to the conjunction quamquam, where sometimes the form with n is mentioned too and sometimes not.
- The adjectival neuter nominative quodquam/quocquam is mentioned in some older grammars.
- The nominative *quaequam is mentioned in dictionaries and older grammars. Older grammars also mention the ablative *quāquam, and sometimes but sometimes not the accusative *quamquam (there is a conjunction of the same form: quamquam) or *quanquam (which might also be an alternative form for the conjunction).
  F. Neue has an example with feminine quemquam, but the noun was corrected, so maybe one could argue that quemquam has to be corrected too. One grammar gave the accusative quamquam with reference "Plaut. Mil. IV, 2, 68", which is also F. Neue's example, and he writes: "und quemquam porcellam Mil. 4, 2, 68 (im vet., decurt. und Vat. des Plaut. proculem, in den Hdschr. [= in the manuscripts] des Prisc. 5, 3, 13 S. 645 proculenam und porculaenam, porcellam ist eine Verbesserung [= is a correction] von Reiz)."
  After looking into more older grammars, it seems that if a grammar mentions quaequam or quamquam and if it gives a reference for it, it is Plautus' Miles gloriosus IV. As some editions have quemquam and as F. Neue mentions various forms of the substantive, it's a doubtful passage. As ATM this seems to be the only cite for the feminine quaequam, quamquam, quaquam, and as the feminine quisquam is attested, and as the substantival quidquam (quicquam) is used adjectivally too, it seems to be more likely that quemquam is the correct word.
With the adjectival forms feminine quisquam and doubtful quemquam and neuter quicquam, it looks like the adjectival pronoun is declined like the substantival pronoun. As Plautus is the common reference, it might however be the Old Latin declension. As dictionaries and older grammar mention forms like quaequam, quamquam, quāquam and quodquam/quocquam, these forms could exist in Medieval or New Latin, but would require a label or qualifier.

So it looks like quisquam is thus declined:

	substantivally		adjectivally
	sg.		sg.
	m./f.	n.	m.	f.	n.
nom.	quisquam	quidquam/quicquam	quisquam	quisquam / [quaequam]	quicquam / [quodquam/quocquam]
gen.	cujusquam (cuiusquam, or cûiusquam by Allen's and Greenough's notation instead of a misleading cūiusquam to denote the "consonant i")		cujusquam (cuiusquam etc.)
dat.	cuiquam		cuiquam
acc.	quemquam [quenquam]	quidquam/quicquam	quemquam [quenquam]	[quemquam / quamquam] [ [quenquam] / [quanquam] ]	quicquam / [quodquam/quocquam]
abl.	quōquam also quīquam	quōquam	quōquam also quīquam	[quōquam / quāquam]	quōquam

BTW: Is the the feminine of the substantival pronoun quispiam attested?
-80.133.125.36 20:59, 14 April 2017 - 08:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

quisquis

RFV for:

feminine ablative singular quāquā used substantivally and not just adjectivally
feminine accusative singular quamquam and feminine plurals

Rationale and notes:

Allen and Greenough state after giving some forms: "Other cases are cited, but have no authority", which leads to the question whether or not it's correct. Are there other cites with "authority" (whatever that's supposed to mean), or for some forms even cites (and may thay be without "authority")?
As for quibusquibus the given cite depends on edition (see quisquis#Usage notes). There could be other cites - but are there any?
As for quīquī some interpretations of cites should be wrong (by mistaking an ablative singular for nominative plural), and some could depend on the edition.
There might be cites for fem. acc. sg. quamquam and fem. plurals, but the cites seem to be doubtful, i.e. they contain errors or depend on manuscript or edition.
- If it depends on the manuscript or edition, there should be a note.
- There could also be Medieval or New Latin cites, but then there should be a label or note.
Feminine ablative quāquā could, by attestation, be restricted to adjectival use (some might say that it's then not a pronoun form but an adjective form).
Nominative plural quīquī and plural genitive quōrumquōrum could be unattested too, but these forms make sense if there is quōsquōs, quibusquibus or neuter quaequae (for these compare the notes in quisquis).
For the feminines it's different: As there is feminine nominative singular quisquis, one could also assume that the other feminines are or would be like the masculine too, that is, the forms could be common. From quāquā one could derive the other feminines, but that only works if quāquā is attested substantivally and then one could derive two forms, an older one from quisquis, a later one from quāquā.

References:

See quisquis for some citations and notes.
Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar for schools and colleges founded on comparative grammar, edited by J. B. Greenough, G. L. Kittredge, A. A. Howard and Benj. L. D'Ooge, 1903, p. 69:
"In quisquis whoever, both parts are declined, but the only forms in common use are quisquis, quidquid (quicquid) and quōquō.
Note 1.–Rare forms are quemquem and quibisquibus; an ablative quīquī is sometimes found in early Latin; the ablative feminine quāquā is both late and rare. Cuicui occurs as a genitive in the phrase cuicui modī, of whatever kind. Other cases are cited, but have no authority. In early Latin quisquis is occasionally feminine.
Note 2.–Quisquis is usually substantive, except in the ablative quōquō, which is more commonly an adjective."
- Maybe the late and rare feminine ablative quāquā is commonly or even only used adjectivally?
Friedrich Neue, Formenlehre der Lateinischen Sprache, 2nd part, 2nd edition, Berlin, 1875, p. 240-241 & 245 and 246-249:
Original: "42. [...] quisquis auch adjectivisch in quisquis color Verg. Ge. 2, 256 im Pal., im Med. und Bern. b c m. sec. und bei Serv., und Horat. Serm. 2, 1, 60, quisquis honos Verg. Aen. 10, 493, quisquis erit ventus Plin. H. N. 18, 34, 77, 339. [...]
Der Dat. und Ablat. Plur. beinahe aller dieser Pronomina hat quibus, nicht quis. So [...] quibusquibus Liv. 41, 8, 10 [...]
44. Quisquis [...] hatte in der guten Zeit keine eigene Form für das Femin. Quamquam rem a quoquo cognoverit ist zwar bei Cic. de orat. 1, 15, 67 in den Lag. 13 und 32 und mehreren andern, aber in mehreren Büchern quamque, statt dessen in den Ausg. [= Ausgaben] quamcumque; und quaequae in ceterae naturae suis seminibus quaequae gignuntur Cic. N. D. 2, 22, 58 ist nach dem Leid. A und Erl. in quaeque berichtigt. Die Dramatiker gebrauchen quisquis [...] mit Beziehung auf eine weibliche Person. Mulier, quisquis es Plaut. Cist. 2, 3, 66, liberalist quisquis est von der vorher erwähnten furtiva virgo Persa 4, 3, 76, quisquis es, quae parentis in tam angustum tuos locum compegeris Rud. 4, 4, 102. Dazu kommen die unter 33 nach Non. S. 197 angeführten Stellen des Liv. Andr., Cäcil. und Pacuv.
[....]
[...] Quaqua als Pronomen [...] ist zuerst in quaqua de re Tac. Ann. 6, 7, dann quoquo nomine quoquo ritu quaqua facie Appul. Met. 11, 2 S. 755 (in den Flor. 1, 3 quaq; in den Guelf. 1. 2 und anderen Büchern quaque); quaqua ratione C. I. L. 3, 781 Z. 19 und wahrscheinlich Z. 2, Scäv. Dig. 32, 41 § 9, Ulpian. Dig. 37, 14, 16. 40, 12, 7. 45, 3, 5. 49, 5, 5, Paul. 17, 2, 3 § 1, Marcian. 34, 4, 13, Pompej. comment. S. 74 (130); ex quaqua causa Gaius Dig. 29, 1, 17 § 1, quaqua exceptione Ulpian. 44, 4, 2 § 5; quaqua aetate Tert. de anima 56, quaqua parte Pompej. comment. S. 387 (269) und 400 (275).
[...] Quaequae als Neutr. Scäv. Dig. 34, 3, 28 § 1 aus einem Testament: Quibusque legata in eo testamento quod incideram dedi, omnia rata esse et quaequae scripta sunt volo; und vielleicht Sen. benef. 2, 4, 1 ubi, quaequae impetrasti, rogandum est nach dem Meil. 5, in welchem queque ist (in mehreren Büchern quoque, in einzelnen quod und quid). Aber falsch ist [examples with errors and corrections]. Falsch ferner als Fem. [another example with an error and correction]. Ut in dote essent fructus quosquos percepisset Ulpian. Dig. 23, 4, 4; aber unrichtig quosquos proxumus nanctus est montes, in iis castra posuit Liv. 27, 28, 2 im Put., Med., Colb., Bamb. und in den Pal. Über quibusquibus vergl. unter 42, und über die ganze Declination von quisquis Madvig zu Cic. Fin. 3, 14, 45."
Translation: "42. [...] quisquis also adjectivally in [cites].
The dative and ablative plural of almost all of these pronouns (i.e. pronouns compounded from qui or quis) has quibus, not quis. So [...] quibusquibus in Liv.
44. Quisquis [...] didn't have an own form for the feminine in the good time. [shortend and paraphrased: The feminines quamquam and quaequae in some texts are doubtful or were corrected.] The dramatists use quisquis [...] with relation to a female person. [cites.]
[....]
[...] Quaqua as pronoun in [cites].
[...] Quaequae as neuter in [reference] out of an testament: [cite]. But wrong is [examples with errors and corrections]. Also wrong as feminine is [another example with an error and correction]. [cite with quosquos]; but incorrect is [an incorrect example with quosquos]. About quibusquibus see under 42, and about the whole declension of quisquis see [reference]."
- So can one say that the feminines quamquam and quaequae do exist (that is, exist in ancient Latin)?
L&S: "quī-qui, pron. indef., for quisquis, whosoever (very rare): quiqui est, Plaut. Aul. 4, 10, 45.", and "quis-quis, quaeque, quodquod, and subst. quicquid, quidquid". Other dictionaries mention quiqui, quaequae and quodquod too. Feminine quaequae and adjectival neuter quodquod seem to be doubtful (cp. F. Neue). For quīquī see below.
The given references for quīquī in various sources are:
(a) as nom. sg.: quiqui pro quisquis in neque partem tibi ab eo quiqui est indipisces Plaut. Aul. 4, 10, 44/45, is ita appellatur quiqui admittit Varro R. R. 2, 7, 8;
(b) as abl. sg.: Pl. Men. 1159;
(c) as nom. pl.: Plaut. Cas. 3, 1, 10, quiqui licebunt Men. 1159 = 5, 9, 97, Poen. 3, 2, 11; Liv. 29, 19, 9 in Put. m. pr.;
(d) without mentioning a case: esto ut hi sint, quiqui integri sunt, et sani, Cic. Sest. 45, 97; quiqui licebunt, Plaut. Men. 1159 (with translation rather implying it to be abl. sg. than nom. sg. or nom. pl.).
Plaut. Men. 5, 9, 97 and Plaut. Men. 1159 is be the same, and it is once given as a source for a ablative and once for a plural which doesn't work.
For me it seems that Cas. "cum quiqui" and Poen. "cum quiqui" are abl., and Men. "venibunt quiqui licebunt" might be too although it might look like a pl. as the verbs are in pl.
There are editions of Plautus' Aulularia with qui instead of quiqui, and it does depend on the edition. The rerum rusticarum de agri cultura at www.thelatinlibrary.com/varro.html does not have quiqui. And looking in various books at books.google it does indeed depend on the edition.
As for "Liv. 29, 19, 9 in Put. m. pr.", "m. pr." should mean manu propria = by one's own hand and Put. should denote a manuscript or edition. The text at www.thelatinlibrary.com/livy/liv.29.shtml doesn't have quiqui. So it might depend on the manuscript or edition.
F. Neue stated regarding "esto ut hi sint, quiqui integri sunt, et sani, Cic. Sest. 45, 97" that it does appear in editions but not in manuscripts. At www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/sestio.shtml it does not appear but "esto igitur ut ii sint, [...], qui et integri sunt et sani [...].".
So abl. sg quiqui should exist (and is also mentioned in A&G), while nom. sg. and nom. pl. quiqui seem to be doubtful and could be cases for A&G's "Other cases are cited, but have no authority."

