{{Wiktionary:Request pages}} Template:Shortcut

This page is for entries in English as well as Middle English, Scots, Yola and Fingallian. For entries in other languages, including Old English and English-based creoles, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English.

{{Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Header}} Template:Cat-updates Template:Cat-updates

May 2023

accordion

"(figurative) A set of items (concepts, links, or otherwise) that can be packed and unpacked cognitively, or their representation as a set of virtual [computer science?] objects. See also telescoping." There is nothing in GBooks for e.g. "accordion of ideas" or "accordion of concepts". Equinox ◑ 13:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

"accordion of memories" or "memory" has a sufficient number of independent hits on GBook ([1]; [2], in an extended metaphor; [3]; [4], in an extended metaphor; [5]). This probably can't be considered as a lexicalised metaphor, though, and I'm not sure if this is what the editor who added the sense had in mind. 蒼鳥 _{fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong.} 16:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Century 1911 has an adjective sense: "Resembling in its folds the bellows of an accordion: as, an accordion camera (one that is extensible), accordion skirts, etc."

I take this to be attributive use of a figurative sense of the noun "Something having folds or being extendable as an accordion." DCDuring (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

June 2023

atheist

Rfv-sense "(proscribed) A person who does not believe in any religion (not even a religion without gods)". This could be a really interesting sense for atheist if it exists (three cites). I'm trying to imagine how to look for it- something about communists in China throwing off Confucianism or something? Really interesting one. Don't dimiss it out of hand, because I think have seen this discussed before. I found something close to this in Taiwan: [6] "Taiwanese-American hip-hop singer Stanley Huang's (黃立行) new album has triggered protests from the religious community because the title song is about atheism, a Chinese-language daily reported yesterday.Template:...It's not clear who has been offended by the tune, but most Taiwanese are Buddhists or Daoists. A small number are Christians, Muslims and atheists." Here's an atheist discussion on the topic of Taoism [7] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is the way a lot of people use the term. Whenever you see "atheist" listed alongside "Buddhist" and "Christian," is this not the adjectival analogue to this sense? I would reword the definition, though. Rather than "A person who does not believe in any religion" (because it's not a lack of belief that religions exist), I would say "A person who is not an adherent to any religion" or something along those lines. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Template:Ping I think you're saying that atheist can be a synonym for nonreligious, is that right? If so, where do we find cites for that? I think it is possible. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Template:Reply I added a couple cites. Do you think they fit the definition and are clear enough to be distinguishable from the other senses? If so, I'm fairly confident I can find more like them. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

For my money, the 5 cites at the citation page more clearly prove that 'atheist' can mean 'non-religious', not just 'someone who doesn't believe in a God/deity', than the 2 you've actually added as they starkly contrast atheists with religious people who don't believe in God (such as Buddhists and Jains). In any case, I don't think any of the senses we have are at all uncommon or merit the label 'proscribed' - they're just hard to disambiguate. Based on those 5 cites alone let's call this cited. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Beliefs in deities do not exist, the definitions miss what actually happens. Gods cannot be conceptualized and accordingly have no seat in anyone’s mind. Were it otherwise, we would have to speak of medically relevant delusions (the psychological fact of persistingly adhering to an idea in spite of it being incompatible with empirical data), but the intuition here is correct that it is factually inappropriate to pathologize. They are indeed indirect references to what someone, a particular group, demands in a behaviour throughout man’s life. You would be yourself an autist if you assumed that people actually mean what they claim.

Nowadays in developed countries those who continue to practice religion have a general awareness that they are phoneys, but it works. So contrary to how discourse makes it appear, choice of religion is secondary to previously fostered social convictions. The occurrence patterns of religiosity, i.e. communication that indicates allegiance to a god of choice, have been studied in their environments with the observation of their being “determined by the need to moralize others and ultimately by the level of social trust (i.e., what people think of others’ level of cooperation)”. Consistent with this observation, that everyone is directed towards in practice, Wiktionary already defines the particular sense of “belief” in question as “religious faith” and the sense of “faith” as “a religious or spiritual belief system”, probably not even circularily referring to the same sense of “belief”: the system character is substantial, the religiosity or spirituality Template:W. Hence, religion is the adherence to a cult, by definition structured around supernatural entities. You can thus define an atheist as someone not believing in a cult, i.e. the value systems espoused by it. Do you really think that people are that decided about particular meaning restrictions as provided in our dictionary entry atheist when they use the word? The proscribed sense, which comes to the mind of Template:Ping as that of the lot of people and thus attains the greatest support of usage as opposed to mention that deliberates about the term, is with this footing the only sense, the rest is theology, to be rejected as partisan instead of descriptive.

Consequentially, freedom of religion is incorrectly comprehended as someone’s freedom “to carry out any practices in accordance with those beliefs”, since people don’t even causally act on beliefs which don’t exist, and such specific provisions cannot be a mere Template:W on religious grounds. So in spite of the more popular definition, containing a confused causality, the minority definition in legal literature is more accurate, according to which freedom of religion is only freedom to perform ritual acts, exercitium religionis and devotio domestica, which has been defined since the Template:W. E.g. of this legal literature calling it thus restricted: Template:Cite-book; Template:Cite-book. While it is in any legal opinion that religion as opposed to weltanschauung is distinguished by making reference to deities or at least transcendental reference, so I repeat that belief in a deity is accessory to religiousness and the distinction in our entry nonsensical. Fay Freak (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Template:Ping You write: "The proscribed sense, which comes to the mind of @Andrew Sheedy as that of the lot of people and thus attains the greatest support of usage as opposed to mention that deliberates about the term, is with this footing the only sense, the rest is theology, to be rejected as partisan instead of descriptive." Would this mean that mean that the other senses are religious terminology within Abrahamic religion? I don't propose Wiktionary should label them that way, but I feel that's what the implication of your statement would be, perhaps. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Fay Freak, I don't mean to be harsh, but can you try making your point more succinctly? Beyond the philosophically and sociologically dubious claims and the off topic commentary, what lexical point are you trying to make? I don't know what your intentions are and it could well be that you mean very well, but be aware that you often come across as just trying to show off how smart you are and it's exhausting to wade through the cruft to decipher what's of actual value for the rest of us. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Template:Re I pointed out that so-called religious beliefs or beliefs in deities are embedded in religious systems and accessory to them, which are themselves accessory to habituations of humans to social conversation and thus what persons believe in is not actually gods but religions which bring their points, about what men should do, forward by the figure of gods. If people claim they ascribe truth to their god it is actually to manipulate people in the desired direction as they believe in the commandments and recommendations structured around the particular god figure and thus ascribe truth to them; value judgments and Template:W are treated the same in general language: Template:W. And perlocutionary speech acts also use to look exactly the same as any statement. The gods a religion has are just brand variations: Like if I like to wear Template:W because of the qualities and fits and designs and flex and attitude transmitted by items etc. I believe in that ape and the A Bathing Ape® and BAPE logos and their powers—what does that even mean? It is a breviloquence for what I exactly believe in, that this is the top brand to wear. Religion is also presented in the demeanours of people like clothing, rather than being believed by anyone only in its naked main character. Hence “A person who does not believe in any religion” is the only definition of atheist. Because people don’t believe in gods, as only symbolic for the complete religion. It wouldn’t make sense to say, e.g., I believe in the Christian God, without ascribing some traditional properties to him which then serve as a guideline to behaviour and then make an ingroup and outgroup; and even if you believe in only some kind of God then you have an ingroup of religious people and outgroup of nonreligious people, people see similarities between him who believes in a god and them who don’t: as this is still a distinction in how people operate, it was a requirement to be categorized as Template:W to be Template:W.

You could instead add a particular language rule, gloss or usage note, to “believe” as applied to the brands created by religions, but then the “true” linked in its first definition “to accept as true” has enough diverse meanings. If people believe in this or that god, they accept his system as “genuine; legitimate, valid” or “fair, unbiased”. So don’t people comprehend gods as “conforming to the actual state of reality or fact”? In spite of being meaningless due to facts and reality never being some otherworld, which itself would have to be interconnected with the real world, the idea pops in, only to reinforce the religion by motte and bailey; in no case the alleged beliefs in gods are exclusively in them without even their religions. The quotes given for the “belief in god” senses of atheist can easily be analyzed as “somebody who does not support, i.e. consciously furthers the practical effect of, the religion of a particular brand having the god X”. And agnostic is someone who is doubtful or uncertain what he does of religious teachings. Fay Freak (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

As Andrew implied above, this is unhelpful gibberish that just makes a long page longer. Nobody is going to get any meaningful information out of that. Equinox ◑ 23:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Template:Re I make the claims extra-easy for Equinox: Nobody is advancing deities without religion. When arguing something with reference to gods specifically vs. their religions, adherents of them play motte and bailey. Ultimately the goal is to further or reject a religion. If the context of quotes is broad enough we may witness this lack of the former meaning in each individual case. Why is a Christian according to Wiktionary one who “believes in Christianity”, a whole religion, or one “who seeks to live his or her life according” to the founder’s church while an atheist can be one merely rejects any deity of the religion? This distinction is contradictory and contrafactual—an atheist is conceptualized by the language community as someone who does not ascribe to a religion even if people aren’t that explicit about it as I can. People aren’t that exact and speak in figures. (Elaborated in detail.)

So we should change the definitions of “atheist” to e.g. after our current structure “A person who does not ascribe [or adheres] to a religion”; subsense strict: “one who rejects all religions”, broader sense: “one who doubts whether he should follow one”, loose sense: “one who is unaware of the reality of religions”, uncommon sense “a person who does not ascribe to a particular religion (but may ascribe to another one)”. Religions are supported like football clubs. They all believe very much in their teams. And because they have been so pervasive, we have this term for outsiders. Fay Freak (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

You're still doing it. Equinox ◑ 05:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

As an aside, what the heck is going on with the translation tables (the ones that have a bunch of translations, not the ones I just added). I added a qualifier to the first one (so that it corresponds to a definition), but the second doesn't have a corresponding sense. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I figured it out and (hopefully) fixed it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The current citations, except for perhaps the Taipei Times one, do not seem to unambiguously support this sense to me. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:Ping Which other sense(s) do you think they could fall under? Note that Buddhists are atheists in the sense of not believing in a god, yet they are listed alongside atheists in a couple of the current quotes. Or do you think there's a better way of wording the definition that captures this sense better? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:Re Buddhists in most parts of the world do in fact "believe in deities or gods", as sense 1 has it—see the whole wp article on Template:W—so listing atheists alongside Buddhists is not proof of much. Sense 1 also fits fine for the Beaman and Seidman quotes. I don't think there's anything wrong with the wording of the sense if it can actually be verified, but as far as I can tell what the quotation selection actually seems to be getting at atm is atheist meaning "an opponent of religion" (rather than just not believing), but since opponents of religion in general will almost by definition be atheists according to sense 1 anyway that's quite hard to disentangle as a separate sense. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:Reply I see your point, though from my (admittedly limited) studies of Buddhism, my understanding is that those aren't deities or gods in the normal sense of the word, making the Wikipedia article a bit inaccurate. What the definition is trying to capture is the sense in which atheist is often used as a religious category, on par with "Christian" or "Buddhist". Many people would find the list, "Christians, Hindus, Muslims, and people who believe in gods" a bit incongruent (one would expect "and other people who believe in gods"), but not the list, "Confucians, Taoists, Buddhists, and atheists," which suggests that for many people, "atheist" means not so much "person who does not believe in a god", but rather, "person whose religious beliefs are that there is no god". Note that the capitalization of "Atheist" in the 2002 quote supports the understanding that "Atheism" is a category of religious belief on par with Buddhism, rather than simply describing one aspect of religious belief, which could equally be applied in the strict sense to Buddhists. You may however be right about the two most recent quotes. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. This is tough, because it's believable to me that some people think of the word in this way, basically as a synonym of none(?), but I have to agree with Al-Muqanna that few if any of the current citations support it: I see no reason to take the 1766 "a Heathen or Christian; an Atheist or religious Person, a Papist or a Protestant" cite to be using anything but the usual sense (1), and likewise nothing about the 2002 or 2014 or 2015 Seidman or 2019 cites suggests anything but the usual sense to me. It's not as if relatively aggressive atheists like Jillette think of deityless superstition as being great and only deity-having superstition as bad, so AFAICT "many atheists [are] antireligion" is an accurate statement [for at least some definitions/interpretations of 'many'] using the usual sense of the word and posing no lexical problems.
I wonder if this would be better handled as a usage note, that some people think of religion as meaning belief in one or more gods and therefore think of atheism and religion as mutually exclusive...? (Or perhaps that is a cop-out and we should either cite the sense or remove it.)
I note that a corresponding sense is present at atheism and either needs to be cited or RFVed. More generally, I wonder if we would be better off trying to centralize things, so either atheist defines itself in terms of atheism and points people to go find all the definitions there (hopefully someone can come up with something better wordsmithed than "one whose view is atheism"!) or vice versa. - -sche (discuss) 15:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding it the way you and Al-Muqanna see it, to be honest. "Religious person" and "theist" are not synonyms. Some religions do not involve believe in gods (like many forms of Buddhism--just google "do Buddhists believe in a god"). So any citation that draws a direct contrast between atheism and religion, as opposed to atheism and theism is clear evidence (IMHO) of atheism being used to mean "a non-religious person" as opposed to "a non theist". Otherwise, Buddhism would not be contrasted with atheism, because that would be nonsensical. The citation that says "most Taiwanese are Buddhists or Daoists" but "A small number are Christians, Muslims and atheists" is nonsensical according to sense 1, since Buddhists are atheists in that sense.