From what I've seen, there could be three forms:

substantivally used: quisquis, quisquis, quidquid (quicquid) - plurals do occur, but could be doubtful (quisquis#Usage notes)
adjectivally used: quisquis, *quisquis, quidquid (quicquid) - the feminine could be unattested
adjectivally used: quisquis, *quaequae (abl. quāquā), *quodquod (quocquod) - the feminine except abl. quāquā and the neuter *quodquod could be unattested

-80.133.100.252 22:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pelology

Rfv-sense: the study of mud. There are some citations related to medicine / homeopathy that may not deserve their own sense that I have placed on the citation page. DTLHS (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This appears in lots of dictionaries and word lists, but the only use I could find was the "Institute of Biology, Pelology and Desert Research", which is part of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. As for the meaning on the citations page, all of those quotes, plus at least one other I found, are again more mention than use, proposing the term as an alternative to "orificial surgery", but the lack of true usage makes it look like the proposal did not catch on. Kiwima (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1471

Call return number for the UK. Can this be cited in running English text? Should it even be English? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was unsuccessful in finding any quotes that make this look like a word (e.g. something like "the number I got from a 1471.") - All uses with the meaning seem to be more of the form "a 1471 call" or "dialed 1471". The best I could come up with was "Many facilities have been added to the network without disruption to the network capacity, such as the 1471 service, but other services have stressed the network such that great ingenuity is required to manage them and their impact on other traffic." in Telecommunications Performance Engineering (page 39). Personally, this looks more like wikipedia material than wiktionary material to me. Kiwima (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned in Last-call return in Wikipedia. You will find some quotes in Google Books here. DonnanZ (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I missed Kiwima's point. I would class it as a numeral, not a noun, so whether that makes any difference I don't know. DonnanZ (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

copulatingly

"Extremely". Equinox ◑ 20:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found some Google hits for this, but whether it's citable is another matter. And I would never use it. DonnanZ (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is one from Google Books in that lot, but it doesn't seem to mean "extremely". DonnanZ (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ye'd

Senses: "ye could" and "ye should". Equinox ◑ 14:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

😊

This entry was not created yet, but maybe it should, if we can find a few citations for it.

Searching citations for symbols is inherently hard, but apparently this is a very common symbol so maybe there's some hope. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I've understood the CFI clause about "in common use" to refer to. Words that are hard to cite, but everyone is familiar with. I know the more common consensus is that it just refers to words that are easily citable, but I kind of wish that wasn't the case, as it keeps out a lot of informal language. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of the people that understand the CFI clause about "in common use" as "words that are easily citable in three independent durably-archived sources". As you said, I know I'm not the only one who thinks that way. But, naturally, feel free to disagree with me on the interpretation of the rule if you want. If the consensus about the "in common use" rule is unclear, it probably should be discussed further, eventually. Apparently, that rule was never even voted in the first place.

I believe probably all emojis fail that criterion, the way I see it. I oppose creating entries for emojis on the basis of the "in common use" rule without the need for citations.

Here are two existing emoji entries, with one citation each: 😀 and 😉.

Apparently, emojis are "internet slang". They may be used a lot on the internet, but if we created entries for some or all emoji just because they presumably exist online, without the need to check for attestation, then on the same basis we would have a precedent for creating entries for some or all internet abbreviations and informal internet speech with the same lack of standards. For a list of these items, see Appendix:English internet slang and Appendix:Portuguese internet slang. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Carrero -- I kind of wonder why you're even bothering to ask this, since your similar request on ⚤ eight months ago turned up plenty of information, but somehow none of it was acceptable to you... AnonMoos (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, plenty of information? In the discussion about ⚤, you just linked to one Wikimedia Commons category and one Wikipedia article, and I linked to a non-durably-archived SMBC comic, right? As I pointed out in that discussion, just linking to other Wikimedia projects doesn't count, and the article had three sources which, apart from being on the internet and thus being non-durably-archived too, are mentions (lists of symbols and their meanings) instead of actual uses.

By contrast, ♀ and ♂ have a number of CFI-compliant citations for certain senses.

I intend to create a few more RFVs for symbols at some point, not only to see if they are actually attestable, but also to see to what extent our current CFI rules work for them.

I'm not saying I personally agree with all our current CFI rules (I agree with some rules, others I would rather propose to be changed). This is not simply a matter of I, personally, considering some information acceptable or not. Even if I really wanted to say "RFV passed, the symbol already appears in some internet lists!", that is not proper procedure to close an RFV.

Actually, I'd rather propose a few changes to our CFI rules to relax our criteria for symbol entries. But that's a matter for the BP. (I created this RFV as a result of this ongoing BP discussion: link) Also, hopefully past and future RFV results can be used as a precedent to be discussed there too, to revise the rules if needed.

For now, my question is naturally whether 😊 passes CFI under our current rules. That is an important question, whether the answer is yes or no. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sumatran rhinocerotes

RFV of the irregular plural. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on Google Groups, but Books and Scholar have one article here that's printed in three different places, but that only counts for one use. There are 222 hits on regular search, but those are all mentions or direct quotes from or copies of that one article (every one with "The remarkable difference between the arrangement of the mucous membrane of the small intestine in the Indian and Sumatran Rhinocerotes..."). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

black rhinocerotes

As above. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on Google Groups or Scholar, but what looks like one use on Books here (the snippet is a bit fuzzy). Even on regular search, it's all mentions. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calexiter

Nothing in Google Books, Groups or Scholar, but some usage in non-durably-archived sources, so I didn't speedy it. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Texiter

As above, but a Latin term and something software-related make it harder to search. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gnat

Certainly not the normal German word for "gnat". I'm not having any luck finding it. Of course it's the German word for the fighter aircraft listed at Gnat#English, but not for the biting fly. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to both Oxford Duden and Collins gnat is Mücke or Stechmücke. Another source I have has both of those, plus Schnake. DonnanZ (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A search for Gnat in Duden brings up Gnatz as the closest match. Anyway I think this German entry can be safely removed. DonnanZ (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One can find Gnat (= 1. f., the same as Germ. Gnad, Gnad' and Gnade, 2. m., proper noun, a cetain mountain or mountain range, 3. f., Gnat) and GNAT (= 1. GNAT, compiler, 2. GNAT, Go/No-go Association Test) in German texts. But I don't know which of these meanings are attestable. As an insect I haven't heard or seen it.
BTW: The meaning got added on the 26th September 2005 - so it was more than 11 years in the entry... -80.133.100.252 11:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vicious

Entered as a surname, but I think it may be only a stage name, see Vicious. DonnanZ (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hotgun

Tons of citations for hot gun as a tool, and even a couple of Google books hits for the fictional character Hotgun, but not much else for the senses provided by the anon. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have put what I could find on the citations page. Without a space, there are at least two types of tool, one of which gets plenty of citations and the other of which fails with only one. There also seems to be some type of weapon, contrasted with a "cold gun". But nothing to support the supplied definitions. Kiwima (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a synonym for hot glue gun (isn't our definition amazing?); but perhaps only with a space. Equinox ◑ 23:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny

A female given name is one of the definitions. Never heard of this. The name derives from "son" I think, so I don't think girls would be named such. Voortle (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across this as a male name (a Maori boy I went to school with years ago), but never as a female name. DonnanZ (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was added six months ago by Urbandegenerate diff. DonnanZ (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. A mistake for Sunny, I imagine. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can cite this; I've added three books where Sonny is a female character. I also checked a large database of birth, marriage, and death records, and found many female Sonnys from all over the US and (to a lesser extent) the UK, suggesting that the name is neither new nor regional. E.g. in the 1940 US Census, I find Sonny Trister (white) in NJ, wife of Saul Trister; Sonny White (black, ironically) in SC, one-year-old grand-niece of a Rosa Harrison; and Sonny Crane (born in Norway) in NY, wife of Lewis Crane. In some cases, maybe the people who digitized the records typoed Sunny, but there are so many records, in addition to the books, that it's attested, even if odd. It seems to be a variant of Sonya or (like Sonya) a variant of Sophia. - -sche (discuss) 01:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I now see that I also closed this prematurely by accident, so it is especially helpful that you found cites! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

chiefery

Our def here, and the synonyms leadership and management, seem very modern and businessy. But most texts using "chiefery" seem to be talking about old hierarchies, like the chief of a certain geographical area. Is that misleading? Anyway: please verify this sense, or fix/improve it. P.S. Wonderfool made it. Equinox ◑ 00:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could find no support for the existing definition, but added quite a few others for which I did find support. Kiwima (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hikmah

I don't dispute that this term exists in English as a specialised borrowing from Arabic, but I do dispute that our current definition, tied to philosophy and supported by a single mention in the entry, is actually accurate. I am hoping that someone can figure out what the cites really support and fix the definition accordingly. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DREAMer

Rfv-sense (US, derogatory) A young undocumented immigrant. I know this will be hard as hell to search for, but it just seems suspect. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some Latin adjectives

RFV for the ablative singular and the genitive plural or neuter nominative, accusative or vocative plural to determine the declension of some adjectives (abl. sg. -ī or -e, gen. pl. -ium or -um, neuter pl. -ia or -a).
Notes:

It could be that the declensions is unknown or that wt's declension is wrong. Well, in Medieval or New Latin some more forms could be attested, but then there should be a note and then it could be that there are multiple forms.
Just BTW as defence in advance: Knowing how wiktionary creates inflected forms, and seeing what grammarians write or grammars state, it's justified to question multiple entries with doubtful inflected forms.