The same thing applies when you have a census or a survey and it asks you your religion/religious beliefs. Often, "atheist/-ism" will be an option, alongside various religions (including Buddhism). Yet theism is just one facet of religious belief, which is not shared by all religions. So the fact that the word "atheism" is used in contrast to these means that it is used to refer to non-religiosity as a whole. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Template:Ping If you still don't see my point, maybe we could send this to RFD? We might have better luck achieving a consensus if we start a new discussion from a different angle. And then hopefully more people would weigh in. I'm convinced that I've cited the sense in question. Not to mention that I've encountered dozens of annoyed atheists online trying to convince religious people that sense 1 exists, not just sense 3! So I'm a bit bewildered that people are questioning sense 3. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

atheism

Connected to the preceding:

I doubt that "Template:Tq" is distinct from the sense right before it, viz. "absence of belief in a particular deity, notwithstanding belief in other deities",
and the sense "Template:Tq" is just the -ism version of the -ist sense RFVed above, so has the same issues and should (AFAICT) be handled similarly, i.e. either cited or removed or perhaps made a usage note.

- -sche (discuss) 16:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't like the wording of the "One True God" sense, and I have no reason to believe it's attested, but I think it is distinct from the "particular deity" sense because the "One True God" sense additionally requires belief in certain properties of that deity. The "particular deity" sense can't call unitarianism a form of atheism, whereas the "One True God" sense does. McYeee (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

cibai

None of the cites provided are spelled this way. - TheDaveRoss 19:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Added some more examples with different spellings (including cibai), although it's hard to search effectively on Usenet due to heavy code-switching. We could consider moving the main form to cheebai, as suggested in the earlier RFV. Einstein2 (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2023

Hospital Emergency Codes

Template:Emergency codes

These codes are defined as US and Canada, however there is certainly not the degree of standardization that this implies across all of these codes. Some, Template:M for example, are quite standard in the US (and Canada?), but most of the others vary in meaning from hospital to hospital or at least regionally. If these are actually universal in Canada we should probably remove the US label from many of them, and either add regional meanings or define them more generically. - TheDaveRoss 17:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

More info at Template:W, which makes it clear that the US does not have standards, and Canada has standards by province, many of which are shared. - TheDaveRoss 17:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Template:Ping looks like you made the template, do you have some expertise to share here? - TheDaveRoss 17:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but this isn't something that lexico-nerds at RFV are going to do. How can we determine the meanings from actual documentation, to be placed into References sections? (Perhaps we should call Luciferwildcat back from the ninth circle of emergency healthcare... hahah...) Equinox ◑ 17:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsure what it would be best to do here; as you say, some so commonly have a certain consistent meaning (Citations:code blue) that it makes sense to record it, while others seem to have no set meaning (code black has four definitions so far), and yet... is that a sign we should generalize code black's definition to e.g. "Template:Tq"? Or that we should keep every attestable definition? Or that it's not idiomatic at all? Colour codes are also used by e.g. police, prison guards, and others, so is having four definitions at code black like having definitions for every institution's meaning of level four (e.g. "a security level indicating a heightened threat", "a security clearance level granting access to...", "a pay grade equivalent to...", etc), i.e. something we don't/shouldn't do? - -sche (discuss) 08:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

This reminds me a bit of my idea a few years ago to create a page for category five, which can mean a very strong hurricane, but which must surely have quite an array of other meanings in other industries. And surely more so for the smaller numbers. —Soap— 21:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

oversit

Two more dubious senses from the very large set given here. One is "to grasp, comprehend; to understand"; the other is "(archaic) to overstay, outstay, overlinger". Entry probably also needs more glossing to indicate that this isn't a normal word used by many people. Equinox ◑ 11:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I've added a few quotes to Citations:oversit a while ago but I'm not confident enough to sort them by sense. Some of the citations (e.g. 1834, 1890, 1907) seem to support the "overstay" sense, although I am not completely sure. Einstein2 (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

dominus vobiscum

Couldn't find any convincing non-mention, non-code-switching examples: this is also just referring to the actual words "dominus vobiscum", not the name of some longer prayer, so I'm sceptical there are uses of this in English. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

How do we treat other formulas from non-English languages, especially from ceremonies? Do we keep them only if they are transliterated? DCDuring (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I highly, highly doubt this is used as an interjection in English, as the entry claims. There are some borderline nominal uses:

Template:Quote-book

It might be worthwhile having an entry for this use, but certainly not for the interjection, which is quite simply Latin, regardless of what language the rest of the liturgy/prayer might be in. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, I might note that the entry should be at Template:M. Dominus in this context always refers to God and hence would pretty well always be capitalized. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

On English—both of the above are in italics in the originals that I've found, FWIW ([8], [9]). This is the same sort of thing as e.g. the court "who ... lived on a vive le roi" in Wollstonecraft ([10]) which I don't think can be taken as an example of "vive le roi" being an English phrase either. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

oes

Rfv-sense: plural of the letter 'O'.

The first citation, from Francis Bacon, doesn't seem to me to unambiguously support the definition. If it does not, then the definition (labelled rare)needs another quotation to remain. DCDuring (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

See the wp article for Template:W, the item Bacon was referring to. That is the etymology but his meaning is obviously not the letter. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've moved the Bacon quotation to Citations:oes DCDuring (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

OED lemmatises the "spangle" sense at Template:M, but notes it is always found in the plural. I'm going to follow Wikipedia and add it as a plural-only sense of Template:M. If a singular can be found, we should move it there. This, that and the other (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

It's listed in the OED. kwami (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

ponderosa

Rfv-sense "social, lime or get together where planning or issues are discussed". Jberkel 16:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

This is the top sense on Urban Dictionary, where a much-upvoted entry from 2017 claims the word was coined by Jackie Christie from the US TV show Basketball Wives. Here is Jackie herself giving a definition. Looking on Google, a better definition would be "a conversation, in the context of Jackie Christie's participation (or lack thereof) in said conversation"... This, that and the other (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The synonyms are problematic too. "social event" and "mixer" have been added as synonyms, but those are more like parties held for fun. I don't see how "planning or issues are discussed" at a mixer. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:49D0:1ABA:3934:4EBA 20:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

aquan

Rare/nonstandard if it exists. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes (1605)

Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift (1726)

The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan (1678)

You are right, it is extremely hard to find reliable sources that use this word, but in these books I remember distinctly reading it. I cannot find any modern examples, but I do not know whether this is grounds for rejection. I am unsure and new to Wikitionary, so feel free to remove it if necessary. 60.241.90.170 07:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

In that case it may be an archaic term and we do document those, just with the appropriate labels. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Although barring a funny Cervantes translation if it was actually in books as prominent as those it would have been in Webster 1913 and imported already. I can't find any evidence of its existence, and there's no potential Latin etymon *aquanus either (of course we instead have aquatic < aquaticus). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems to see limited use in science fiction as the name of a water-based race or species, for instance:

Template:Quote-book

(The English translation of) a Japanese sci-fi novel Daiyon kanpyōki (Inter Ice Age 4, 1959) by Template:W also apparently uses it, judging from the various literary critiques.

We would need a third cite independent of Abe's text and its critiques. This, that and the other (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

pyment

Newly added sense 2: "spiced wine". The editor claims it is the older/true usage, but it does not agree with Google Books results for the word. — On the other hand, I just noticed that the alt form Template:M has a different definition matching this challenged one... hmmm...? Equinox ◑ 16:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

"Piment" and "pyment" are recognized variants of each other. Both the OED and the Middle English Dictionary have their entries under the "piment" spelling, but "pyment" is also common. See Chaucer, "Miller's Tale": "He sente hire pyment, meeth, and spiced ale". OED defines "piment" as "A drink composed of wine sweetened with honey and flavoured with spices", and lists the variant spellings "piement", "pimente", "pyement", "pyment", and "pymente". The definition of "mead with grape juice" does not appear in my copy under either "piment" or "pyment", but the OED cites the earliest example of the "spiced wine" usage as 1225, so it's reasonably old. I would bet that the mead-and-grape-juice definition (which was new to me, I had to google that) is a derivative of the original idea of a spiced wine sweetened with honey (still honey + grapes, just the other way around). NowhereMan583 (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

ignorantia juris non excusat

I doubt it's English. I would keep this under a Latin header. P U C – 19:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the variation in the Latin wording and the definition suggest it SOP, so delete. (German Unwissenheit schützt vor Strafe nicht is idiomatic colloquially with marked syntax in contrast.) Why would it be a dictionary entry from jurist usage? The law determines what “excuses” in detail. There can only be an idiom with those that are remote from legal knowledge, but they will hardly say in English these Latin words, meaning that no quotes will suffice. Fay Freak (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a common legal maxim which will be found from time to time in English legal texts, but I don't know if that's enough to justify having a separate English header for the term. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I think our current treatment of Latin expressions - to the extent that we have a coherent policy - is not optimal. That an expression is used in running text in English (even unitalicised) is not enough; it's still Latin, and felt as such. Imo we should only have a Latin header, and maybe create a new section where we'd mention in which modern languages the expression is frequently used. It'd be a bit comparable to the descendants section. P U C – 12:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Any "short" expression derived from Latin can readily become part of the English lexicon. One issue is how "short". Four syllables seems to be per say sufficiently short. Eleven seems ipso facto too long. Another question is whose lexicon: the man in the street or the men talking in a courtroom? That English has the adage ignorance of the law is no excuse, which we might include as a proverb or merely as a collocation, means that there is little reason for normal speakers to include this expression in their lexicon. But those in the legal profession may include Latinate expressions to signal to their clients, opponents, and judges their superior education. However, only occasionally and whimsically do we include expressions solely for their pragmatic function. DCDuring (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Template:M is arguably SOP, but Template:M is not (in English). As ever, the question is whether terms are citable. Theknightwho (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Most people believe that ignorance of the law is a pretty good excuse, were it not for the existence of the oft-repeated adage. SoPitude is why we would only include it as a proverb or as a collocation (probably under ignorance). DCDuring (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" could definitely be considered a proverb but the meaning is so transparent I'm not sure what the benefit of an entry would be. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

If it's indeed lexicalised I think it belongs here, no matter how transparent it is. And I'm looking for a place to gather translations: Template:Cog, Template:Cog, and probably others. P U C – 19:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The law itself does not take the expression too literally: "The Lambert decision explicitly recognized this fair notice requirement as an exception to the general rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse". "The U.S. Supreme Court, however, by a 5-4 majority opinion written by Justice Douglas, held that Ms. Lambert's due process rights were violated because she was not notified about a registration requirement that she could not be reasonably presumed to know existed. In this case, ignorance of the law was a legitimate defense."

IOW, the US Supreme Court believes that the principle expressed does have significant exceptions, ie, that it is not literally true. DCDuring (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

pick flowers

To use the toilet. Equinox ◑ 21:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s hard to find uses that are clearly metaphorical online but I’ve heard my dad say this. It doesn’t actually means ‘use the toilet’ literally but to urinate by the side of the road. I did find this example[11] on Google Books. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

You think that would be a calque from Japanese as claimed? Equinox ◑ 12:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

In Overlordnat's book it's explicitly a translation from Isan as well. I think I may have heard it before in English, though if so seems pretty implausible it was from Japanese, never mind Isan. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I doubt the English expression chiefly came about from being a calque from any other language, it’s probably a coincidence that the same metaphor is used in other languages and English and I accept that my quote was a bit ‘mentiony’ and appears as a translation so is far from ideal. Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's a stackexchange discussion saying it's at least several decades old in Britain. It does seem to be real, but the literal meaning makes it hard to search for (another urination euphemism in this boat is Citations:pump ship, which has two but not yet three cites). Fodors says it's also the euphemism used in Botswana, which IMO does support the idea that it may just be an obvious excuse to leave an outdoor group for a moment which various cultures hit upon, rather than a calque. - -sche (discuss) 20:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

rontosecond

Could be one of those terms that get coined but haven't been actually used (Edit: apparently the prefix ronto- is a new one so this hasn't gained currency yet). lattermint (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

heartburn

Rfv-sense Template:Tq. Really? Theknightwho (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Cited and added a gloss to clarify. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

To be picky about it, I think heartburn is the discomfort or pain resulting from an annoyance. IOW, I don't think it is substitutable for any definition of annoyance, at least in most of the citations. DCDuring (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems perfectly substitutable to me except for "have heartburn" (since one would simply say "I'm annoyed" rather than "I have annoyance"). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Surprisingly, no OneLook dictionary has a figurative sense for heartburn. Perhaps OED does. The base sense refers to discomfort and not cause. Do our definitions of annoyance cover both the feeling and the cause? They do so imperfectly at best. I don't think we usually are willing to rely of users being able to infer meaning from metonymy. If we would our polysemic entries could be much shorter. DCDuring (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the plausibility of the distinction you're trying to draw, I think. The metaphor drawn by this use is between the psychological state of annoyance (which is a kind of discomfort) and the physical discomfort felt from heartburn (another kind). It's not at some remove from the state itself. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Meiteilogist