References:

Allen & Greenough's New Latin Grammar for schools and colleges founded on comparative grammar, 1903, p. 53f.:
"121. [...] a. The Ablative Singular commonly ends in -ī, but sometimes -e. [...] The following have regularly -e:—caeles, compos, [†dēses], dīves, hospes, particeps, pauper, prīnceps, sōspes, superstes. [...]"
b. The Genitive Plural ends commonly in -ium, but has -um in the following:¹—
1. Always in compos, dīves, inops, particeps, prīnceps, supplex, and compounds of nouns which have -um: as, quadru-pēs, bi-color.
2. Sometimes, in poetry, in participles in -ns: as, silentum concilium, a council of the silent shades (Aen. vi. 432). [...] d. Vetus (gen. -ĕris) and pūbes (gen. -ĕris) regularly have -e in the ablative singular, -a in the nominative and accusative plural, and -um in the genitive plural. For ūber, see § 119 [note: there is ūber, abl. sg. ūberī, gen. pl. ūberum, neuter plural ūbera, and the note "An ablative in -e is very rare."; but there is also vetus with abl. sg. "vetere (-ī)"]. [...]
122. The following special points require notice:—[...] d. Many adjectives, from their signification, can be used only in the masculine and feminine. [...] Such are adulēscēns, youthful; [†dēses], -idis, slothful; inops, -opis, poor; sōspes, -itis, safe. [...]
¹ Forms in -um sometimes occur in a few others."
- Stating that sōstes has abl. sg. -e, but not stating that it has gen. pl. -um could mean that the gen. pl. is -ium or unattested. If it is -ium, there could be more declensions than just abl. sg. -ī, gen. pl. -ium (like i-stem substantives) and abl. sg. -e, gen. pl. -um (like consonant-stem substantives) and abl. sg. -e or -ī, gen. pl. -ium (poetically sometimes -um) (participles, with forms depending on the way of usage). In fact, with ūber, abl. sg. -ī (very rare -e), gen. pl. -um, neuter plural -a A&G have another declension form.
21st century grammars (Pons, Klett, Duden and others) mention the following adjectives with abl. -e and gen. pl. -um: vetus, dīves, pauper, prīnceps, compos, superstes, sōspes, particeps, although many grammars just mention a few of them.
William Smith & Theophilus D. Hall, The student's Latin grammar. A grammar of the Latin language, 2nd edition, London, 1867, p. 18 had this: "The following Adjectives have [Ablative Singular in] ĕ only: paupĕr, pūbēs, dēsĕs, compŏs, impŏs, caelebs, princeps and sŭperstĕs."
Just BTW: An 18th century grammar noted that several adjectives, such as "ales, bipes, bicolor, cicur, compos, concolor, degener, deses, dives, impos, inops, immemor, memor, locuples, paper, particeps, praeceps, redux, superstes, sospes, teres, anceps, biceps, triceps &c." don't have a neuter nominative, accusative or vocative plural, which would mean that e.g. *sospitia or *sospita is unattested (or was so centuries ago, or at least was uncommon or proscribed). An 19th century grammar mentioned something similar; namely that some adjectives such as "vigil, memor, compos, impos, pauper, dives, sospes, superstes, redux, supplex, particeps, princeps" are often used of persons, thus are often used in masculine and feminine gender, although they are sometimes also with neuters, but it's avoided to use them in the neuter plural cases in -a; for example one can say numen nemor, but not numina memora. So it could be more complicated to attest or verify the correct declension of caelebs or sospes for example.

-80.133.100.252 07:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sospes

See A&G cited above, and compare with superstes.

particeps

See A&G cited above.

Georges: "particeps, cipis, Abl. cipe"

princeps

See A&G cited above, and compare with particeps.

deses

See A&G cited above.

caeles

See A&G cited above.

L&S mentions this example: "sub caelite mensa, Paul. Nol. Carm. 24, 9 al.", though it is Late Latin.

Also RFV for the nominative singular as L&S states "but not found in nom. sing.", as Gaffiot states "(inus. au nominatif)" and as Georges states "Nomin. caeles nicht nachweisbar." (nom. [sg.] caeles not attestable).
BTW: A&G mention defective adjectives too. From the defectives A&G mention, exlex and seminex/semineci here are mentioned without any note, while primoris has one.

caelebs

Compare: caelebs#Citations
Though it's an poetic example with abl. sg. caelibe (used out of metrical reasons?).

Also: GBS has results with caelibum like "[...] vt inprimis de Collegiis caelibum virginum ita constituatur [...]" (with should be: of the unmarried virgins), but for caelibium there is only one GBS result found thrice (in "[...] quam Senior Augustus post Julius rogationes incitandis caelibium poenis & augendo aerario sanxerat [...]") and that could be something else.

pubes

See A&G cited above.

Compare: Talk:pubes#Latin

www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/ gives some more results with puberum, and some with pubere and puberi, but none with puberium or puberia or pubera.

impubes

Compare with pubes.

Note: Pliny might have impubium but that would be a form of impubis and not of impubes (gen. pl. impuberum or impuberium?)

redux

L&S: "rĕdux (rēdux, Plaut. Rud. 4, 2, 4; id. Capt. 5, 1, 2), dŭcis (abl. reduce, Liv. 21, 50: reduci, Ov. H. 6, 1), adj."
Lewis: "redux ducis （abl. reduce; poet. also reducī, O.)"
Georges: "Abl. Sing. bei Dichtern auch reduci"

This implies that the abl. sg. is usually reduce and poetically (out of metrical reasons?) also reducī. The questioned plural forms however could be unattested (in ancient Latin).

supplex

See A&G cited above, for gen. pl.
L&S: "supplex (subpl-), ĭcis (abl. supplĭci, but also -ĭce freq. in dactyl. and anap. verse [...] As subst.: supplex , ĭcis, m."
Lewis: "supplex (subpl-) icis （abl. icī or ice; gen plur. -icum, rarely -icium), adj. [...] As subst m."
Georges: "supplex, plicis, Abl. gew. supplice, doch auch supplicī, Genet. Plur. supplicum u. (selten) supplicium"

This could mean that the adjective has both forms. However, this is more complicated as the dictionaries maybe don't properly differ between the inflection of the adj. and the subst., and it get's more complicated as there is also a noun supplicium.
Gen. pl. supplicum for the subst. should be attested (Cic. Mur. 4, 9: "repudiatio supplicum"). supplice and supplici for the adj. should be attested too (see supplex). Though as for now, supplice could be a poetic form (out of metrical reasons?). How about the gen. pl. or neuter pl. of the adj.?

uber

For the doubtful plural forms.

A&G has abl. sg. -ī, "very rare" -e, gen. pl. -um, neuter pl. -a
Dictionaries have abl. sg. -ī and one reference or cite with -e, but often they don't mention the doubftul plural forms.
Note that there is a also a noun uber which also has gen. sg. uberis, so just attesting the word forms uberum or ubera, doesn't mean anything.

panendeism

I see a lot of mentions, but uses are lacking. The alt forms need to be attested on their own. If this can be attested, the definition will have to be improved drastically. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found and added two uses with this spelling, but everything else I have found so far is clearly a mention. Can someone find a third? Kiwima (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, found a third. It is cited. But the entry still needs cleanup. Kiwima (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwima, very mention-y, but I agree that they pass, if we ignore the issue of initial capitalisation. Not enough to support any other spelling, right? Also, I have tried to write a new definition — does that seem right? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was certainly unable to cite the alternate spellings, although I think we should give others a shot at finding supporting quotes before ruling them out. There is one cite on pan-en-deism, and the 2011 quote should probably be moved to PanEnDeism. I am inclined to let the 2017 quote slide, because initial caps somehow seem less of a variant than the camel caps. Kiwima (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations in the present article all look mention-y to me: they each try to explain what it means rather than simply using it to mean something. The Kastrup quote comes close, but I think that if one can hardly use it for its meaning without having to explain what it means then it is more in the nature of a protologism. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

panendéisme

French, created by WF. fr.wikt has an entry, but there are zero hits on BGC. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this for deletion on French Wiktionary, but was informed by User:Lmaltier that French Wiktionary does not have CFI standards equivalent to our own; therefore, the use of the term in a few transient blog posts is considered sufficient to support its inclusion there. However, I can find no uses at all in permanently recorded media to support its inclusion here. bd2412 T 01:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panendeismus

German. Bad stub created by someone who does not speak German. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, eleven years ago. I wouldn't create it today. bd2412 T 13:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

nom race

Eating contest. Equinox ◑ 23:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

聖克裡斯多福與尼維斯

This particular traditional Chinese variant. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

千裡達及托巴哥

This particular form. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

新喀裡多尼亞

This particular form. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

parameter

Rfv-sense "(mathematics, physics) A variable kept constant during an experiment, calculation or similar.". If I wanted to test the effect of temperature on conductivity, I would change the temperature between miniexperiments to receive more useful data. I added a definition below that I feel better encapsulates my understanding of the word, but I'm not confident.__Gamren (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this definition works in math. For example, the parameters in a parametric equation of line (e.g.