P U C – 08:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Meiteiologist

P U C – 08:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Classical Meitei

Links to a Wikivoyage article and a Wikibooks article, both by the entry's creator. The Wikipedia page Template:W, also written by the entry's creator, has a hatnote mentioning Classical Meiti linking to the Wiktionary entry (afaik improperly by WP guidelines). Any usage of "classical Meitei" in independent sources I can find is non-capitalised and SOP (e.g., "a classical Meitei ballad"). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 08:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Classical Manipuri

Same as above, but with somewhat more SOP attestation (apparently usually in reference to dancing). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Ancient Meitei

Pretty common as an SOP phrase but not seeing evidence of capitalised usage or the proper noun sense. The linked Wikibooks article was made by the entry's creator. Note the ISO code linked is denominated "Old Manipuri", a Google search does not show any independent usage of the label "Ancient Meitei" for that code. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that if this fails, we may want to do something about the many entries by the same user which use this term. - -sche (discuss) 21:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

louk

Three different words (etymology sections), of which only "alt form of lock" seems citeable. The OED only has pre-1500 uses, and two post-1500 mentions, for "pull up (weeds)", saying it's now only dialectal, but the EDD only has several completely different words spelled louk ("idle, loaf, louch", "strike, beat, thrash", "put in place", "window lattice"), but not any of the ones we or the OED have. I can find mentions of "pull up weeds / thin out plants more generally" in various other old dialect dictionaries, but haven't spotted uses. Louk as an obsolete spelling of look (gaze at) could probably be cited and added. Some senses (at least "close/lock", as well as "grapple") would meet CFI as Scots; most of the rest of the content would be saved by moving it to Middle English louken. - -sche (discuss) 17:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I've moved "weed" to louken and "accomplise" to lowke (RFV-failed as English, converted to Middle English). "Alt form of lock" has two cites and needs just one more in order to pass. - -sche (discuss) 17:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

RFV-failed and removed the 'alt form of lock' sense, moved citations to Citations:louk. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

pilled

Slang: "In a state of believing, especially from evidence but not necessarily." Evidently intended to capture the Template:M, Template:M, etc. Internet concepts, but is it actually used alone? Equinox ◑ 21:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Probably the same thing as Template:M but without the hyphen. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

That is not morphologically a suffix (I see it's your entry): I think that was created in error. But it's another story. In general, entire words attached to other words are not "suffixes": a greenfly is not "green" suffixed with "-fly", but rather a compound. Your "-pilled" is more likely something like "red pill" + "-ed". Equinox ◑ 05:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Ehh... I remember this discussion coming up before at some point in connection with blends (last year?). I'm not sure what you mean by morphologically not a suffix. The dividing line between a word that forms compounds and a lexicalised suffix is fuzzy in general. -gate for political scandals is definitely a suffix now and not just a novel recoinage from Watergate every time it's used, for example, but that was a process. The citations already at -pilled suggest a similar process going on, and I've personally seen stuff like "brunchpilled" without any intention of referring to a "brunch pill" or a generic verb "to brunchpill". Note that they're adjectives—they take "more", "very", predication "is ...". So -pilled is probably fine as is IMO. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

centimate

To take a certain size of sample. Etymologically sound, etc., but doesn't seem to be in real use. If I search in Google Books, I mostly find stuff about "decimating" (i.e. killing 1 person in 100) but at the smaller scale. Not about sample sizes. Equinox ◑ 05:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I added the first quotation that turned up from a credible-looking source (and which handily indicated a definition within the quotation); I have to admit I was a little surprised at the statistical usage — I'd been expecting a meaning closer to the decimate concept, in its most common usage. (By the way, if the statistical meaning is accepted, then definitions at decimate may also have to be tweaked?)

It sounds like you're happy to keep the term, but want to change the definition(s)?

Meanwhile, Einstein2 added a citation for yet another meaning (to divide into hundredths).

—DIV (1.145.8.61 12:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC))

infin.

Rfv-sense: "infinite" (noun). Einstein2 (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

shis

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I went searching on Usenet for this. I found some definite uses among the many typos (Citations:shis):

In the early uses (1989 and 1993), it appears to be a gender-neutral pronoun (this usage doesn't fit our current definition).
In 2005, "Maak" used the pronoun in several derogatory stories that demean LGBT people. It's not entirely clear to me whether the stories refer specifically to gay men, or trans women, or some other less specific group.
I'm not sure what 2006 post from "America the Beautiful" is trying to get at.

I'd expect to find some evidence on Tumblr, but that's a lot of work... This, that and the other (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

palpebrate

Dictionary-only suspected. lattermint (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I could not find any uses meaning "having eyelids", but I found a lot meaning pertaining to eyelids, so I added that as an additional meaning, as well as the verb meaning (to wink or blink). Kiwima (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The Tony Grach text can hardly be described as Standard English and I would suggest it is as useless for RFV purposes as Finnegans Wake. Here's a typical passage:

"I won't simple agree either anything was just entrusted by their hands to hold that sweat possession, is hard to say even whether is what was name their owning or anything else" Molice wag once, and keep saying" Honest I never reach to know what was within the only order such precept which these wealthier used in efficacious of their belong, or we also doubt to guess are mammonish been just given to the individual in peculium about" Molice she was busying watching the fold of vivarium of multi beasties, some are quiet as unprecedented not for their Mesozoic kinds which can flabbergasted anyone as if to found diplodocus in such little size still living somewhere in this world today and those others seems are affinity with Saprozoics or Kimaris in the face for their uncephalous structure and vicious observant and the least are in oddment alike of primitive fauna, mouth of feline but berbivour teeth and greenish in skin rather beings in common nature of wool dressed,Template:Sic

Even the narrative voice uses this weird barely-grammatical language. Note the apparent solecism berbivour. Reading other parts of the text, it looks like the author is indeed trying to emulate Joyce (and falling far short, if I may say so).

If we discount this cite, we only have two for the verb. This, that and the other (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I have replaced the disputed cite with a different one. Kiwima (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:Reply You replaced a different quotation instead of the one by Grach; I have restored that one and removed Grach’s. J3133 (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, and thanks Kiwima (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

the house always wins

Rfv-sense: 3. "An unavoidable, usually unpleasant scenario that is inevitable in the long run that hopelessly cannot be overcome in the end, regardless of various actions that can mitigate or delay it in the short term." Firstly, this isn't the definition of a proverb, it's an overwrought noun phrase. If there's a proverb sense here it's also not familiar to me: something like "we need to clean up the bathroom eventually—the house always wins" comes off as a bit weird.

I think there is a missing figurative sense or scope here though: afaik it's also used broadly to suggest that something is rigged to benefit some person or group, which isn't covered by the limited wording of sense 2. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

It reminds me of what we're calling Ginsberg's theorem on Wikipedia ... a metaphorical restatement of the laws of thermodynamics in the form of a card game ... you can't win, you can't break even, and you can't quit the game. (The zeroth law was added in later.) And I saw something similar in a popular science book about entropy, though I can't find it now. There are a few websites using the phrase the house always wins as a metaphor about entropy. But a metaphor isn't a definition, I suppose ... I'm not really sure if we can use this or not, ... it just seems to me that the metaphor need not always be a complaint about human affairs, it can simply be a restatement of natural law. —Soap— 00:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Template:Re Yes, it occurred to me that people can use it in reference to things like death and entropy, with a vague idea of anthropomorphising the force they're talking about (you can't cheat Death). What I would do, I think, is change sense 2 to refer to things being systemically rigged or biased more generally than just one specific point about economics, and have a third sense with a second, even further extension to things like natural laws without any actual people involved. I think the RFV'd sense is probably just missing the point a bit. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

If sense 3 is to be kept, it shouldn’t be defined as a noun. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

What a dreadful set of definitions. DCDuring (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

bête de scène

Is this really used in English? The single quote is very mentiony. Btw, what's a good translation for this? Need a gloss for Template:M+. Jberkel 21:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps English just lacks a good counterpart. I see animal metaphors with Fr bête de scène, G Rampensau, and Du podiumbeest. English usually uses "animal" for this, e.g. party animal instead of *party beast. But I've never heard of anything like "stage animal" or "show animal". I used showman just now to translate a quote on the podiumbeest page, but I think t's suboptimal and only used that because we had had no bolded word at all before that. Perhaps the lack of a good Eng translation is why we might be using the French words. —Soap— 14:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I should I didnt mean to imply that the three animal terms above are also synonyms of each other. And I also wonder if we're elaborating a bit too much with our English definition ... even if we do find the required three cites, will they really all have such a specific definition? I'm really fond of the "feral player" phrasing but it doesn't seem quite believable to me. —Soap— 14:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

English is a little bit pickier, selecting particular animals for such expressions, like show horse/showhorse, which I've heard used metaphorically, a;beit with a different meaning. Feral player uses feral, not a good definiens in metaphorical use, just as metaphors are not usually good definitions. Our normal users would probably benefit more from a non-gloss definition if we don't have a good gloss expression and can't come up with a long-form definition. DCDuring (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

underfriction

The linked Wikipedia article suggests that this is a noun adjunct in the phrase "underfriction wheel" rather than a standalone noun. There are no Google Books hits for the would-be plural "underfrictions".

I propose updating and moving to underfriction wheel. — Paul G (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Although mostly used attributively, the term exists outside the mentioned phrase: [12], [13], [14] etc. There are also uses which predate the 1918/19 patent of Miller, so a second sense might be needed: [15], [16], [17]. Einstein2 (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

wray

We have three senses: (1) denounce, (2) reveal a secret, (3) betray. According to OED, (1) didn't survive past 1500, (2) did but it may not be attestable in this spelling (the cites have wry, wrie, ...), and (3) was used in the 1500s in the sense of "betray someone's true character" but OED only gives cites from Whetstone and Mir. for Mag. - a third would be needed. The word probably survived longer in dialect, but I haven't checked EDD. This, that and the other (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Should this entry simply be re-categorized as Middle English then? I would not like to see it deleted, as is threatened by the current warning, since it certainly was a legitimate word at one time & is important for historical reference. Language&Life (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

enm quotes moved to wreien P. Sovjunk (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Romaboo

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

This word is clearly attestable on Reddit going back a few years and probably on Instagram too. Those are where you tend to see history memes the most. A WaPo story that ran this week may have brought attention from the wider world, so maybe it will spread outside its origin. I dont have a WaPo account and so cant' check if the word Romaboo actually appears in the article. Its worth noting that we never actually rejected Reddit as a source of citations, it was only "no consensus", the same as Twitter. But we seem to have decided without a new vote that we're just not that interested in words used only on Reddit, and I havent seen too many words being added from Twitter lately either. —Soap— 17:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I meant to point out that the only other two edits from the IP who created this were both vandalism, though it may well be that it's a shared IP and therefore not the same person. —Soap— 20:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

snowman hole

"An elongated hole consisting of two round holes touching each other." I couldn't find any evidence anywhere. Equinox ◑ 01:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Just found this European Patent Office PDF on the Web: [18] "...(known as a "snowman" hole due to its distinctive shape). A snowman hole is typically a difficult repair due to the elongated axis joining two holes..." Equinox ◑ 09:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

whorenalist

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Cited. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Definition needs work: currently, "a reporter or journalist whose viewpoints change frequently". What's whorish about that? I don't think we mean someone who learns new things (e.g. science journo) and adapts their views. Surely it must mean one who doesn't properly study and respect their subject, or is amenable to bribes, etc. Equinox ◑ 13:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The definition's not the best, that's true. Perhaps we should copy the definition at presstitute instead, or list it as a synonym of that? --Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Science journos learn things? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

You have to really whack it into their heads. Drop an apple. Equinox ◑ 19:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The current definition line might refer to the analogy between changing viewpoints and sexual partners. However, I don't think the quotations at Citations:whorenalist support such a definition. I am not sure whether it can be considered synonymous to presstitute or just a general derogatory term for a journalist disliked by the speaker. Einstein2 (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

thunder

"(figuratively) The spotlight. Shortly after I announced my pregnancy, he stole my thunder with his news of landing his dream job." Needs examples that are not covered by the separate entry Template:M. Equinox ◑ 15:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The etymology in [[steal someone's thunder]] makes they use of thunder in this sentence seem particularly unlikely, but .... DCDuring (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Nerdview

Can't find significant usage in GBooks, but it is mentioned in one Wikipedia article. If real, the capital N is probably wrong. Equinox ◑ 11:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what "if real" means in this context, but it appears in a series of blog posts by Geoffrey K. Pullum, the first of which (posted June 26, 2008) ends with "people with any kind of technical knowledge of a domain tend to get hopelessly (and unwittingly) stuck in a frame of reference that relates to their view of the issue, and their trade's technical parlance, not that of the ordinary humans with whom they so signally fail to engage. [...] The phenomenon — we could call it nerdview — is widespread." I assume the word is Pullum's creation.--Urszag (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

By "if real" I mean "if the word exists at all"; apparently it's what we would call a protologism (and the capital N is indeed wrong). Equinox ◑ 18:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Not found on Google Scholar or News. Mentioned in G. Groups. I can't get a preview of any use on Google Books, but Google gives books that may have it. We would need other (post-2008) corpora or access the books themselves. It might be particularly useful in BP discussions (let alone those on GP) here. DCDuring (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

marrot

3 different birds, 3 fun quotey challenges P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Here's what I've found so far:

Razorbilled auk: [19], [20]
Guillemot: [21], [22], [23]
Puffin (aka "parrot"): I haven't been able to find usage that can be unambiguously identified with the puffin, but I'm not through checking. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

confusionism

Sense 2: "A strategy of maintaining confusion in the minds and preventing objective analysis." (Needs to be distinct from sense 1: "Any doctrine or philosophy that serves to confuse people.") Equinox ◑ 13:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Unrelated to the RFV, but this is such an obvious pun on Confucianism that I want us to mention it in the etymology, but I dont want to just put it there based on instinct. If it helps I know there is a quote out there somewhere ... maybe Tao of Pooh? ... where a related pun between Confucius and confusion is made, and it may even be that the word confusionism appears there. I suspect Ive got the wrong book though. Nothing here] looks like what I saw, and despite its title the book seems to be fairly level-headed and not the type to contain many puns. (Though I admittedly only got a 2-page preview.) All the best, —Soap— 14:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

forinsecal

A few quotes had it in italics or "in quotemarks", nowt without P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

OED has five cites, although only one is spelled this way. Ours would be a sixth. The word also appears to be an obsolete form of Template:M (two cites in OED). This, that and the other (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

RFV failed --90.174.2.227 19:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

no human being is illegal

Rfv-sense: A more or less literal definition, not the immigration-specific sense: "It is wrong to refer to a person as being illegal." DCDuring (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

You cannot shed this. People mean both at the same time in one instance. Claim the first with the desired outcome of sense two. An interpretation question also. Fay Freak (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

We could just merge the two senses, and have it read something like "It is rude to say "illegal immigrant".". CitationsFreak (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I think sense 2 is wrong too: "There are no illegal immigrants, only undocumented ones". Clearly there provably are illegal immigrants, as shown in the laws of various countries. Should be reworded as "illegal immigrants should only be referred to by a euphemism", apparently. Equinox ◑ 13:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see the need for two senses that say basically the same thing but I suppose we could tweak it so that sense 1 is an &lit that says ‘there’s no such thing as an illegal human being’ and sense 2 says ‘nobody should be designated as illegal before being officially determined to be so by a Government or court’? Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

In what legal systems are people, rather than acts of persons or their status, illegal? DCDuring (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

This is normal grammar though. A "heavy drinker" is not a drinker who's heavy, but someone who drinks heavily. An "illegal immigrant" is one who immigrates illegally. The people who complain about the phrase "illegal immigrant" do so out of inguistic ignorance. Equinox ◑ 14:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

What does "This" refer to, the putative proverb or illegal immigrant? The metonymy in illegal immigrant is normal, but the "proverb" would remind us that it is mere metonymy, not to be taken literally. DCDuring (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that the "officially determined to be so by a government or court" should not be part of the definition. The people who object to this term would object to it even if it was government-sanctioned (and in fact, might oppose the term harder.) CitationsFreak (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I have rarely encountered this phrase in contexts other than immigration, as an objection to laws that (are perceived to) criminalize the mere (public) existence of certain kinds of people, like so-called Template:Google, Template:Google, Template:Google or Template:Google laws; iff that could be cited, it would make sense to have a 'top-level sense' and subsenses like we do at present. But it doesn't seem citable. If only immigration-related use is attested, then like several other users above, I'd be fine with condensing our two sense into one definition-line. I think DCDuring is on the right lines with explaining that "acts or status" are illegal and not humans. Maybe: "Template:Tq"? I don't know, it's hard to think of a good wording. As I said in the Tea Room, I'm not sure we should have slogans like this to begin with. (I mean, how would we define all the nuances and political implications of a phrase like "make America great again"? It would be similarly challenging.) - -sche (discuss) 16:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that the "because people aren't illegal..." thign should be in the def. People can have a variety of reasons for opposing this. (Plus, the Wiesel quote demonstrates this already.) CitationsFreak (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think people engage in legal or philosophical reasoning about this. Rather they are thinking of it being morally wrong to use the term illegal immigrant because it is derogatory or not nice. DCDuring (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Equinox is right that sense 2 was also wrong, since Wiesel's objection applies even if a state really does make being even a documented immigrant illegal. How is this? I reiterate that I'm not sure we should have slogans in the first place. - -sche (discuss) 21:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not married to the definition I wrote, don't care much about this entry and would not object either to it being deleted, but I'm a bit confused by your and Equinox's objection: "there are no illegal immigrants, only undocumented ones" might be factually untrue, but it's still what people who use this proverb/slogan mean when they use it (and what they wish were true), which is what interests us here. (This reminds me a bit of the debate at Talk:you can take the monkey out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the monkey.) P U C – 22:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't get the sense that many (most?) users of the slogan are concerned with documentation at all. (This is supported by marginal use in relation to other issues than immigration, e.g. the "walking while black" bans, or laws making gay or trans people illegal.) The meaning is ... basically literal, that human beings aren't (or shouldn't be) illegal and that a human being (generally an immigrant) existing in a particular country or public area should not be legislated against / arrested. - -sche (discuss) 00:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Do people say this term in reference to those? I was unable to find any uses that do not refer to immigration, so I'm leaning towards no, although maybe you found something I didn't. CitationsFreak (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

grithbreach

This entry needs some help; if we can cite it it might be better classed as historical; otherwise moved to Middle English. OED has one non-dictionary ModE quote from 1598 in Template:W's A Survey of London:

The charter of King William the Conqueror, exemplified in the Tower, englished thus: "[...] Know ye that I do giue vnto God and the church of S. Paule of London, and to the rectors and seruitors of the same, in all their lands which the church hath, or shall have, within borough and without, sack and sock, thole and theam, infangthefe and grithbriche [...]"

Maybe I'm failing to correctly parse this quote but it looks to me like Stow has grithbriche as a privilege William gave the servitors, which doesn't match the sense we give. I've also foud it used in a close translation of an OE text. Any other ModE quotes? Winthrop23 (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I have put a selection of modern English quotes on the citations page. It looks to me like Stow is referring to the fines arising from enforcing this law (definition 2). Kiwima (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

cornobble

Mentioned in a couple of dictionaries as a dialectal word for beating someone on the head. Someone at Urban Dictionary decided to make it about hitting someone with a dead fish. Guess which definition just got added to Wiktionary... Chuck Entz (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Template:Small

Or while performing Template:W... Chuck Entz (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I found three cites, but two were used to mean hit with a fish, and one to mean beat about the head:

Kiwima (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The definition has since been altered to ‘to strike someone on the head’ since the last comment here and thanks to @Kiwima we have 3 supporting citations. Ideally we should get around to adding these to the entry or it’s citations page but let’s call this RFV-passed. Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

ring-a-ding

Adjective meaning "perfect". Equinox ◑ 19:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The string of letters has been cited, but what specific meaning the cites intend is not obvious to me. - -sche (discuss) 21:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Meaning is unclear. Template:M seems to be an alternative form, now added. Equinox ◑ 13:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

silent h

Rfv sense “Template:Lb non-aspiration of a glottal consonant”. What does this even mean. Are there words whose IPA rendering uses Template:Angbr or Template:Angbr? Is there any language in which some Template:W may be Template:W? --Lambiam 13:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

i think it means consonant in the sense of spelling, not pronunciation. e.g. Hebrew and Persian both have letters that spell /h/ in some positions but are silent word-finally, much like English. Possibly Arabic too. —Soap— 00:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

it wasn't only only

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The phrase may seem odd to most people outside Norway, but various variations of the phrase have been used in non-racing contexts by a fair few people:

It is most commonly used in informal codeswitching among Norwegians, but there have been sporadic cases of people using it while speaking English. Dandelion Sprout (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

To the extent I rapidly learned the RFV system this morning, I have now also cited 3 quotes on-page instead of the previous 1, with the 2 new ones being from English-language pages as well. Dandelion Sprout (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I highly doubt it's used to convey any sort of meaning but that it's simply a catchphrase (or a meme if you prefer). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as to call it a simple meme, but even I admit it's hard to describe the exact meaning of it. The core meaning fits very well with "easier said than done", but with a kinda playful tone, sometimes (but not always) one that makes fun of/with broken English or an undertone of "If you use this phrase, you're from Norway". I suppose I can agree it's an in-joke, but it's an in-joke that around 3.5mill people are into (of a population of maybe 5.2mill). Dandelion Sprout (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

frithy

OED only has Skelton quote, and even I could find nothing more, and I'm a frithy genius. P. Sovjunk (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, the 1911 Century Dictionary also has that quote and nothing else (except that it has “Thus stode I in the frytthy forest of Galtres” while the 1933 OED leaves out the first bit and has the typo “the frytthy forest of Galteres”) --Lambiam 14:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

You are filthy, not frithy. HTH. Equinox ◑ 23:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Several of these citations (inasmuch as I can jabberwock some sense out of them) are for a homonym with a different set of senses and a different etymology. Determining in general which citations belong under which etymology is beyond my ken. --Lambiam 16:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I hope I'm not the only person who thinks that we have a duty to our readers to say "this word, if it's a word, is bloody obscure and bizarre" [24]. Horrifying truly. Do not see RFV as a little video-game challenge "can I find three usages of no particular meaning, by mad poets". Equinox ◑ 05:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The second definition is no longer cited. One of the quotes given was a misreading or scanno, and furthermore I’m not convinced the 2017 usage has the suggested meaning at all. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 15:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

sh*t your mouth

Can't find much in the way of use of this. Even a Google search only finds 13 hits total, most of which are song/video titles or aren't relevant. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I explained on the talk page why I chose not to put cites on the main page. I can add the cites if pushed, but I think the page is better without them as people talking with friends on Twitter aren't expecting their words to be forever mirrored on a site like ours, and with words like these the content is emotionally heavy. —Soap— 09:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm indifferent as to whether the cites are left on the talk page or moved or added to the main entry page but I think we can already declare this to be cited on the basis of what you've put on the talk page already. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

We also have a Citations namespace. --Lambiam 17:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes thanks. I didnt put them there because all I did was paste the links instead of expanding them with the quote templates. I think though that the Citations namespace may be a good place to put quotes that we need for illustration of use but which we dont want to feature on the main page. There are some entries here where i would say even that is too much, and prefer to use paraphrases, but this isnt anything politically controversial ... in fact i think it's pretty clever. i will add the six twitter quotes to the citations namespace, or find ones that i think provide similar or superior context for the use of the phrase. i might also add the song and anything else i can find (even if not CFI, e.g. we never approved Instagram but Instagram is where i first saw this). Thanks, —Soap— 06:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

orange pill

None of the four senses are fully attested. The two Bitcoin defs at least have partial attestation that supports them. The "urbanism" sense have citations that don't unambiguously support the definition given. In addition, the words urbanism and urbanist used in the definitions don't seem to be used in a way that corresponds to any of our definitions of those words. DCDuring (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

husstuss

Google has all of 18 hits, none of them in Books. Is this a brand new Hot Word, or is it someone trying to make fetch happen? Chuck Entz (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I've added some additional quotes going back to July 2022. MugsyMoon (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Around 1.3K hits on 4chan archives, so it's well attested at least on 4chan itself. [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 16:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

And about 500 hits] for the plural. [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 16:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

day by day

Rfv-sense "one day at a time". Going by the usage examples this is not an adverb but an adjective (if it's an adverb used attributively, are there non attributive uses? And should it be spelled Template:M? Is it synonymous with Template:M?). I'm also not sure the gloss is accurate. P U C – 18:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Added song lyrics, which I think are from a hymn. I'd say that counts as two cites but also think this should be easy to verify both by its sense and by its meaning, and we won't need to count both the song and what it was derived from. Agree that the current use examples are adjectival and I wouldnt use them that way. —Soap— 10:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably at least partly borrowed from Template:W. It's not quite a hymn, though it gets as close as a piece from a Broadway musical can get. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Template:Reply to Generally, hyphens are used in adjective position, not in adverb position. "She grew little by little; it was little-by-little growth." Equinox ◑ 13:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

We have attempted to dispense with multi-word entries ("MWEs") for hyphenated forms where there is a full entry for the term without hyphens ("MWE-h"). This comes up most frequently where the MWE-h is a noun and the MWE+h is the noun in attributive use. Hard redirects seem to me to address the need to protect those who search for the MWE+h from the overwhelming confusion they suffer when confronted with the failed-search page, though they still need to deal with idea that a noun can be used attributively. DCDuring (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Send to RFD. You can have "hour-by-hour" or "hour by hour", "second-by-second" or "second by second", "epoch-by-epoch" or "epoch by epoch", ..., so this is a grammatical construction, not a set expression. This, that and the other (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

One can also have step by step, brick by brick, customer by customer, voter by voter, etc. By does not work with as many nouns as after, but with many. We have a "reduplicative" sense for after. Other prepositions may also occur in multiple reduplicative expressions, though fewer, eg layer on layer, row on row, luff on luff (naut.), loser on loser (poker).