<x,y,z>=<0,s,t>

, where

s,t

are parameters) are kept constant if you are solving for a particular point on the line. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While that's true, it hardly seems the defining aspect of the parameters. It is closer to definition given for computer programmes - perhaps a better definiton would be a variable in an equation which defines a family of equations that, when assigned, results in a particular member or subset of that family. Kiwima (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

praying mantis

Rfv-sense "Any of various predatory, cannibalistic insects of the family Mantidae that have a prayer-like stance.". The WP article does not mention this usage.__Gamren (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WP article does mention that the family Mantidae formerly included all the species now split off into numerous other families, so it's not really a separate sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

principl

Looking closely at the given source this appears to be an abbreviation of principal, not an alternative spelling. Can other examples from the 17th century be found? I thought it may be Princip, a surname, but this isn't the case. DonnanZ (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ildfugl

Seems unlikely to be a phoenix. --G23r0f0i (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is why TBot was never removed. Looking at Fugl Føniks that appears to be the correct word, and føniks appears in the Bokmålordboka and Nynorskordboka. "føniks (fra gr. 'purpurrød') i gresk mytologi: fugl som levde 500 år, brente seg selv og stod opp igjen: reise seg, stå opp igjen som en fugl føniks (av asken)". But ildfugl appears to be used in Danish, but not Norwegian, for some species of butterfly. Anyway I think this entry can be removed. DonnanZ (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Literally translated ildfugl would be firebird, but it doesn't seem to be used in that sense either (OK, that's the bird species, not a Pontiac). DonnanZ (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

xixén

Created by someone who does not know any Arawak, and I think based on confusion about the language versus the family. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

logmaker

Entry looks very promotional. I don't think this is a normal English word, maybe just a brand name, and perhaps not even attestable as that! Equinox ◑ 02:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can find, it is primarily a brand name, and usually appears capitalized. I did find and add two genericized uses, but we still need a third. I also added another, more easily attested meaning. Kiwima (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lank sleeve

Weird: I dunno if this is sum of parts, or what, but it's one of those oddities from Francis Grose's 1700s Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue. Equinox ◑ 02:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found it in lots of old dictionaries, but I found only one actual use, plus two mentions by the same person (Simon Dickie) - I added an "obsolete" to the entry, because from what I can tell, it went out of use in the 1800s. Kiwima (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 2000 and 2011 cites are actually referring to a one-armed person, rather than to their empty sleeve. Equinox ◑ 22:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhemmad

Alt of Muhammad. I find scannos. Equinox ◑ 05:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About half of the Google Books hits are scannos, but I've placed some that use e at Citations:Muhemmad. - -sche (discuss) 03:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xemb.

Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this related to the etymology of Xmas? DTLHS (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's a Greek letter, this is a Roman numeral. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the cites I can find are quoting from from The Parish Register of Christ Church, Middlesex County, Va., from 1653 to 1812, and date to the 1600s. I did find one independent source (a letter from Southampton House in 1662). Do we count entries from different years in the same Parish register as independent? I am inclined to believe they are not, which means we still need one more citation. Kiwima (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also spelled out unabbreviated as Xember. See here and here. Also this book has the quote: ANNE WILLIAMS 10 Dec. 1747 (?) JOHN & "SUSANNA ... 1683 Buried 23 Xemb. 1633. WilliamKF (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should Xember be added to be RFVed?
BTW: In German Xber (with X for Decem = 10) is attestable, and in English xber is attestable and Xber could be too. There could also be names like VIIber (September), VIIIber (October) and IXber (November), but with small numbers it would look even more ugly than xber, and I haven't searched for it and don't know if they exist. -84.161.25.79 18:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

𐌰𐌹𐌽𐍉𐍃

Unattested afaict. — Kleio (t · c) 16:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is unattested and fails RFV, shouldn't it be "*𐌰𐌹𐌽𐍉𐍃" in 𐌰𐌹𐌽𐍃? Overwriting the form by "|f_nom_pl=*𐌰𐌹𐌽𐍉𐍃" or "|strong_f_nom_pl=*𐌰𐌹𐌽𐍉𐍃" or similar seems not to work -- unlike in Latin entries for first and second declension adjectives where one can use "|gen_pl_f=FORM" to overwrite the form and where one can add a * so it links to Reconstruction:Latin/FORM. -84.161.25.79 16:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'm pretty much 99.9% sure that it's unattested, I only post these here and don't {{delete}} them because it's good to follow due process. As for the asterisks, this is indeed something of an issue. The functionality to manually override each form currently doesn't exist (afaik) for most Gothic inflection table templates, and it probably should at some point. It's honestly not too pressing though imo; most Gothic words inflect very regularly and those that don't usually have custom inflection tables or no table at all. So even though only the attested forms have entries, the other forms are still predictable enough that it just wouldn't be worth it to manually edit in asterisks for all of the 1500+ Gothic entries that include some form of inflection-table template (the vast majority of which list at least some forms that aren't attested -- there aren't all that many Gothic words with every form attested). It might however be worthwhile to add a note to the templates stating that only those forms that have their own entries (i.e. are bluelinked) are in fact directly attested. That is, unless someone really wants to go through the bother of editing asterisks into all those tables, which at this stage of Wiktionary's coverage of Gothic seems to me to be rather unimportant and not worth the time investment compared to adding new words and etymologies for example. — Kleio (t · c) 18:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-//-

@Atitarev, Cinemantique, Wikitiki89, Wanjuscha, KoreanQuoter Another creation by User:D1gggg. Is this real? If so, can this entry be fixed up? Thanks. Benwing2 (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's vertical lines, not slashes and more hyphens. I doubt I've seen it in print, it's usually handwritten.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with Anatoli that it is much more common in handwriting. However, I believe I have seen it reproduced with a typewriter (!) in the form -"-. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there are various ways to write this: --!!--, ==||==, --//--, ==="===. Not sure how to go about this RFV. I don't care either way, to be honest, whether it is kept or deleted. This set of symbols seems similar to the way character substitution works, you can use *** or ####, any number of them, with no particular rules. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards delete. I suppose this nomination is different from the one archived at "Talk:---" because that discussion was about line patterns that were not regarded as language, whereas in this case we are talking about a symbol that represents the word ditto. However, I think the fact that there is no consistent way of representing this symbol in print (unlike, for example, the @ symbol) means that it may not be verifiable. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed this was translingual; in any case, it is quite common in Danish, although I've only seen it in handwriting. As Atitarev says, the lines are vertical, nor slanted. When I see it, it is written just below what it replicates, as in

The cat has a velocity of 3 m/s.
The dog ------||--------  5 m/s.

where the length of the (solid, not dashed) horizontal lines are appropriately adjusted. I have never heard anyone regard this as nonstandard.__Gamren (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

rotter

UK slang for unaccredited journalist. Can't find anything on this. Given citation ("rotters in the media") could just be normal sense of scoundrels. Equinox ◑ 19:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a journalist, I've never heard this. Ƿidsiþ 07:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

microstrain

Rfv-sense 2 - there were so many spelling mistakes in the defintiion, I couldn't take it seriously --WF April 2017 (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find it amusing that someone who can't take someone seriously if they make spelling mistakes says "defintiion" when making that complaint ;). Seriously, though, this is easily cited. The definition, however, is too wordy, and should probably just stop after the first sentence. Kiwima (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lied the deep irony. --WF April 2017 (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed — This unsigned comment was added by Kiwima (talk • contribs) at 22:30, 8 May 2017.

駅

The Chinese usage needs to be verified in durable sources. The image here was used to show that the Japanese character is used in Hong Kong. The superscript not only suggests the meaning "station" but also the reading "zaam6" (Cantonese).

Please refer to の (de) and previous discussions on the inclusion of the character as a Chinese term as opposed to Japanese.

--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 14:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(w:Languages_of_Hong_Kong#Japanese)

—suzukaze (t・c) 22:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Dictionary of Character Variants says that it is a variant of 驛 (referencing 角川漢和辞典). I'm not sure if this should be separate from the Hong Kong usage. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be. Modern HK usage seems to be a sort of "Japanese is cool" phemonemon independent of classical usage. —suzukaze (t・c) 01:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entry has turned from a mere soft redirect (as a variant) with {{zh-see|驛|v}} into a half entry with an image and usage notes. This already violates the previous agreement among Chinese editors that simplified and (some) variant entries are only soft redirects. If it's NOT a redirect but a full entry, it should have pronunciation sections with a PoS parameter, context and geographical labels and should be cited (that's why it's in RFV). Despite the links above, I think it may only be used for visual effects, not in a running Chinese text, and mostly limited to Hong Kong. If it fails RFV, it should probably remain just a soft redirect (minus the image and usage notes), I think. It would be hard to verify the pronunciation but if the usage in the Chinese context is attested, we could add some notes for both "jik6" and "zaam6". What do you all think? Also @Wyang, Tooironic. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have any a strong opinion on this. Soft-redirects to both 驛 and 站 seem like a good solution, with usage notes to explain its uses. Wyang (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are two distinct 駅s to consider:

Variant of 驛 (as described in the Dictionary of Character Variants). This may not pass RFV because it's citing a Chinese-Japanese dictionary, which really implies that it's Japanese.
駅 as used in Hong Kong. From what I've watched and read, this can be read variously as 驛 (jik6, the "etymologically correct" way), 站 (zaam6, semantic reading), 尺 (cek3, youbian dubian), 澤 (zaak6, youbian dubian), and 馬尺 (maa5 cek3, reading the components); the first two are probably most common. It's not quite a replacement of the ancient 驛, nor is it really 站. This could most likely pass RFV since the locations (usually stores/shopping centres) have been mentioned in the news before. It's also used in the song that Suzukaze-c mentioned. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 15:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I am not particularly sure how Wiktionary defines the term variant character (異體字), but I was taught by my teachers that a variant character is a character written in a non-standard form but has the same meaning and pronunciation with its original form (正體字). The statement "A is a variant character of B" and its converse statement "B is a variant character of A" are not equivalent statements as one character has to be the true form and the other, a variant form. Can "駅" be attested as being a variant form of both “站" and "驛", ie. having the same meaning and pronunciation as that of "站" and "驛"? It has come to my attention that 東角駅 is not only the title of a song, but also the name of a mall in Hong Kong while 都會駅與城中駅 is a residential complex. I am unsure but in my opinion, "東角駅站" refers to a station next to 東角駅 mall. Perhaps 駅 is just a character used for names of places. To the best of my knowledge, the Mandarin pronunciation yì and Cantonese pronunciation jik6 was provided by the Unicode Consortium in Unihan 8.0. Is this adequate enough for 駅 to be classified as a variant character of 驛? Note that Unihan provides Mandarin and Cantonese readings for shinjitai characters. Kevinup (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevinup, KevinUp: You're pretty much on the same track as what we generally consider to be a variant. Since Wiktionary is aiming to be descriptive, there is no actual "orthodox" character, but the "most common" character used in traditional Chinese, which usually (but not always) overlaps with the Taiwanese standard. I don't really think 駅 in the Hong Kong context is actually equivalent to 站 or 驛. It's kind of special and should have its own full entry.