I doubt that this a good RfD candidate. See Template:R:OneLook. DCDuring (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

In which case, should the contested sense be retained and labelled "as an attributive adjective, usually hyphenated"? Voltaigne (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

tableword

Doubt this one meets CFI. Very few Google Web hits. Equinox ◑ 17:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I've added a few cites. Template:M and Template:M seem to be more common. Einstein2 (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

animalism

Rfv-sense: animal liberation. Ƿidsiþ 14:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Added three citations, but some might overlap with other senses. Seems to be used in the context of Italian philosophy. Equinox ◑ 16:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the three cites are perfectly correlated with the sense we're seeking, but maybe we could reword the sense to something like animal rights activism even so? To me, animal liberation implies militancy, the sort of people who act on their beliefs, whereas many animal rights activists take a hands-off approach and focus on debate and, at most, peaceful protests. If this is so, I would say we also need to reword our definition of animal liberation. I may come back to this. Thanks, —Soap— 10:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Coming back to this, I dont think animal liberation implies militancy, any more than women's liberation ever did, so I think the entry as we have it is good, although there may still be a bit more to this ... see a new entry towards the bottom of the page created by an IP. To me, the Wikipedia link's sense fits perfectly under the context of animal liberation ... using the same analogy, our definition of feminism doesnt have a third sense or even a subsense specifically defining feminists as activists who do things ... it's considered part of the same definition that describes support for women's equality. —Soap— 08:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

flatscreen

Senses 2 and 3 seem like gibberish to me, honestly. "2. (dated) Being flat square, having the image display surface of a display screen being flat. 3. (dated) Being vertically flat, having an image display surface of a CRT display screen that is vertically flat, but horizontally round." Equinox ◑ 19:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Equinox I think that one of them refers to CRT monitors with flat glass, intead of glass that's slightly curved, which was sometimes how this got used before LCD/LED screens became commonplace. The OED has some cites from the 70s and 80s that seem to refer to that sense. Theknightwho (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I deleted sense 2 as unsalvageable nonsense and updated sense 3 to what I think they were trying to say. Still needs cites though. This, that and the other (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

A question: Is a modern thin-body monitor with a concave curved screen (eg, gaming monitor) called a flatscreen? DCDuring (talk)

December 2023

virtually

Rfv-sense: 2 mathematics definitions defining the supposed adverb more as an adjective (or perhaps just hand-waving instead of defining), without cites, without references, without any support from any OneLook source, with not very helpful usexes:

Template:Lb Of a substructure of finite index.
Template:Ux
Template:Lb Of a covering space of finite index.
Template:Ux

We should be able to do better. DCDuring (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps @User:Msh210 can help. DCDuring (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, DCDuring. I've added two cite for each sense and don't have time at the moment to add a third. (Nor to check the CFI to see whether my cites are good ones. As you're no doubt aware, I've been fairly inactive of late; in particular, I haven't kept up with changes to the CFI.) But there are plenty more cites in math papers for each sense, and neither should be deleted.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@User:Msh210 Thanks for responding. You'll be getting the occasional ping for undocumented or incomprehensible (to me) math definitions. Some definitions seem to rely too much on specialized definitions of highly polysemic terms. In the above index is an example. The others seem okay. I don't know whether this index def. covers it: "A raised suffix indicating a power". Even if it does, it does not nicely substitute into the definitions given. DCDuring (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

DCDuring, I've added an Template:Temp sense to [[index]] and adjusted these definitions of [[virtually]] slightly. I think it's okay now. Please let me know if you disagree.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

My eyes now glaze over at coset, but that seems unavoidable. DCDuring (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

vagitate

This might be unconventional, but I want to request verification of a specific citation for this word. I saw that the OED cites Sir Walter Raleigh's History of the World, the same as we do, but the OED gives the quotation as "Before the vse of the Compas was knowne, it was impossible to nauigate athwart the Ocean." Perhaps an older version of the OED entry quoted this sentence with "vagitate", but it was since corrected? In any case, the scan of this book at archive.org clearly shows "navigate", which also seems to make a bit more sense in the context. But I want to make sure I'm not missing something that might save this quotation. If anyone wants to look into the other citations, that would also be welcome, since they're pretty obscure and I'm not entirely sure Ian Edge is using it in the same sense or even with the same etymology as the others. Some are also missing page numbers, which would be nice to have.--Urszag (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I saw something similar when I filed the RFV for endizen. During the preparation of the NED (OED 1st edition) someone must have misread, miswrote or mistyped Template:M as endizen, and the NED ended up with a hapax entry for this verb, which persists in OED Online to this day. However, OED Online has apparently undergone an automated (?) process of updating quotes to reflect the original texts, so that the only supporting quote for the endizen entry actually uses the word endenizen. The same thing has probably happened with vagitate. Unlike endizen, though, this term has a more plausible etymology, which means others have taken it up.

I removed the Raleigh and checked the other quotes:

The Beckett is a legitimate quote, but I've got no idea what he's talking about. The quote certainly doesn't unambiguously support the given definition, I'll say that much.
The 1982 text uses "vagitating" but this was changed to "vegetating" in a 2003 republication. The 1982 text uses quotation marks to imply this is a quote from Marx, but the 2003 edition removes the quotation marks.
The 1987 text seems legitimate. Given the similar subject matter and point of view expressed, I had a suspicion that the 1982 and 1987 texts may have been by the same author, but a list of texts by D.N. Dhanagare doesn't mention any work on Buddhism.
The law text is a little baffling. Here is the broader context:
Paul Matthews complains that when the Cayman Islands legislature defines a form of ownership from which humans are absent, it is trying to "Call Sunday, Monday". Anthony Duckworth sums up his rebuttals in a final salvo:
"We will not mind greatly if Mr Mathews says that a STAR trust is as anomalous as a charitable trust, as strange as a discretionary trust, as weird as an unadministered estate, as bizarre (or nearly so) as a trust for unborn persons."

These are all instances when English chancery doctrine would allow that some or all of the equitable ownership has disappeared into thin air. Duckworth's point is that the STAR trust merely generalises these English instances. The crucial difference, however, is that in all but one of these English situations, the equitable ownership reappears within at most eighty years: the discretion is exercised, the estate is administered, the unborn vagitate. The exception is the English charitable trust which, like the STAR trust, can exist for ever.
Here, the word seems to be intended to mean "be born".

I would note that these citations were probably obtained from Quiet Quentin using the default Google Books metadata. PSA to RFVers: please check the metadata before adding a quote - if you don't, you are liable to (a) get the publication years totally wrong, (b) attribute the work of a contributing author to the editor of an edited book, or (c) miss out the author info entirely when it is findable with reasonably easy searching. I know all this takes a little more effort, but it makes the dictionary that much better. This, that and the other (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the "Marx had characterized" cite is most likely a misspelling/typo of a different word and not this word (like e.g. the few books that have reconditing as an error for other editions' reconditioning); "stagnant, unchanging, vegetating" makes more sense there than "[they are] stagnant, unchanging, not stagnant, and changing positions a lot". The "unborn" cite seems to intend a connection to vagina ("come out of the/a vagina"?) rather than to vagus, and E. Barry, Samuel Beckett and the Contingency of Old Age (2016), takes Beckett's use to be connected to connected to birth too ("just as Malone fears that he may have “vagitated [given the birth cry] and not be able to bloody rattle”"), so I think we are left with just one cite that is plausibly for the given etymology/meaning, but two cites that might support a "give the birth cry"-related meaning, as it happens. - -sche (discuss) 15:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@-sche @Urszag It occurred to me that, since Beckett's work was translated from French, the word's sense can be pinned down more firmly. According to [25] (you may need to log into Internet Archive and borrow the book for 1 hour), this passage is a translation of "Avoir vagi, puis ne pas être foutu de râler". The word Template:M has been translated as vagitate to maintain the resemblance to vagina. We are to link vagitate to Template:M and Template:M, and ultimately to Template:M+.

So we need to go cite-hunting for the "wail" sense I guess... This, that and the other (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh interesting! I had no idea Samuel Beckett wrote that first in French and then translated it to English.--Urszag (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The "My head spins like the vagitated gears of a drunken kaleidoscope" cite is ... odd. I confirmed that the edition Google has digitized does have the italicized word vagitated spelled sic. On one hand, is this an error for another word like Template:Google or "variable gears"? On the other hand ... the text is odd — the next sentences are "Template:Tq" — so it's possible the author did pick the ghost word out of a list of obscure words, and while we might need to tweak the definition because "the wandered gears" doesn't sound right, "the randomly moved gears" works, I guess. If this is real, it's apparently a ghost word (originated as an error in the OED). - -sche (discuss) 20:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Sense 1 is firmly attested. Sense 2, however, has only 2 cites. This is somewhat problematic, as Samuel Beckett's work is quite prominent and the entry might not be properly comprehensible if sense 2 is not included. I want to leave this open to see if any further evidence can be found for sense 2, but also to decide how to present the entry if sense 2 is not attestable. This, that and the other (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

trust

The etymology for it seems to be unsupported by the major dictionaries (and one newssite) and the link used to justify the change the etymology is now a dead one. A westman (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the links in the edit summary from 2 September 2022, which said "see https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/1554/07_Dance_1803.pdf and https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-968X.12148_02". But I'm confused, because neither of these links is dead. They should be added as citations.--Urszag (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Rice Queen

Capitalised form. Equinox ◑ 20:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Template:Reply to Appears to be attested at [26] [27] and [28]. -saph 🍏 20:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

run a red light

All senses except the first one. I mean, anyword could likely be used figuratively but not all of them can or should be in a dictionary. I cannot add the template now but I should later. A Westman talk stalk 01:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

There might be a figurative sense that is the obvious extension of sense 1: Something like "To violate a norm." DCDuring (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

hask

Rfv-sense: basket. Used by Spenser. spelled haske Denazz (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.websters1913.com/words/Hask A Westman talk stalk 20:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Cited, but very likely the non-Spencer quotes are alluding to Spencer. Nevertheless, judging from its use in glosses in 17th c. dictionaries the word seems to have had some currency outside this particular poetic tradition. Winthrop23 (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

passed --90.174.3.109 10:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

campana

Fancy added by Template:Ping in 2015. I find it extraordinarily hard to imagine that anyone in England, even an ivory tower scholar writing about architecture or art-history, called a church bell, or a subspecies thereof, a “campana”. Everything else is, after looking into the OED entry, also worse than I have imagined, no uses, only dictionary-type mentions; somebody tried to sneak in what should have been Medieval Latin or Romance as English, this is specifically what I extract from the references added to the church-bell sense, the first of which LlywelynII added to Wikisource, obviously excited about the topic at the time, perhaps without shedding languages correctly. As a name of an exotic flower it would of course be plausible, were it not as easily Drayton’s coinage ("Campana heere he crops”). The vase miscapitalized or catalogue-monster and I am not sure if a good word standalone without “vase” or “form”. Religion makes people hallucinate, bells in particular resonate well in power projection. Fay Freak (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I could only barely cite one combined definition ("A bell, or bell-shaped thing") of campane recently. Most of what I can find searching for Template:B.g.c., Template:B.g.c. and the like are italicized mentions of campana(e) as a word in Latin or Spanish or Italian, although I can find the occasional non-italicized occurrence which is arguably code-switching:

Template:Quote-book

- -sche (discuss) 17:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

buntlings

Cant term. I can only find it in dictionaries. There is also a nautical term with this spelling, as well as some kind of bird - both are probably forms of Template:M. This, that and the other (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I found two cites in 20th century historical novels which are referring to petticoats, but they are (curiously enough) both in a nautical context. This, that and the other (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The bird sense is definitely an alternative form of bunting. Some of the birds called buntlings in 19th century books wouldn't be called buntings today, but that says more about changes in ornithology than in the language. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

belirt

Equinox ◑ 01:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Apparently Middle English and Scots. Leasnam (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Some others:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Old_English_Drama/arkvAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=belirt

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Dictionary_of_Early_English/enmvCwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=belirt&pg=PA89&printsec=frontcover

https://www.oed.com/dictionary/belirt_v?tl=true A Westman talk stalk 17:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

For the most part I could only find it in old texts (17th century) and dictionaries on GB for early English and "Scottish" (that's what the book called what is presumably Scottish English or Scots)

Found mention(s) at [29]https://www.google.com/books/edition/On_the_Fromth_of_the_Lifekin/t2UoAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=belirt&pg=PA335&printsec=frontcover]. A Westman talk stalk 16:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

hendy

Defined Obsolete form of hende. hende is only given as Middle English Denazz (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

We used to have an English entry for hende. I've updated Template:M. Leasnam (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

passed with only 2 quotes. Others are easily found --90.174.3.169 08:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

sobby

I think sense 2 at sobby is actually a mistake for Template:M. Can we find cites that unambiguously demonstrate this meaning? If not, do other dictionaries, particularly the OED, list this meaning? Even if our cites are actually mistakes by the authors, I'd be satisfied that the word does exist if we can at least find it listed in another dictionary. —Soap— 20:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a third cite, Ioaxxere, but how do we know what it means? I was originally thinking of making this a Tea Room post instead of an RFV, because I could see myself looking at a dozen cites and still not being satisfied, since few if any of these cites are going to use the word and then define it for the readers. —Soap— 21:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

one-percenter

Rfv-sense:

One who seeks or is granted honor far greater than their perceived contribution would warrant.

Added in 2007. The sense "One who wishes to be recognized for an idea without putting forth the "ninety-nine percent perspiration" needed to implement that idea" also doesn't have any cites, but it appears to have been waved through RFV at the time of the entry's creation, so I'm not going to insist. This, that and the other (talk) 10:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

hufu

A lot of the supposed quotes are references to brands or mentions. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

We should put a humorous tag on it, not cos cannibalism is funny. P. Sovjunk (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

waterchamber

This phrase is usually written as two spaced words. In Google Books results, the (rather few) results seem to be hyphenated when you look at the actual page. The same might apply to the Middle English waterchaumbre etymology... Equinox ◑ 14:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

realveolization

Just the one hit Fond of sanddunes (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Three hits in Google Scholar. Two are durably archived journal papers, while the third is this set of Russian conference proceedings which is probably not durably archived for our purposes.