While encoding systems (like Unicode and HKSCS) are useful for determining whether a character is used in a particular language, it is not strong evidence on Wiktionary; we need to have durably-archived attestation. In fact, the Unihan database is riddled with errors, especially with definitions. If we don't find any use of 駅 as an equivalent to 站 or 驛, I don't think we can call it a variant of either character. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstruction:Old Saxon/writhan

This is really for the Middle Low German and Low German descendants. I cannot find anything on either (Middle Low German wrîden, Low German wrieden). Without descendants, we cannot rightly reconstruct a form for Old Saxon. Leasnam (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

trefi

Welsh. Rfv-sense "a person from Trevethin". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

лутать

@Atitarev To verify:

The word itself.
The position of the stress. It was created by User:D1gggg with final stress, i.e. лута́ть (lutátʹ), but Anatoli says it's more likely to be лу́тать (lútatʹ). Can we find a video source with the word pronounced? Benwing2 (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Benwing2 I was wrong. This video uses отлута́ть (otlutátʹ), лута́ть (lutátʹ), also лут (lut) and лу́ты (lúty) several times. I only checked one video, though but I'm satisfied. I'm not familiar with gamers' slang. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

彼女

Rfv-sense ばかFumiko￥^talk 09:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like a mistake, if Japanese people follow the western custom and refer to a ship as "kanojo", that would be pronoun sense #1. Siuenti (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

彼女 is used in this sense in Japanese. Japanese also has the expression, 処女航海 (“maiden voyage”). See http://www.warbirds.jp/kakuki/kyosaku/19kan/idacho.htm where you will find "彼女の処女航海". See also, http://whalingmuseum-arcticvisions.org/captain-john-bartlett-of-the-panther/?lang=ja . I also agree that this sense should be listed under Pronoun. 馬太阿房 (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move it to the pronoun section and mark it as rare. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the sense is real, the definition should also change from "Western custom" to "English custom" (re treating ships as females). English is not the only "Western" language, LOL. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

indef'ed

As a form of "indeffed". Marked (perhaps wrongly) as eye dialect. Equinox ◑ 16:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oghenewome

Male name. Equinox ◑ 19:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

go from strength to strength

I was just wondering whether the article should be on "from strength to strength" without the "go". If I am right about that then it would not be a verb. John Cross (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be left alone, it makes more sense as it is now. DonnanZ (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really an RfV question, rather a Tea Room item.

From strength to strength is occasionally used with other verbs, such as grow, continue, went on, as well as in titles without any verb. I would try to reword the definition to suit the prepositional phrase, move the entry to [[from strength to strength]], and make [[go from strength to strength]] a redirect as it is by far the most common use in running text. DCDuring (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move this to the Tea Room then. DonnanZ (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wiktionary:Tea_room/2017/April#go_from_strength_to_strength

John Cross (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More Volapük scientists and academics

hitümologan, jitümologan, tümologan, histrologan, jistrologan, hiprofäsoran, jiprofäsoran, profäsoranef, hiprofäsoranef, jiprofäsoranef. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are absent from Wikisource. strologan would probably also fail, giving only one hit. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Volapük is a LDL (Wiktionary:Limited Documentation Languages - Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages), so a single usage in a durable archived work should be sufficient to attest it. -84.161.35.194 23:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All approved constructed languages, including Volapük, are WDLs, per WT:WDL. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

green goblin

A quick search did not reveal anything, not on lists of nebulae (and if the internet is good for anything...). - TheDaveRoss 16:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I could find was this. Kiwima (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

becam

Usual Scots forms are becum, becumin, with the past tense being becam; I can't find becamt anywhere Leasnam (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

catherinette

English language entry. (French is fine) SemperBlotto (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the main entry to Catherinette, because it is easy to attest with the upper case. For the original lower-case version, I could only find two quotes, one in scare quotes and the other italicized. In all of these cases, the word is used not entirely generically for an unmarried woman over 25, but for such a woman who participates in the festival of St. Catherine. Kiwima (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

kio (Esperanto)

The Esperanto plural form of kio (kioj) and plural accusative (kiojn) do not exist. Zamenhof clearly stated en La unua libro that kio can only take the n-finaĵo and not the plural -j. Confer https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Esperanto/Appendix/Table_of_correlatives. In my opinion the pages kioj and kiojn should be deleted or at least updated to specify that this form does not exist. Furthermore the kio page should be updates to specify that the word does not have a plural form despite ending in -o, just as the plural forms should be removed from the conjugation. Any objections or comments to this? --Miestasmia (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Miestasmia I've moved your request to RFV. DTLHS (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not very hard to attest that "kioj" exists as a relative pronoun and even as an interrogative pronoun, so it should be included, but a label like {{lb|eo|nonstandard}} would be necessary. "kiojn" is a different story, I've only come across one valid hit, hidden in snippet view but also present in an errata list. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that kioj is attestable, though rare [80] [81] [82]. As for kiojn, if a word is listed in the errata list along with obvious errors like "koscienca" and "intetnacia", I would not call that a valid citation. But I do see enough citations to attest it at Google Groups: [83] [84] [85] —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "valid hit" as in "not a scanning error". Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

saltwater

As adjective. We need citations of gradable or comparative use. IMO searching for predicate use is likely to generate many false positives. DCDuring (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is by the way in use in the context of American academic (macro)economics to denote Keynesian and New Keynesian departments on the East Coast and West Coast and the views prevailing there, contrasting with freshwater neoclassical (sort of macro)economics that is centred around the Great Lakes. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific example? DTLHS (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that isn't the definition under challenge. DCDuring (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an attributive adjective derived from salt water, in the same manner as freshwater and fresh water. There are plenty of examples of attributive use, e.g. saltwater crocodile, saltwater swimming pool. I don't think citations of gradable or comparative use are necessary. DonnanZ (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saltwater as a noun would appear to be American usage, and salt water British usage, but the adjective is the same in both British and American English. DonnanZ (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a combining form of the noun salt water, not an adjective. —CodeCa t 19:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pentaphyllus

“Used as a specific epithet in the taxonomic names of plants to mean ‘having five leaves’.” — Latin or Translingual? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It exist translingually in taxonomic names like "Botryosicyos pentaphyllus", "Hibiscus pentaphyllus", "Phyllanthus pentaphyllus", "Pileus pentaphyllus", "Fragaria pentaphylla", "Manihot pentaphylla".
In Fragmenta phytographiae australiae, contulit Ferdinandus Mueller. Vol. II. (Melborne, 1860-1861, page 13) "Hibiscus pentaphyllus." is the title of a section and the text is in Latin. So one could argue that it appears in a Latin text. But as it is in italics and as it is just a section title and no sentence, it could be a mentioning and no usage. Anyway, "Hibiscus pentaphyllus" is a a translingual and Translingual* taxonomic term and so is pentaphyllus.
pentaphyllam (fem. acc. sg.) does occur in Latin texts. Often it could be in Latin texts and yet be Translingual taxonomics (unlike English, Latin might decline taxonomic terms in a Latin way). It seems that there are also real Latin non-Translingual usages:

Ernsti H. F. Meyer commentariorum de plantis africae australioris [...] Vol. I. Fascic. I, Leipzig, 1835, page 193: "Celeberrimus hujus ordinis conditor coronam stamineam non solum modo monophyllam modo pentaphyllam dixit, sed hoc discrimine quoque in generibus disponendis usus est. [...] Quae discriminis illius ambiguitas nec ipsum Brownium fugisse exinde colligo, quod Xysmalobio suo in conspectu generum coronam pentaphyllam, in generis ipsius charactere monophyllam seu partitam tribuit, et vice cersa Metaplexidi suae coronam hic pentaphyllam, ibi quinquepartitam." "coronam stamineam" could be a species name spelled differently than in modern taxonomics (w:Corona (gastropod)) or it could be a corona consisting of threads (w:Perianth). By the spelling it could be that genera are spelled with a capital letter, so corona could be a normal noun and pentaphyllus could be a normal adjective.
Joannes or Joannis Raius [abl. sg. Joanne Raio], Historia plantarum [...] Tomus primus.", London, 1686, page 468: "Caulis bipedalis est, alis divisus, rotundus, striatus ut angulosis videatur, asper albâ hirsutie, umbellas edens, ut in penultima trifidas, sed breviori petiolo & crassiori impositas, basin habentes trifoliam, sed juxta flores pentaphyllam."

But by the version history, it was created as a Translingual entry (on 21 September 2014 someone changed Translingual into Latin), and by the meaning it is about the meaning used in translingual and Translingual taxonomic names ("Used as a specific epithet in the taxonomic names"). So the easiest and safest way would be to change it back into Translingual and maybe add some derived terms (like Botryosicyos pentaphyllus etc.). If a non-Translingual Latin word can undoubtly be attested, it could still be added later.

* translingual and Translingual isn't the same: By attestation some Translingual terms could at the moment be monolingual (e.g. only English), although hypothetically they could be used in other languages as well. pentaphyllus is used in more than one language, so it's used translingually and is Translangual (WT:About Translingual#Accepted: "taxonomic names").

-84.161.48.43 13:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

キャディ

"Caddy" (→"Cadillac", see user's other contributions)

ビーマー

"beemer" ("BMW motorcycle")

シェビー

"Chevy" —suzukaze (t・c) 04:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

堅尼地

Rfv-sense: is it used to refer to any other Kennedy other than Arthur Kennedy? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

priabilité

French noun. Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of scannos for friabilité and cut-off appropriabilité, but no good hits. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is a protologism that was used just once by an author in a joke. [86] Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linian

Of or relating to Linus (but which one?). I found little in a GBooks search for Linus + Linian. Equinox ◑ 14:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any cites. RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

uluant

Any takers? Did he mean (deprecated template usage) ululant? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say, I got a number of hits on Google books for works on heraldry that did not let me actually see the text. Kiwima (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Society for Creative Anachronism dictionary has an entry for this spelling, but also says "uluant is an SCA-invented posture and is not found in period heraldry." Oddly, that dictionary doesn't define "ululant", although in their online record of people's heraldries, "ululant" is orders of magnitude more common than "uluant". I only see Google Books hits for "ululant", none (in English) for "uluant". It's probably an unattested variant spelling, if it isn't just an unintentional misspelling. - -sche (discuss) 01:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

aeglefinus

RFV for the Latin adjective / Translingual taxonomic epithet. It's defined as “Used as a specific epithet; shining, gleaming.”, but I don't see on what usage that definition is based. The etymology given reads “From Ancient Greek αἴγλη (aíglē, “sunlight, gleam”), possibly from an Epic Greek genitive and dative form, or possibly via Latin Aegle (“any of three mythological figures”)”, but that doesn't explain the -fīnus element. Compare Aeglefinus, which I think derives from the French églefin (“haddock”), which appears to be attested since circa 1300 as the Middle French egreffin. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find what source I might have used for the etymology. I fear there may not have been one. The derivation that Robert shows for églefin does not include any Greek or Latin. DCDuring (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning is likely based on the presumed etymology, and the "usage" likely is the one in taxonomic names.

David H. McNicoll, Dictionary of Natural History Terms with their derivations, including the various orders, genera, and species, London, 1863, page 9 gives this etymology: "Ægle'finus (Ichth.) αἰγλοφανής [aiglophanḗs], brilliant, lustrous". It contains a change of ο to e and of a to e - and the only explanation for that that I can think of is English mispronunciation or French or English deformation. Alternatively, the given etymology could be incorrect.
Dictionaries and other books mention French aiglefin, aigrefin, églefin (by Frenchies) or eglefin (by non-Frenchies or in caps as EGLEFIN) and English eglefinus as names for haddock. The origin is once said to be Dutch (14th century, so likely Middle Dutch) eschlevis which is said to literally mean shell-fish (from Why is an Apple a Pomme? A Journey with Words by Denis Dunstone, 2014, e-books version at books.google, which also mentions Spanish eglefino, Portuguese eglefim, Italian eglefino). A German book mentioned a Dutch schelvis (which looks more like Schellfisch) and says there was a "Umbildung". In another context a French aigle fin with the meaning "clever person" (schlauer Mensch) and the literal meaning "fine eagle" (feiner Adler) was mentioned.
So maybe the etymology is like this: some Dutch word, likely for the haddock -> French aiglefin, aigrefin, églefin (French caps, maybe in older typography, EGLEFIN), maybe by folketymological deforming of the Dutch to resemble aigle fin and then maybe to deform it as it's no eagle (aigle) -> maybe English or some other European language -> Translingual aeglefinus. Maybe one can find more and better references for this.

BTW: The long e (Wiktionary: "aeglēfīnus") is likely from one of the two presumed etymologies. So if the etymology is a guess, the length likely is too, and if it is a guess, then it shouldn't be "aeglēfīnus" without any note. -84.161.35.194 23:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW 2: By connecting aeglefinus with the French noun aiglefin, aigrefin, églefin, aeglefinus could be a noun too (in taxonomics used in apposition), so it's almost like an alternative form of Aeglefinus except that modern taxonomic uses capitalisation in a special way.

-84.161.35.194 23:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

八字還冇一撇

Doesn't seem to be Cantonese. There are very few Google results, some of which point to other dialects. It should be 十劃都未有一撇 in Cantonese — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 01:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

หมีขอ

Not found in Thai dictionaries.--Octahedron80 (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

𧦅歌

Shinjitai form of 謳歌. —suzukaze (t・c) 03:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Character 𧦅 is part of Extended shinjitai, "unofficial characters". --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barclays Bank

Rfv-sense: A bank in the United Kingdom. Needs cites meeting either WT:COMPANY or WT:BRAND criteria. Otherwise this should be deleted, as per the similar case American Airlines. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have banked at Barclays for many years, so I can confirm its existence. DonnanZ (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

乙那

加

originally listed as Category:Buyeo lemmas

—suzukaze (t・c) 02:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Category talk:Old Korean appendices. I think both Appendix:Old Korean deleted entries and Appendix:Baekje deleted entries should also be deleted, moving unattested terms to an appendix is not a solution to things. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this as RFvs of the only two entries in the category. If they can't be cited or moved to better titles in a month, they can be deleted. Wikipedia says some Buyeo words are attested, so the category itself seems fine. - -sche (discuss) 21:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the second entry, the New history of Korea (2005) by Hyŏn-hŭi Yi, ‎Sŏng-su Pak, ‎Nae-hyŏn Yun, page 111, says "When Wigeo was king, his uncle was in the position of uga. For this reason, the maga, uga, jeoga and guga, collectively called the daega officials, were appointed from among the king's relatives. In Eastern Buyeo, governors, called "ga" in Korean," as if the word is Korean and not Buyeo. - -sche (discuss) 21:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Tocio

Latin for Tokyo. Tagged but apparently not listed. Does not seem to be attested. - -sche (discuss) 02:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How does an ancient language, no longer in daily use, have a word for a city that was unknown to the Romans. Do we make it up as we go along. Is there any policy or precedent.--Dmol (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some people (especially the Catholic Church) have kept writing in Latin, so some modern places have attestable Latin names, e.g. Tzadia. But this one does not seem to be attested. I suggest it be moved to Tokio, per google books:"Tokio" Iaponiae, which finds many hits like:

1891, La Civiltà cattolica, issues 993-996, page 730:
... et constituimus, atque illustrem urbem Tokio quae Imperii caput et ...

- -sche (discuss) 03:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/17713/17713-h/17713-h.htm is a volume published in Latin in Japan after the founding of Edo.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That gutenberg text was printed in Roma and doesn't seem to have Tocio or Tokio (or inflected forms with stem Tocion- or Tokion-) in it. It also doesn't seem to have Jedo (or Jeddo, Iedo, Ieddo, Yedo, Yeddo) in it.
The given Latin example could contain an indeclinable Tokio, not Tokio with genitive Tokionis etc. Internet NL seems to have Tokio, -onis but isn't durably archived. In printed books at google one can find "in Tokio" in NL as in "Dedicavi hanc speciem domino Prof. geologiae Harada in Tokio." = "I have dedicated this species to mister Harada Professor of geology in Tokio" (biological context). Furthermore, there is the gender which would need attestation although feminine gender seems fitting (maybe cp. with WT:RFV#Olisipo). Alternatively it could be without mentioning a gender which is the better way if none is attested. But maybe one then has to use {{head|...}} instead of those specialised Latin entry templates. -84.161.7.226 22:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dmol and -sche -- every place which has a Roman Catholic diocese has to have an official Latin name of the diocese as used by the church authorities. These are always listed in the Italian Wikipedia articles on the dioceses, and often in the corresponding English Wikipedia articles. Sometimes these show the placename in the genitive case (Archidioecesis Angelorum for Los Angeles), while in other cases a generic adjective in -ensis is used. The official Catholic church name of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Tokyo is Archidioecesis Tokiensis... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there durably archived Latin sources for these Roman Catholic names? Well, "Archidioecesis Tokiensis" seems to appear in such a source (Acta Apostolicae Sedis), so never mind. However, the adjective Tokiensis does not attest the name Tokio. In an Acta Apostolicae Sedis one can find "quarum altera Tokio urbem atque civiles praefecturas de Tokio ...", but it has italics with it and thus doesn't appear like a nomral usage.
BTW: Based on the Acta Apostolica Sedis, the declension template in archidioecesis could be wrong. Roman Catholics have accusative "Archidioecesim" and ablative "archidioecesi" which make more sense. dioecesis gives accusative -im and ablative -i too, but also might have many made-up or very uncommon forms. -84.161.49.251 12:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

צבאה

Tagged ages ago but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 02:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be an incorrect singular from the plural צבאות of צבא. --Wiki Tiki 89 17:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

kaparülamit

Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 02:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Christi

Discussion moved to WT:Requests for deletion#Miles Christi.

ATK

Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 03:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

competentia

RFV-sense "expertise". Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ycd

And Ycd. These would be the expected abbreviations for yottacandela — were it to be attested. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

השליך

RFV-sense "to deduce, to conclude". Tagged by the person who added the sense, but not listed. Pinging some recently-active users who know Hebrew, who may know if it's valid: @Julien Daux, Wikitiki89. - -sche (discuss) 17:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one quote. The meaning exists (compare hashlakhá of the same root meaning "consequence", "ramification") but is less common than the third and especially first meaning and so is relatively difficult to find attestations for, but I'll see if I can get some more. — Kleio (t · c) 17:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just note that this sense was taken from Morfix, so the fact that it exists in Morfix means nothing. But thanks for the quotes, I was having trouble finding any. --Wiki Tiki 89 17:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, point is that Morfix rarely adds nonsense in my experience, so it's at least a good indication. I just added a third quote though, so it should count as attested now I think. Gotta say though I'm not 100% sure about how to exactly render some of these in English, and the second quote I couldn't even get the name of the author and the article (Google Books snippet view sucks), just the issue and name of the magazine/journal it was in. — Kleio (t · c) 18:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Translations don't have to sound good, they just have to help readers understand the Hebrew. --Wiki Tiki 89 18:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's also another meaning: "to influence", "to impact", as in להשליך על התוצאות, להשליך על הבחירה בין... Morfix and Sapir don't have this meaning, but Milog does. —Julien D. (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

camus

Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 17:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L&S: "Perh. a kind of collar for the neck, Non. p. 200, 16 (Trag. Rel. v. 302 Rib.)." Maybe that's the source for it, and maybe in another dictionary it's without the "Perh.", or maybe it's coming from L&S but with ignoring the "Perh." which should abbreviate "Perhaps". -84.161.7.226 21:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fustian

Rfv-sense "A class of cloth including corduroy and velveteen." Tagged but apparently not listed. - -sche (discuss) 17:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ริเริม

Tagged but not listed. Pinging recently-active editors who know some Thai and may be able to ascertain if this is a real word or not and provide citations: @หมวดซาโต้, YURI, Octahedron80, Iudexvivorum, Atitarev, Alifshinobi. - -sche (discuss) 17:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a[n uncommon] misspelling of ริเริ่ม (rí-rə̂əm). --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We should delete this entry. As หมวดซาโต้ wrote above, it's a(n uncommon) misspelling of ริเริ่ม (rí-rə̂əm). --A.S. (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just typo. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

brizomancy

Tagged but not listed. Has three citations, but their capitalization is all over the place and the first one seems more like a mention than a use. - -sche (discuss) 17:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gomorrah Principle