(BTW the def of Template:M could seriously use some improvement; it looks like an authentic SB stab in the dark.) This, that and the other (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

underlook

Five verb senses for this extremely rare word! I'm not sure we could find three convincing cites for any one of the senses. Equinox ◑ 23:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

(Also the sole current citation (from 1906) is not using the word, but inventing a nonce word to explain the etymology of "suspect".) Template:Ping Equinox ◑ 00:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

OED has only the senses "to look at from below" (the wording of our sense 2 needs checking based on any available cites - looking underneath a thing is not the same as looking at that thing from below) and "to fail to notice as a result of looking too low" (both direct parallel to Template:M). The other senses are very questionable. This, that and the other (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I added various cites I found in Google Books. It's sometimes quite difficult to know exactly which shade of meaning is meant. I suspect some of the senses could be merged. This, that and the other (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

hypertapping

Found this in requests for definitions. I can find no uses. Kiwima (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The term is typically used in relation to Tetris speedrunning. Mentioned here, here, here, and here. Netizen3102 (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Note existence of related entry Template:M. Equinox ◑ 19:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

And now Template:M. Equinox ◑ 07:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Abraham suit

Abraham sham

do Abram

Abraham work

Abram work

As with go on the Abraham suit: it is hard to find uses, but searching is impeded by many irrelevant hits of the two words happening to be near each other. - -sche (discuss) 00:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

backstory

Sense 3: "A prequel". — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment: feels Anglish-y, y'know? CitationsFreak (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I know how to respond to that. It is a sense listed at Dictionary.com, but I can't say I've heard the word being used that way before, hence this request. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I meant that it feels like a word that was made-up to use only native English. CitationsFreak (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

peritonaeums

Listed as a plural of Template:M. I could only find German uses on Google Books and added two of peritonaea (I could not find a third; note: not Template:M). J3133 (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The only occurrences I found in English papers were citations of German papers. Cnilep (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

pignus

Anything in English? Demonicallt (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Cited. Nub098765 (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

All the cites provided have the word in italics. Can we find some without? This, that and the other (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

when

Rfv-sense postposition: Template:Tq Usage examples on the entry for context:

I added this myself, and I'm reasonably certain it's possible to cite since it's been around since the 2000s (possibly the 90s), but Google makes it a real challenge since it's a niche sense of a very common word.

Theknightwho (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand your intent to document a kind of humour that is not obvious to everyone, but calling it a postposition is gross, even if we assume it to be only used in that postponed order, which it isn’t. A decade ago when something was announced on Template:W there was always someone asking in the comment section, first earnestly and then as a meme: When in India? This is kind of a general phenomenon where one asks something with an implicit assumption that one definitely expects or demands one thing or the other. Like if a politician is asked what he gonna do about X he will rarely be accepted to do nothing, unfortunately. The lexical part here is the order, not a separate sense or part of speech, which I reckon an excuse for including something which cannot be included in a dictionary rather than a grammar. Fay Freak (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Fay Freak I think you're analysing it the wrong way around: it's a postposition because it is used after the noun [phrase] it refers to, which is completely abnormal for the word Template:M and would be considered ungrammatical by all speakers in most contexts. It just so happens that when it is used like that, it's semantically restricted to the sense of making a proposal, but that's incidental to whether it's a postposition or not. It clearly derives from the way the usual senses can be tacitly used to propose things, but those don't prevent it being a postposition because it is still being used after its referent; after all, that's precisely what gives it the meme-y, internet-slangy connotations it has in the first place. Theknightwho (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

And the verbs are implied. Template:W or something. “The fix comes when?” is well-formed, but presupposes a fix and hence implies its demand, though it be of a different rudeness – doesn’t affect its Template:W. Something about Template:W also, which is also manipulated by word order in English but less than in e.g. Spanish or Russian. We cannot create pages for stresses or suprasegmentalia well so far. I don’t see how it isn’t the normal interrogative adverb. You have it the wrong way around to assume its word type from the word order, its function is that. Fay Freak (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Fay Freak “The fix comes when?” is still using it as a postposition and - importantly - greatly limits the semantic scope + connotation. Theknightwho (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, the fact a verb can be implied is relevant here - that's not possible in every context. Theknightwho (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not a postposition, it is an interrogative adverb. If we make a kind of inline survey here, you lose, this is utterly left field. Neither of the two things you call important or relevant is important or relevant. Connotation has to be shed from denotation and is less lexical, may also be borne by tone and word order notwithstanding lexical meaning, and in the same manner whether a verb can be left out depends on whether the context allows to omit specification of the speakers intent by a verb rather than the lexical status of surrounding words. First the intent, then the words, and lexical classes are distinguished by which forms of intent a word expresses: it’s the same whether Template:M is on the end or beginning of the sentence.

You seem to assume that word order is kind of representative of logical classification of words, when only grammar precepts particular to a language community, comprising their suprasegmental and word order features but also pragmatic considerations about when one can omit to express anything, determine their placement. Before the sentence is formed it is already set which part of speech a word belongs to, as a speaker of a language I only juggle around the vocabulary that comes to my mind, estimating the listemic knowledge of my target community for every individual word, to convey my intent, with Template:W by novel combination of the vocabulary I can get away with it; exceptional word order chosen for the meme changes nothing, exception proves the rule, i.e. the preconceived rule of what lexical class a lexeme belongs to: we need to have preconceptions to talk to each other. As in some cases when we really like to make a noun a verb for our particular purpose: then it has the Template:W of a verb but will never be such a listeme except on runtime. Production of language is like Tetris with more dimensions and not a strict game of logics. I deny your postposition ever happened, parts of speech are psychological structures to organize listemes and not naively induced from sentences, ergo we have names for them to give hints about them in works about language such as this dictionary, making your idiosyncratic classification as a postposition superfluous rather than necessitated syntactically, since the statement you make does not transparently relate the presented entry to what is previously understood as “postpositions”. Fay Freak (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is not a postposition (which in linguistics normally refers to an adposition that comes after its complement; if it means something else on Wiktionary, that would be confusing). Rather, it is a non-standard positioning of the interrogative word "when". Compare the less-than-fully-standard (although fairly common) ordering found in "wh-in-situ" questions like "You asked who?" or "They did what?" Or without a verb, we could have phrases like "You told Sandy? Sandy who?" to mean "Which Sandy?": "who" is not a postposition there, despite coming after the name that it asks about.--Urszag (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this is wh-in-situ combined with an abbreviated style resembling telegraphic style or SMS speak. It does not look like a postposition. If we could find usage like *Let's hope a fix when (intended meaning: "Let's hope for a fix"), that would look more like a postposition, but I find that sentence ungrammatical, unlike the wh-in-situ examples Fix when? and AI overlords when?. (I don't understand Tank class buff when?; the first three words are too polysemous for me to guess the intended meaning.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You've convinced me, @Urszag. The interesting discussion of postpositions notwithstanding, I'm not sure whether the connotation indicated, "to propose that it should happen" is strong enough to warrant mention in some form in the entry. I feel that I'd be more convinced of a distinct sense if there were intentionally no question mark (*"Get up lazybones, and make your bed when!"), not just omitted through lack of care, but all three examples include a question mark. —DIV (1.145.19.119 10:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC))

I see someone has fixed up the part of speech, and someone else has added cites, so AFAICT the remaining question is whether the cites attest this sense as a distinct sense, or whether this is simply the usual sense 1 of when and analogous, as Urszag says, to "You asked who??", "They did what??". - -sche (discuss) 04:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

In the absence of further input, I think we may have done as much as RFV can do (cites have been added, and the part of speech has been changed as discussed above). I've made it a subsense of sense 1 so the two senses are at least right next to each other, but I'm inclined to close this RFV and say that if anyone thinks this is purely sense 1 (and should just be merged into sense 1), the Tea Room or RFD may be better venues for discussing that. - -sche (discuss) 05:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

tervy

terve

Hard to search for because there are many spellings, but all I'm finding for tervy is "topsy-tervied" and other hyphenations or scannos. The EDD has two cites but in the spelling Template:M. The OED does not seem to have two-syllable tervy and only has two one-syllable verbs both spelled terve, tirve, both with definitions rather different from our terve entry, but the only one with three cites (if they're all English and not Scots) is the one we don't currently have, Template:M. The OED has one cite of terue Template:M: Citations:terve. Separate issue: we derive tervy from Middle English tervien, but the Middle English Dictionary doesn't seem to have that word(?) and the DSL says the Scots cognate tirvie is a "nonce form ad. Mid.Eng. tirve, terve, to turn, overturn, topple over" instead of deriving it from a verb tervien. - -sche (discuss) 20:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The OED derives turvy from Template:Suffix, with terve, turve derived from Template:Cog (Template:R:MED Online): see further at Template:M. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

fat-soluble

Rfv-sense "that tends to accumulate in the adipose tissue of the body", as distinct from sense 1 "Soluble in lipids, and in organic solvents / dissolving easily in fat". P U C – 11:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

That is how it is used of pharmaceuticals. The inference from sense 1 to that sense is not one that normal people make. DCDuring (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

chicken-eater

Sense 1: "A pollotarian." That's not just anyone who eats chicken; see entry for the special dietary meaning. (Sense 2 could use citations too, of course...) Equinox ◑ 09:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'dn't've

I see 1 GBooks hit. Equinox ◑ 22:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

There are quite a lot of web hits saying variations of "I hear this a lot but I don't think I've ever seen it written", and that matches my experience - I've certainly heard it, almost certainly used it, but never written it and don't think I've seen it written outside Wiktionary and discussions of English contractions. I'm not up-to-date on how we handle such terms though? Thryduulf (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

you'dn't've

Nothing in GBooks. Equinox ◑ 22:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

lit de justice

RFV'ing the English P U C – 12:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

It is almost universally italicized, which seems to indicate code switching. I think this is probably a French term, and considered as such even in English texts. I found one text that does not italicize the term, but that one leaves many French words unitalicized (and has a French author), so I am still pretty dubious. I would probably move the definition to Template:M. Kiwima (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

RFV-failed This, that and the other (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Reinstating with some extra citations. This is the normal term in English now; no one uses "bed of justice" anymore. If you read any histories about France or the legal system you will see that this is very common. Ƿidsiþ 08:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

RFV-passed(barely). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

February 2024

Cossack

Rfv-sense "(derogatory) A mercenary; a regular or irregular soldier used to oppress a minority, such as in anti-Jewish pogroms; a police officer, particularly one used in strike-breaking; a violent thug." Removed out of process by IP in Special:Diff/77847941. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 22:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Choying

Template:Tq

That isn't the Tibetan script, so I suspect this isn't a direct transliteration from Tibetan.

Drolma

Template:Tq

Same issue.

Theknightwho (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

cumber-world

Middle English. This form does not seem to be attested (see MED); the c. 1412 quotation uses Modern English spelling. J3133 (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

fee

Rfv-sense: "An additional monetary payment charged for a service or good, especially one that is minor compared to the underlying cost."

Underlined portions were added is two anonymous edits in late 2022 and seem unwarranted. I also doubt that the term fee is used for charges for goods rather than for professional services or for privileges. I have added two definitions similar to what other dictionaries have as their only senses, which fit with my experience. DCDuring (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems okay to me: you might book a flight and have smaller additional charges added to it, like a "late booking fee" or a fee for an optional in-flight meal. Equinox ◑ 20:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

But "late booking" is certainly a privilege. Maybe "in-flight meal" too, though I would like to see examples of that usage. I'm sure we could find instances that fit quantitatively, just as I could find many instances that fit the definition of medium-sized as "of the smallest available size of a packaged good". DCDuring (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

BTW, Wiktionary's definitions for fee are featured at Template:R:OneLook, with the definition in question offered at the top of the list. I'm so proud. Not. DCDuring (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"What was the fee for your flight?" sounds weird to me; I would expect "cost/price of". Fees are typically small/optional "bolt-ons". Maybe it's British usage. Equinox ◑ 22:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

To me too. Also, I don't pay a fee for my groceries, car, gasoline, etc. Is a flight a "privilege"? Are admission fees all small bolt-ons? License fees? Professional fees certainly aren't. I had added a few collocations for the two definitions I added. Economists call everything a price, not a fee, charge, tip, gratuity, toll. But I can't speak to what usage is outside US off the top of my head. DCDuring (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, the use of cost in "especially one that is minor compared to the underlying cost" goes against the grain for me. Even worse, the NP "underlying cost". "Underlying" what? As an economist I learned that costs were of production and prices were what customers paid or what sellers asked. DCDuring (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think laypeople observe such a distinction between cost and price. Moreover, the type of privilege for which a fee applies, as it is generally understood, doesn't correspond to any sense at privilege, so we need to make the definition more specific.

I came up with these two senses which cover most of it, and which broadly match lemmings:

An amount charged in return for permission to do something, especially something ancillary to the purchase of a product or service.
Template:Coi
A fixed rate or price charged for (chiefly white-collar) professional services.
Template:Coi

Also, in my mind, the term has mildly negative connotations, which ought to be mentioned somewhere in the entry. (In general we do a poor job at mentioning connotations.) This, that and the other (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Consider an advertisement for a business that claims "no hidden fees".

In this case, it does exactly fit this definition. 68.1.207.26 10:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

skolioromantic

Tagged by Template:U but not listed, with edit summary:

although it is a correctly formed term, it is not supported by sources or quotations here on wiktionary (btw, a quick search on google scholar returns only 8 results)

I suspect it will be citeable. Two of the Google Scholar results, at least, appear to be independent uses. This, that and the other (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not aware of the procedure, but since I added the tag, I think it can be removed now that the citations have been added. Argie222 (talk) 10:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Argie222 no worries, for future reference, use the little (+) sign to list your request here. There's no rush to close RFVs, so let's leave it open for the requisite month (at least). This, that and the other (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Cited, albeit barely. Most hits are mentions, and uses are mention-y. Template:M seems to be used as a synonym. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

RFV-passed. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

methanolic (noun)

All three citations use the form methanolics. So they confirm methanolics as a noun, but do not confirm noun use of methanolic. For all we know based on those three quotations, typical usage might be "Compound X is one of the methanolics," rather than "Compound X is a methanolic". (Consider the case of the study of linguistics, which comprises many topics ...yet we don't talk about studying *"one linguistic".) —DIV (1.145.19.119 10:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC))

Not a valid analogy. Linguistics is uncountable but (the) methanolics is plural, a set of countable things. Equinox ◑ 19:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

ChatGPT

Not dictionary material, I believe. P U C – 14:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Delete unless it can be shown WT:BRAND is satisfied. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised you didn't RFD Italian as well. DonnanZ (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It's big news, and some day will be remembered far better than the also seminal video game Template:M (for which we seem to preserve an entry), but I dunno: it's still a proper noun for a single brand-like system or entity, not a generic thing like the Internet. Weak delete. Equinox ◑ 02:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Isn't WT:BRAND an RFV question, given it demands (certain kinds of) cites? I admit it would take some extremely creative searching to uncover relevant cites... This, that and the other (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

This should pass eventually, and could likely pass now if someone were to search in the right places, though I wont be expending that effort myself so i dont expect others to. All I'll say is that I've seen plenty of nonliteral use such as "the ChatGPT version" and the like. I saw one person using "[username]GPT" for someone who made a bunch of scripted posts on Twitter, which would suggest GPT might be a word too (or maybe we've come full circle and it just means the original sense of GPT), but as other AI bots take off, that one might fall out of use. —Soap— 18:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Keep by WT:BRAND. Imetsia (talk (more)) 16:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Keep by WT:BRAND. This will be an enduring term in AI history - unless the machines wipe us out, that is. -— This unsigned comment was added by Sonofcawdrey (talk • contribs) at 11:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC).

Keep I believe this is becoming genericized short-hand. People now use the term "ChatGPT" to refer to any AI writing tool. Purplebackpack89 19:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Outdent I am boldly converting this to an RFV. As Template:Ping noted, whether WT:BRAND is satisfied is an RFV issue; sentiments like "I've seen plenty of nonliteral use" and "this is becoming genericized short-hand" aren't particularly useful unless qualifying quotations are actually added to the entry. At the moment the citations page contains only possible verb uses of the word. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

↑, ↓

"Template:Lb Template:N-g." This, that and the other (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Ping —Fish bowl (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

citizen's arrest

Rfv-sense 1: (uncountable, law) "The right of a person who is not acting as a sworn law enforcement official to detain a suspected criminal until the police can be summoned." Is it really uncountable? And can it really mean "the right to make an arrest" alongside the arrest itself? I can find very few instances of "citizen's arrest isn't allowed/etc." without an article. P U C – 22:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@PUC I think this stems from someone originally adding this as the definition back in 2005, and I'm pretty sure it's simply wrong. Theknightwho (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

incircumscription

Nonce? Denazz (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I've added two citations (making it three), though the latter seems sorta weak. Nub098765 (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

property porn

Rfv-sense 2. P U C – 23:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

And it's been there since 2007! DCDuring (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this just a specific example of porn sense 3? Thryduulf (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Reply That would be an argument for construing sense 1 as SOP, but it doesn't explain sense 2. I don't think sense 2 exists at all, though. P U C – 09:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

We have lots of terms ("MWE"s) that are arguably SoP that we, in the wisdom of the majority of our active contributors, merit inclusion. The deciding factor seems to be that one of the terms in the MWE is very polysemic and the sense of that term used in the MWE is otherwise not common. In this case, I'm with Thryduulf for sense 1. DCDuring (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I notice we have both food porn and the odd-looking foodporn, which has been strangely labelled as the main variant, but no 'propertyporn' (thank goodness!). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Related: there is an entire genre of actual pornography called "property sex" (which I suppose might be called "property porn" in some places), inevitably beginning with one performer saying something like, "look, I've really got to sell this house, I'll do anything". bd2412 T 04:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

book length

"Any long or extensive document, publication or printed matter." P U C – 23:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mynewfiles any evidence for an unambiguously nominal use? This, that and the other (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

pyramid up

On Google, shows up as some kind of weightlifting terminology. On BGC, it appears to be used of rapid or drastic growth, similarly to Template:M. Neither of them suggests this "to arrange in a pyramid" sense is what is actually used. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

This entry is just misconceived. We already have pyramid#Verb, so the example given in this challenged entry "The boxes were pyramided up to the ceiling" means they were pyramided (all the way) up to the ceiling. It's not "pyramid up". If the boxes were "pyramided next to the exit" we wouldn't want an entry for "pyramid next". Equinox ◑ 16:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

One can say, The boxes were stacked up to the ceiling, in which I interpret Template:M as an English phrasal verbs with particle (up).

Is the following exchange grammatical?

DA: When you entered the garage and saw the boxes, how high were they pyramided up?

Witness: All the way to the ceiling.

I don't think one can have,

DA: And where were they pyramided next?

Witness: Right to the exit.

The question is grammatical if Template:M is not a particle but an adverb of sequentiality, but then the answer makes no sense, --Lambiam 19:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

By far the most uses found have something to do with either a sense related to bodybuilding/strength training, or one related to stack trading, where one can also pyramid down. There are uses, though, for a sense of “stacking up”:

Ulysses G. Stewart, Jr. "Problem—With a difference". Army Information Digest, March 1957, vol. 12, nr, 3, page 36.^[30]
Then boxes were pyramided up a few more feet.
Memo (?), Date: 2/9/91; From: Jimmy Carter; Subject: Presidential Inauguration in Haiti February 7, 1991. (scanned by the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library & Museum) (54MB)
The huge cathedral was packed to the rafters with celebrants, and people were pyramided up against the windows outside, striving for a glimpse of President Aristide. After he and former President Trouillot finally received communion, we moved to the palace for his inaugural address.
Dean Stiglitz, Laurie Herboldsheimer (2010). The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Beekeeping.^[31]
Bait the bees by “pyramiding up” the frames when adding boxes.

--Lambiam 21:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I have added a sense for the bodybuilding meaning, as well as pyramid down. Mazzlebury (talk)

RFV-passed. This is cited and just as logically valid as 'stack up'. Someone less lazy than me can add the above three citations to the entry itself or its citations page if they like. Sending to RFD instead would also be a possibility if needed. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Rackmanism

Misspelling or a variant? The word is Rachmanism, after the name of the landlord Peter Rachman. — Paul G (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps by confusion with rack rent, "an excessive rent". Equinox ◑ 14:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

biff

Rfv-sense "Euphemistic form of bitch." Green's has an entry for biff as an alt form of biffer which has a listed meaning along the same lines ("an unpleasant, unattractive and/or promiscuous woman"), but Green's doesn't make any explicit to connect Template:M as currently claimed in the entry. Template:Unsigned

Not heard of it, but I wonder if it might be AAVE, like Template:M. Adding the /f/ sound there doesn't take much (I remember being told that a sloppily speaking Finn might sound /f/ in e.g. Template:M). Equinox ◑ 14:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I had the same thought, I wasn't previously familiar with Template:M so the comparison that came to mind to me was Template:M, but the principle is the same. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I've haven't looked too hard because false positive hits for the name Template:M (which we seem to be missing) makes searching annoying, but I did find this tweet describing Template:M as a "just 'Bitch' with a lisp." —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

pablumese

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

For reference, the definition currently in the entry is "Template:Tq" It seems like a better definition would be just "pablum; language which is (characterized by) pablum": it is not limited to LLMs, and I also don't see how "Template:Tq" has been derived from the one short cite provided. - -sche (discuss) 04:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

solifaction

"The production of gold". Appears to be a real term, however, meaning "converting coal into synthetic solid fuel". [32] Ioaxxere (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Someone found a source. Don't recall if that's where I got it. kwami (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Techspressionism

word was coined by an artist to describe his work. Term is not used reliably. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@WomenArtistUpdates There are three book quotations supplied in the entry, which appear on their face to support the inclusion of the term (WT:CFI). Are you asserting that these quotations are not independent or otherwise somehow unsuitable? This, that and the other (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Template:U, Yes I am asserting that the quotes are from unreliable sources. Artists describing their own work as a style. “Oz Van Rosen Featured In Group Show At The Whiteroom Gallery”, in The Southhampton Press - interview. "Goldberg will give a brief introduction to Techspressionism" “Mountain Monday’s presentation on ‘Art, Technology, and Emotion: Techspressionism’”, in The Sierra Sun - Not reliable. Churnalism. Thanks for considering deletion. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@WomenArtistUpdates Here at Wiktionary we don't have a notion of "reliable" sources as such. That is a Wikipedia concept. The fact that Van Rosen described her own work as Techspressionism isn't important for lexicographical purposes. What matters is that (a) she used the word, and (b) this use has been recorded in what appears to be a durably archived source (I can also find it in this print magazine).

Having said all that, it would be ideal to find some stronger attestations of this word, and I am not at all sure that this will be possible. The only available Google Books result is already in the entry, and the Google Scholar papers are low-quality and possibly not durably archived for our purposes. Issuu looks like the most promising source, but I haven't investigated closely. This, that and the other (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Template:U, I appreciate the clarification on the lexicographical usage being a criterion. Would these be considered additional relevant attestations?

WIRED - https://www.wired.com/2014/10/if-picasso-had-a-macbook-pro/

PBS - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVYs5cz_0-I

Southampton Arts Center - https://www.southamptonartscenter.org/techspressionism

27 East - https://www.27east.com/arts/techspressionism-a-global-movement-with-local-roots-1933155/

East Hampton Star - https://www.easthamptonstar.com/arts/2022421/expressive-technology. Thank you, Colin Goldberg // Scribe1791 (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The user who created it was called "Techspressionist", usually a bad sign! 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:21A5:52EA:1986:CA72 20:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

spring

Transitive, figurative: "to surprise by sudden or deft action." This cannot be the "spring a surprise on somebody" sense, because you don't surprise a surprise. Here we must be springing a person. Equinox ◑ 04:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It was added in diff; Template:Ping, can you help cite it?
It was initially as a 'supersense' covering what are now the following two senses, which were initially given as one subsense of this: "Template:Tq" That Australian sense does have cites where you "spring him". But now that "Template:Tq" has been separated into its own sense, I'd also like to see more cites of it, frankly; the one cite currently provided seems mentiony and it's unclear that it's using "spring" as opposed to treating "spring a plant" as an idiomatic phrase. - -sche (discuss) 16:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

All would've been OED. Like you pointed out, there are already abundant cites for the subsenses here. If y'all disagree with their particular wording or my paraphrases of them, esp. of the supersenses, that's fine. We're our own thing and you can rephrase/reorganize to your liking. — LlywelynII 03:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

pentacle

For sense 4, which describes a hexagram (or Star of David).

While there are indeed pentacles on the Wikipedia page with six-pointed stars (and one on our entry too), I dont believe that pentacle is the term for the star in the drawing, but rather the term for the drawing as a whole.

We probably should add a new sense, perhaps a subsense of the first sense, describing a handheld object used by occultists that most often features a star design, often but not always with a five- or six-pointed star. —Soap— 09:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

How would the proposed new sense differ from that of a talisman? --Lambiam 17:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I've been too busy lately. I'd like to clarify that the new sense would be categorically a subsense of the first, whether we list it as such or not, so it's already covered. We just don't have it in detail. Anyway, I still think sense 4 may have been a mistake. —Soap— 20:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

ayy

In regards to the "alien" sense. This seems to refer to a 2012 meme, but I couldn't quickly find evidence of usage beyond a) referring to the meme itself, or b) as in, "aliens would say 'ayy lmao'". The possibility that it's synonymous with "alien" seems farfetched. Polomo47 (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be an in-term mainly in certain online game communities, especially XCOM and Terra Invicta. There are sporadic uses elsewhere, such as this fic which doesn't seem to belong to those universes. This, that and the other (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

shamester

Equinox ◑ 12:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

hexalemma

octolemma

octalemma

nonalemma

decalemma

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hindiyyah

This entry currently has three senses:

country of India
Template:Lb official name of Mughal Empire in Arabic language.
Al Fatawa Al Hindiyyah: A 17th century book of Hanafi jurisprudence, compiled in Sultanate Al Hindiyyah during the reign of emperor Aurangzeb.