Just used in the one book? SemperBlotto (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entry is promotional and created by the book's author. It initially said more about the book than about the phrase! Equinox ◑ 22:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

combat à l'arc

Compare #dodge_bow; this seems to have been created as part of the same promotional effort. The hits I see don't support this meaning and may be SOP. - -sche (discuss) 02:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

vire

Latin: vocative singular of vir. Really? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely not just a matter of vir, but a matter of Wiktionary's templates, in this case of Template:la-decl-2nd-er. According to dictionaries, there is the vocative puere from which one might derive a voative in -e for such terms -- but there is also the nominative puerus to which this vocative belongs. L&S only has "old voc. puere", but Gaffiot has "arch. puerus Prisc. 6, 41 || voc. puere Caecil. Com. 100" and Georges has "Archaist. Nomin. puerus, Augustin. serm. 57, 6 Mai; vgl. Prisc. 6, 42: Vokat. puere, Caecil. com. 100. Afran. com. 193. Plaut. asin. 382 u.a.". Maybe some users or grammars did derive this voc. -e from puere like it's mentioned in L&S without puerus. In ML and maybe in (British) NL this voc. -e might occur more often, but then it should be marked and then it should only be added if attested (like it's done with the verb form in -ier by the parameter "|p3inf=1" which gives this text: "The present passive infinitive in -ier is a rare poetic form which is attested for this verb."). According to common grammars, the voc. of such terms like puer and vir only is the same as the nom.
BTW into the template this voc. form was added in diff without any reference or explanation. In diff it was moved from the note into the table. Luckily, someone later moved it back into a note. -84.161.7.226 21:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olisipo

It was tagged before as wiktionary had it as m. in Olisipo and as f. in Lisabon.
The RFV tag has been removed in contrary to the normal RFV procedure as mentioned at the top of WT:RFV with the comment "it's masculine", but no cite was given to support it. The person who removed the tag gave this comment in the old discussion:

"Both Lewis & Short and Gaffiot say masculine. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)"[reply]

He did not provide any cite which proves the gender. As dictionaries sometimes are wrong or contain unattested information, they don't attest anything. Furthermore, as pointed out in the old discussion, there are dictionaries which have Olisipo as a feminine:

"In some dictionaries the word is mentioned with feminine gender, e.g. in an appendix in F. K. Kraft's and M. A. Forbiger's dictionary (from 1826) it is: "Lissabon, (Lisboa), Olissipo (Ulisippo, Olisipo), onis, f. Plin. Lisbona." Furthermore the OLD (1968, p. 1246) has: "Olisīpō (-ippō) ~ōnis, f. Also Vlis-.". So in dictionaries one can find both genders, which could mean that none is attested."

Again: "So in dictionaries one can find both genders, which could mean that none is attested."
PS:

Links for the old discussion: Talk:Olisipo#RFV discussion: April–May 2017 and Special:PermanentLink/42770951#Olisipo.
Regarding the arching comment "This has already been detagged; I'm archiving it, as we have references for the listed gender":
It was detagged in contrary to RFV's procedure and without being cited properly. (Well, if one just looks into wiktionary and into Gaffiot and L&S then wiktionary's m. seems to be correct, while its f. seems to be an error. But it's not so easy.)
One can find incorrect or unattested information in dictionaries, and sometimes different dictionaries (like Gaffiot, L&S, L without S) also do have contradicting information. If that would attest anything, one could add much nonsense, or unattested stuff.
As for now, the gender is not properly attested, and for me it seems that one can't attest it properly, at least with classical sources.
But if dictionaries can be used to attest anything for (classical) Latin then one can attest both genders. Though, by which rule or exception of a rule are dictionary information sufficient for Latin entries?
WT:CFI has "For terms in extinct languages" - does Latin, even though it is still used, count as extinct? Later it's "For all other spoken languages that are living" - is Latin still spoken? Written it is, but that's not spoken. Maybe it's spoken by the Pope and other church people, so that it counts as spoken. And then maybe it is the "only one [..] mention is adequate" for spoken languages which could be used to justify using dictionaries. But there is the condition: "the community of editors for that language should maintain a list of materials deemed appropriate as the only sources for entries based on a single mention". By Wiktionary:About Latin#Attestation, L&S, Gaffiot and OLD aren't deemed appropriate.
So the proper way to resolve this RFV likely is this: Wait one month as likely there comes no attestion for the gender, at least not in classical Latin. Then add a usage note mentioning what's stated in the dictionaries (m. in L&S and Gaffiot, f. in OLD) and remove the RFV and the gender from the headword line. Of course, a better way would be to properly attest the gender, but that could be impossible.

-84.161.7.226 22:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC), PS from 23:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning this comment, L&S does not mark the length of final vowels ever. They are not claiming it is short. —John C5 05:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if they never mark it, but I'd too guess it's just unmarked (that's why it was "short or unmarked o at the end" with "unmarked" in it).
BTW: I already added a usage note as suggested above. If the gender get's attested, it could be removed too. If it doesn't get attested, an additional "The gender is unattested." could be added. -84.161.49.251 12:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

depend 2

Having just cited one archaic sense (see #depend), I'm RFVing another: "To serve; to attend; to act as a dependent or retainer." I searched for phrases like "depend[ing|ed] the king" and didn't find anything, and phrases like "depending on the king" seem to find only the usual senses of "depend", not this sense. - -sche (discuss) 02:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

плав

Rfv-sense "smelt". --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

天眼

Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ストリートクレド

Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 03:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

trip tic

Tagged but not listed. We've had this entry since 2006, with the only update being the RFV! It's possibly attested in this spelling, though apparently more commonly hyphenated. There's a wrinkle, however: it may be a product supplied by just one organization, the AAA, and many/most uses refer to that one product (and many also simultaneously explain what it is), which raises the question of whether or not BRAND applies. - -sche (discuss) 03:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ad perpetuum and ad perpetuam

Latin phrases purportedly meaning “everlasting” or “permanent”. I’m most sceptical, however, about the usage note included under ad perpetuum, viz.:

The words ad perpetuum or ad perpetuam rei memoriam were normally placed at the end of the salutation on Roman documents to convey the meaning that the documents were trustworthy and permanent.

I didn’t see anything about that in the usual lexicographic places (see perpetuus#References). The phrases in perpetuō (ablative) and in perpetuum (accusative) are well attested (elsewhere), but nowhere do I see mentioned a phrase with ad and any form of perpetuus. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 07:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

deinde scriptum

RFV for this supposedly idiomatic Latin phrases defined as:

"in place of a signature", "the same" (referring to a signature written above on the page, typically following a P.S.)

I haven’t been able to find it in L&S, du Cange, Elementary Lewis, Niermeyer, or the OLD. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It could be NL and not CL, so it would be missing in L&S and OLD. w:de:Liste lateinischer Abkürzungen, w:de:DS and w:de:Postskriptum mention it, but that's not a reliable source and could be a German abbreviation. Talk:deinde scriptum gives another etymology, but in English, German, Latin that would be unlikely. -84.161.49.251 12:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

אמבטיה

Rfv-sense "bathroom". --Wiki Tiki 89 16:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Morfix. Perhaps the definition needs to be clarified to "room with a bath". --Wiki Tiki 89 16:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, a Google Image search turns up pictures of both bathtubs and bathrooms, usually with a bathtub in the frame (so perhaps those are still pictures of "bathtub"), but sometimes with only a shower, or only a toilet and sink, which suggests that the word sometimes refers to the room. - -sche (discuss) 17:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see from those results that "חדר אמבטיה" is one of the terms for a home bathroom, and that the word "חדר" ("room") is omitted in most expressions such as "ריהוט אמבטיה" ("bath [room] furniture") and "ארונות אמבטיה" ("bath [room] cabinets"). I wonder if anyone ever says "באמבטיה" to mean "in the bathroom" rather than "in the bath". --Wiki Tiki 89 19:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

appoint

Rfv-sense: "point at by way of censure or commendation; arraign," which has one citation from Milton, which some dictionaries think just means "point at". - -sche (discuss) 01:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ironic nihilism

Any takers? First link given doesn't seem to use the term. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had four references then a user came and deleted half of them Kashifv (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Easy enough to cite (I have done so) - however, I think the term is SOP, and that this should be moved to RFD. Kiwima (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've found citations of the word "ironic" followed by the word "nihilism", but it seems to me you've cited a sum-of-parts rather than the gibberishy challenged sense. This is important, because if you just take the entry with the definition it currently has to RFD, the current definition is not as transparent (or as attested) as the phrase you found citations of. - -sche (discuss) 22:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IE you want me to find better references of the current definition rather than changing the definition itself. If the definition was changed it would be SOP RFD. right now it's just RFD due to SOP citations 170.170.59.138 14:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that the phrase seems to only ever be SOP in actual use, and the challenged definition is not attested, unless it is regarded as a very slanted/POV effort (based on the edit history, it seems to belong to far-right jargon) to describe the SOP term. - -sche (discuss) 17:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So..delete? I was coming from an alternative right perspective but the only resource I have is Urban Dictionary. 170.170.59.138 00:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

way too

Rfv-sense "very".__Gamren (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think its OK, maybe the two senses can be merged. DonnanZ (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to RFD? Ƿidsiþ 17:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I've never parsed this as a single unit. I'm pretty sure "way" just functions as an intensifying adverb here... "Way too much" isn't "way too"+ "much", it's "way" + "too much". Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I didn't think of that. From Oxford:

1.1North American [as submodifier] Much.

‘I was cycling way too fast’

More example sentences:

‘If he is moving along too fast or seems to like you way more than you like him, let him go.’

‘People may mock, but it's way better than my real social life.’

‘I'd actually always thought she was way cooler than him, and was keen to hang out.’

‘They find it hard to charge for their services; they usually give way more than they ask for, and this means they scrape by.’

‘You should just become a rocker; it would be easier to explain and looks way cooler.’

DonnanZ (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's hardly idiomatic, but is there an idiomatic English term? I had referred thither from the translations of all too, but suddenly I'm not sure whether those are even synonyms, and on reviewing the corpus it seems like all too really just means "very" with no additional meaning of excess (and for some reason it tends to appear hyphenatedly, as in all-too-human or all-too-common).__Gamren (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lycopersicum

Is this Latin, or just the second part of the Translingual taxonomic Solanum lycopersicum added as a Latin noun?
In Latin taxonomy one can find "Solanum Lycopersicum" and "Lycopersicum Humboldtii" but that's not the same as just lycopersicum. -84.161.49.251 12:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

pseudoplatanus

Sense 1: "False plane tree".
By the version history I get the impression that probably there is just the second sense and this first sense is a misplaced literal translation.
In Latin Acer pseudoplatanum and Acer Pseudoplatanum (the latter in Carolus Linnaeus') do exist, but that would have the 2nd sense in it.
Furthermore:

If sense 1 doesn't exist, this likely better is a Translingual than a Latin entry.
In modern non-Latin taxonomics pseudoplatanus could be an adjective as there is Anomalocentra pseudoplatana (in a English taxonomic book from 2002). But well, ATM this might be the only source for the feminine and this taxonomic name.

-84.161.49.251 12:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

burgee

Rfv-sense: "A kind of small coal used in furnaces." Webster's 1913 has the sense "A kind of small coat", so perhaps this is a misreading? - TheDaveRoss 13:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, The Century Dictionary does have "A kind of small coal used for burning in engine-furnaces," so maybe it's Webster who misspelled it. But the only uses I can find are of the flag sense, a capitalized last name, and (rarely) a word meaning something along the lines of "burgher". Century has no examples and it's not in The English Dialect Dictionary, which sometimes has citations of obscure senses. Is it in the OED? - -sche (discuss) 18:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Britanica 1910 also has the coal sense I see. Additionally I found this other sense, possibly related to the coal sense but probably not.

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2971: Parameter 1 is required.

- TheDaveRoss 18:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

one at a time

Rfv-sense "slowly or methodically".__Gamren (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

locust

RFV of the sense relating to Chinese Mainlanders. 蝗蟲 is used, but is English "locust" actually used identically? —suzukaze (t・c) 05:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

どうもない

RFV to be on the safe side, since the entire entry seems to be a rehash of this Yahoo! Answers question. —suzukaze (t・c) 09:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

farlig er den, som intet har at miste

__Gamren (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

forretninger før fornøjelser

__Gamren (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to tell us the term business before pleasure does not have an equivalent in Danish? DonnanZ (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I am expressing my doubt that the saying forretninger før fornøjelser exists. As for a translation, I suppose man må yde, før man kan nyde comes close.__Gamren (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

livet er blot et lysglimt i mørket

__Gamren (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sygdom kommer flyvende, men går krybende

__Gamren (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tal ikke om rebet i hængt mands hus

__Gamren (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tidligt gift gør tidligt gammel

This should be the last one.__Gamren (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

rust fortærer jern og misundelse fortærer sig selv

Forgot to list this one.__Gamren (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you think of another translation for green with envy which could replace this? DonnanZ (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact what I thought would be a false friend, "(gul og) grøn af misundelse" appears in the DDO. And there's no entry for misundelse either. DonnanZ (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, those idioms both exist.__Gamren (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Humbleocracy

Humbleocracy Leasnam (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted: only used by one particular blog. Equinox ◑ 21:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

祕闻

Can't seem to find anything definitive on Google books. Google News only has three results for google books:"祕闻" -"祕聞" -"秘", but I'm not sure if they were converted into simplified Chinese from traditional Chinese. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

樂與怒

Is this actually used to mean "rock and roll" aside from the album by Beyond? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fektruo

Google Books has a single Swedish book, apparently about some outcast kids ("de nummerlösa") who were forbidden from speaking their native Esperanto by an authoritarian government in a dystopian setting:

- 2015, Marta Söderberg, Athena, Gilla Böcker (ISBN 9789187457319)
  ”Tror du att jag räddade dig bara för att du skulle kunna ge upp ? Då hade jag väl för fan låtit dig drunkna. Jävla fektruo!” [emphasis not mine]
  Do you think I saved you just so you could give up? Then I would have fucking let you drown, wouldn't I? Damned shithole. [I never know how to render väl (or vel, in Danish) constructs in English]

I'm pretty sure that doesn't count. I'm not sure whether this is durably archived. And then there's a Reddit comment (in an otherwise-English post). There's some other stuff, too, like this and this.__Gamren (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that an Esperanto word used in Swedish doesn't count. Kajeroj el la Sudo (the last link) looks like a published periodical which is presumably durably archived. Google Groups (esp. soc.culture.esperanto) doesn't turn anything up, though.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terittituniš

Any takers? (not sure what the language is) SemperBlotto (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeeeeeeeah, I'm less and less excited about this user's contributions. —John C5 15:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the majority of the content is non-dictionary material. —John C5 16:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Hayasan theonym attested in Hittite. See տուտն (tutn). Unless someone can move this to a Hittite entry in the native script, it should be deleted. @Arban Blandi: cleaning after you is annoying. --Vahag (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Das Reich Urartu (Volkert Haas), page 24, gives the transcription ^Dte-ri-it-ti-tu-u-ni-a[š]^?, while a 1937 article in Indogermanische Forschungen and this paper by A Petrosyan prefer ^Dte-ri-it-ti-tu-u-ni-i[š]. That is 𒀭 (D, deity classifier) 𒋼𒊑𒀉𒋾𒌅𒌑𒉌𒅖 (te-ri-it-ti-tu-u-ni-iš) or 𒀸 (-aš) respectively. If no-one has a reason to prefer -aš, I would go with -iš since I find various other works rendering the final vowel as i. The first part is usually analysed as 𒋼𒊑 (te-ri, tri, “three”). The second part is sometimes connected to the word for "tail" mentioned above, or Τρῑ́των (Trī́tōn). - -sche (discuss) 19:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche: Thanks for your research. Could you either move or remove the entry? —John C5 19:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - -sche (discuss) 20:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, the user gave us something we can actually use. Kinda, sorta. —CodeCa t 20:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

take part

"To share or partake. They had cake and ice cream, but he did not take part." Equinox ◑ 23:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tricky one, because there is so much ambiguity with the first sense -- I think I have cited this one, but after combing through quotes, I honestly think we would be better off combining the two definitions. I did, however, find another, clearly distinct meaning, which I added.Kiwima (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

中國

Rfv-sense: a region in Japan. What's this? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Chūgoku region. —suzukaze (t・c) 01:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tooironic: There's one cite in the entry. Are you satisfied now that the def is improved, or do you still need a full RFV? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

インクレジブル

Japanese adjective, "incredible". 6 pages of Google hits, all largely about the Disney movie. —suzukaze (t・c) 06:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the google books hits? Siuenti (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Incredibles, when discussed in any language, does not cite the adjective in question. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

grumble

Rfv-sense: "A group of pugs". Can anyone cite this? --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It gets a fair amount of mentions, but not many uses. This is from Google Books.

2016, C.J. Cala, Some Blue Suited Bird, self-published.
A grumble of pugs, riding on unicorns with a rainbow bending in the background, sure was a sight to see.

I'm not even sure it counts as a use. The text is some strange, train of thought prose. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

寵

Rfv-sense for "favorite, concubine" definition. I couldn't find it in any online Chinese-English dictionary sources. Bumm13 (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's included in the Chinese-Chinese Yedict as "妾", citing the word 纳宠. —suzukaze (t・c) 19:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be cited now (with the help of Hanyu Da Zidian and Hanyu Da Cidian). Someone could help to improve the translations of the quotations. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Is this sense invariably found along with the word 纳? —suzukaze (t・c) 20:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Of all the examples I've seen, when it means "concubine", it always has 納 around it somewhere. Also, I think "favourite" might need to be separated. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sweating

Rfv-sense -- 'Sweating' does not appear to be a noun. 84.101.240.74 07:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tag, as it is clearly a noun. I know you're inexperienced, but the fact that a plural form sweatings exists is the fastest way to demonstrate that there has to be a noun sense. (Now, the sense that turns up most when one searches google books:"sweatings" is not in the entry, so that may have to be emended.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a noun, whether it has a plural or not. The plural is rather uncommon, I think. DonnanZ (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Achillean

Rfv-sense "Of or relating to male homosexuals or male homosexuality". Tagged but not listed; I could only find one good cite, which I added. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added several more. This is cited. Kiwima (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwima, your cites aren't quite sufficient. The second 1995 quote is using sense 1, and the 2004 and 2009 quotes are referring to a specific individual, Achilles Tatius. That only leaves two good cites. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

chesounable

Open to blame; culpable. Equinox ◑ 22:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

douhua

I can only find it in italics. Does that fulfil WT:CFI? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One unitalicized cite added. Here's another one but it's in some kind of Chinese textbook. DTLHS (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it should be cited now. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, @DTLHS, where were you able to find that cite? I'm having trouble finding the actual text online. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 05:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It shows up in Google Books for me. DTLHS (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 4,354: / Line 4,354: @@
 :: Alright, it should be '''cited''' now. —&nbsp;[[User:Justinrleung|justin(r)leung]]&nbsp;<sub>{&nbsp;[[User_talk:Justinrleung|(t...)]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Justinrleung|c=›]]&nbsp;}</sub> 05:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 :: BTW, {{ping|DTLHS}}, where were you able to find that cite? I'm having trouble finding the actual text online. —&nbsp;[[User:Justinrleung|justin(r)leung]]&nbsp;<sub>{&nbsp;[[User_talk:Justinrleung|(t...)]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Justinrleung|c=›]]&nbsp;}</sub> 05:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
+::: It shows up in Google Books for me. [[User:DTLHS|DTLHS]] ([[User talk:DTLHS|talk]]) 05:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

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}}

Revision as of 05:41, 12 May 2017

November 2015

January 2016

March 2016

April 2016

Niger and other Latin countries

(Quataria)

(Tzadia)

May 2016

じゃんぷ, ぽーる

よーろっぱ, ゆーらしあ, おーすとらりあ

にゅーよーくしゅう, うるどぅーご, じきてーぷ, こーんうぉーるご

etlich, einig

June 2016

July 2016

August 2016

churnalize, churnalise

something as adjective

September 2016

October 2016

comalta, derbchomalta

peta, petta

November 2016