I can't find any evidence for the first or third, the second (as written) is not English by definition. Theknightwho (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

underroot

Dig or burrow beneath; undermine. I think this definition may have been a guess. There is not much for "underrooted", "underrooting" etc. in GBooks but it seems to refer to inadequate root formation (of plants): see Template:M. (I moved the citation there from Template:M since it cannot mean "undermine"!) Equinox ◑ 10:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I found very little support for the existing definition. One cite (on citations page) could support a metaphoric version of that definition (to undermine), but only one. I did add some clearly supported definitions, and put some other citations on the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

rejerk

"Internet slang: To begin participating in a circlejerk again." Equinox ◑ 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:Ping I see you've added some. (Is Reddit actually valid for citations now? I can't keep up.) I see a mixture of transitive and intransitive (i.e. I am rejerking, vs. a topic is being rejerked) so apparently there is more than one sense. Equinox ◑ 08:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:Ping: We do on a case by case basis. I would Template:Support accepting the Reddit quotations as Template:M and its abbreviation Template:M are actually pretty widespread across a variety of Reddit communities. Admittedly, the term is pretty much never used outside Reddit, so I would understand if others decide to delete it. Also, thank you for adding the other sense! Ioaxxere (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:Reply to Still got the issue that the citations with "it was rejerked" and "rejerk that shit" are transitive uses, so the definition "begin to participate" does not fit. Equinox ◑ 15:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

aristonaut

A rich person who has flown to outer space. Equinox ◑ 15:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Could be an emerging word, in view of current technology, but I don’t find it at all. Template:Ping, recently having created it, have you heard it somewhere? Fay Freak (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

When I first heard the term, it was already a very popular term in space exploration, as rich people like Bezos and Branson were flying in space with their own money. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

woven

Rfv-sense: Template:Lb To be mentally exhausted. Becoming weary of trials.

Binarystep (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Kharkiv

Prigogine

Torino

Mr. Spock

Ovechkin

Schrödinger

Names of asteroids in English. Einstein2 (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Three comments to make here:

It's worth reminding everyone that there is no figurative use requirement for names of asteroids, as they fall under the exemption for "minor planets" at WT:CFI#Celestial objects. We only need to find three uses, even if literal.
Surely these entries should be moved to Translingual. As I understand it, these are the official, worldwide names of these celestial bodies.
Do cites where the name is preceded by the systematic number count towards attestation of the name alone? To take one example, the entries Template:M and Template:M are not eligible for inclusion under our policy, but one could argue that any usages of these systematic names count as usages of Template:M, the number being a non-lexical element.

This, that and the other (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Cited Mr. Spock with three literal uses in books. This, that and the other (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

spinel

Rfv-sense: "Bleached yarn in making the linen tape called inkle; unwrought inkle." I can find instances of spinel being used in discussing yarn (see the cites page), but it's not clear to me that they mean this as opposed to being a dialectal pronunciation spelling of "spindle" or, as one reference I found says it meant in Old English, a word for the amount of yarn that fits on a spindle. - -sche (discuss) 20:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, I found one cite which uses it in the definition of inkle (which is very "mention-adjacent" but technically counts as a use, I think). - -sche (discuss) 20:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

from dawn to dusk

Rfv-sense "Template:Lb At daytime." Maybe this is very common and I'm just forgetting the obvious way it's used, but at the moment I'm only calling to mind the other sense, "Template:Lb From sunrise to sunset." - -sche (discuss) 05:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

In contrast, I'm confused by the definition "from sunrise to sunset". Dawn, as typically defined, starts a bit before sunrise, when the sky starts to lighten. Is "from dawn to dusk" anything more than a SOP expression anyways? I would interpret it as just meaning exactly what it says.--Urszag (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

from dawn till dusk is common enough too. Even from dawn until dusk, if you like. Any reason why we would have the "to" version but not the others? Mihia (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

counterdisputation

Chuck Entz (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I have added three cites, but one of them is hyphenated, and the other two occur at line breaks, which means the authors might also have intended them to be hyphenated. Kiwima (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

malasapsap

A tree of the Philippines. Tagged by Template:U but not listed. This, that and the other (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

... of species Template:Taxlink. Lots of snippets, mentions, and verbatim repeats of the surrounding text. But used in reference to trees of different genera (eg, Ailanthus, Gyrocarpus, ), not necessarily synonyms. Apparently a Tagalog word, but we don't have a Tagalog entry. DCDuring (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

full circle

Rfv-sense: "Template:Lb 𝌇". "Full circle" is evidently the name of the tetragram, but I'm not sure if this is worthy of a definition in Wiktionary. Is this an RFV or RFD argument? Now that I've asked myself, I'm not sure. Anyway, here it is. This, that and the other (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

goods and sales tax

If this was the name of an actual tax somewhere in the world, you would expect to find plenty of evidence for it, as taxes are a much-discussed topic in published literature. However, most of the online uses refer to taxes in countries where the initialism Template:M expands to "goods and services tax", making this name a misnomer. If this term is only used as a misnomer, we should say so in the definition.

The only 20th-century uses in Google Books are Australian statistical publications, which are apparently using the term not to refer to a specific tax, but to the various goods taxes and sales taxes in place across the country, in which case the term is SOP. This, that and the other (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

GST

Rfv-sense: "Template:Initialism of Template:Qualifier". As above. It's worth noting that I'm from Victoria and have never heard of this, although given the introduction of a federal Goods and Services tax in 2000, it would be before my time if it did exist. This, that and the other (talk) 07:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

bresk, brusk

I'm challenging the (rfv-sense) "compare American English bresk, brusk 'fragile, brittle'" thing under Ety 2 of brash. This was added in 2013, apparently copied from the 1913 Webster's which had just aged out of copyright. "Bresk" and "brusk" are links, but they don't link to any such word or sense, and I've certainly never heard these words or senses as a lifelong Yank. JonsonMaclean (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, probably dialect from some particular state. Your "lifelong" doesn't cover 1913 I imagine :) Equinox ◑ 12:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree it should be marked with the state or region of origin and/or marked as obsolete, unless it can't be attested. JonsonMaclean (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Now brash has three citations: 1 "brash wood" and 2 "brash timber". You seem to be challenging the etymology here, so RFV isn't really the right venue. Google Books has no results for "bresk/brusk wood/timber". Equinox ◑ 13:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

suprasensual

Sense 2: "masochistic". In GBooks I can find for example "masochistic suprasensual play" but this does not mean they are synonyms: on the contrary, the use of both words together suggests they are not (or else such use could be redundant). Equinox ◑ 12:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

So the confusing thing here is that "suprasensual" is the word Leopold von Sacher-Masoch invented to describe his own sexuality. I think the quote here means something like "suprasensual in Masoch's sense". I can find plenty of cites, but the majority are analysing Masoch's writing (mainly Venus in Furs) or Deleuze's essay about Masoch:

Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

exponential

Rfv-sense: Sense 2 "(mathematics) Expressed in terms of a power of e."

Is this unambiguously attestable as distinct from sense 1 "Relating to an exponent."?

See also: Wiktionary:Tea_room/2024/April#exponential. DCDuring (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Reading this definition closely, I don't think this sense can be attested separately from sense 1, or at least I haven't seen and haven't succeeded at finding any such uses. On the other hand, I think this sense is trying to get at a different use of "exponential" which we currently don't cover: probably something like "of or relating to the [natural] exponential function."

To give just one concrete example, in the study of Template:W, there is a particular map called the "exponential map" (notated

\exp

); when Lee (in Introduction to Smooth Manifolds) defines the exponential map (a rather abstract definition involving no exponents), he offers the following comment on its name:

The results of the preceding section show that the exponential map of GL(n,R) (or any Lie subgroup of it) is given by $\exp A = e^{A}$ . This, obviously, is the reason for the term exponential map.

Other examples include "exponential order" (in asymptotics; almost always defined in terms of a [natural] exponential [function]); "the exponential series" (the series expansion of the exponential function); "exponential window" (in statistics; [a function] almost always defined in terms of a [natural] exponential); etc. Of course we also have "the exponential" or "an exponential" for

e^{x}

and

e^{a x}

(as function), respectively.

Part of the reason these senses are muddled is that when mathematicians are dealing with the class of functions of the form

a^{b x}

(which is rather often), it doesn't really matter what

a

is--in fact, without any loss you can always force

a

to be e just by scaling

b

by

\log_{a} (e)

. Winthrop23 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I would say that base e can be mentioned as a particular important special case of the general principle, either on the one definition line, or as a subsense. However, is present sense #1, "Relating to an exponent", supposed to be only the mathematical sense, or could it conceivably apply to any other senses of "exponent"? If the former, it should be labelled as such. In the mathematical sense, I'm not clear whether "expressed in terms of a power (of anything)" is usefully distinct from "relating to an exponent or exponentiation". This distinction, if it exists, exists irrespective of the base, I suppose? Mihia (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

(Replying to Winthrop as well) I think I agree with both of you. I think def 1 (Relating to an exponent) can refer to the non-math meanings of exponent too, so we'll have to look to the present defs 2 & 3 for the maths definitions. Leonhard Euler, standing on the shoulders of Newton and others, is arguably the best-ever mathematician and (like Newton and da Vinchi) a good engineer too. (We engineers also love him because Euler is homophonic with oiler.) As an example, he derived the equation

e^{i π} + 1 = 0

, in which he had invented the concept of e, had invented the name for the Newtonian concept of i and popularised the use of π for its Ancient Babylonian concept (previous use by a Welshman and an Englishman had been ignored). e is a fantastically useful number for use in many proofs, since it simplifies many formulae -- which is why, along with log (or log₁₀) and exp on a math calculator, you will find ln (or log_e) and e. So yes, exponentiation is often done to base e, but certainly not always. I suggest altering #2 to read "# Template:Lb Expressed in terms of a power of a base, often 10 or e". Def #3 should then be left as is, since it makes a reasonable attempt to explain the effects of its use in non-mathematical jargon which, with the help of its example sentence, it achieves. No one ever mentions that, between exponential exponential growth 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256... and exponential decay 256, 16, 4, 2, 1.4, 1.2, 1.1, 1.0 [to 1 dec place] lies exponential constancy, where the exponent is 1 and so the value never alters 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2.... And those who think exponential means something is of growing severity might also be confused that exponential decay starts by "falling off a cliff" then gradually levels out, never quite crashing. --Enginear 02:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I made that change to #2, and also added a couple of examples. Mihia (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna say now that sense 2, the mathematical sense about "expressed in terms of a power", is verified, and I have transferred the "RFV" label to sense 1, the generic "Relating to an exponent" sense, so the goal now is to find examples (mathematical or otherwise) that fit sense #1 but are not sense #2. I have also tried to work the word "exponent" into def #2, so that if #1 is removed, the entry will still prominently mention that word, so as to illuminate the connection. Mihia (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

yappuccino

"(slang) A long rant that serves no purpose." I can see some Web hits along the lines of "I did not order a yappuccino" (perhaps used when your barista is too talkative?). But seems like a protologism. Equinox ◑ 17:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The given references do not necessarily seem to use the word with the definition given. Equinox ◑ 18:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

cream in the can

Does this exist outside of The Broadway Melody? Binarystep (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

explorer

Rfv-sense: "(figuratively) Someone who is adventurous and free-thinking." (See below.) - -sche (discuss) 03:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

sentinel

Rfv-sense: "(figuratively) Someone who is hardworking and dutiful." Last November, an IP added these two senses, plus "Someone who is an emotional thinker" to diplomat. I initially removed that last one, but now wonder if these are actually used in some specific taxonomy (a la "love languages", MBTI, etc). - -sche (discuss) 03:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like it's an MBTI thing. Can't find evidence of it being used in a non-mention-y sense. The closest I can think of is "sentinel" and "guide" from fan fiction (derived from the TV series Template:W, a sentinel is a hyperfocused character who zones out from reality, a guide is the sidekick who helps the sentinel stay connected to the rest of the world - these would I think be valid entries, but hard to durably cite). Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

insisture

Shakey-only? P. Sovjunk (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Plural seems to be findable in GBooks. Equinox ◑ 22:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The Google Books hits for the plural seem to be either scannos where one column's "insist" and the next's "-ure(s)" are combined by the OCR, or else mentions (not uses). I can however find, and have added, one hardly-intelligible Joyce-related cite of the singular, one cite discussing Shakespeare, and one old newspaper cite in which the word might just mean ~insistance, insistentness. There are probably enough cites to support a somewhat wishy-washy ("x, or y, or z") definition. Works variously define the word as "continuance", "persistency; regularity; method", "fixed position". - -sche (discuss) 04:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

triangles

A type of moth. Singular noun, so apparently one would be "a triangles". Equinox ◑ 10:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

An image conclusively shows that triangles is an apt name. DCDuring (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The actual usage seems to be of "(the) triangles moth (is...)", as opposed to just "(the) triangles (is...)". Most websites using "triangles" alone are Wikipedia mirrors, or probably following Wikipedia. Difficult to formally attest either way. This, that and the other (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The Template:Vern is a different species: Template:Taxlink.

I found one in a book on South African lepidopterans, but doubt there are others that are durably archived. DCDuring (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

RFV-failed. Ultimateria (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

yapper

Sense 3: a (small) dog. Must be cited distinct from sense 2, "one who yaps", though that sense 2 has a citation about dogs already... Equinox ◑ 12:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe that interpretation came from this, which Mike L. Reed specifically calls a Tiny Yapper. Khemehekis (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

musth

Can't find musth by itself to refer to the animals, seems to always come with "elephant", "bull", "male" or something Justin the Just (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I found two uncertain possibilities in GBooks, but the snippet view is so stingy now that you can't really see enough to cite unless you are able to progressively guess further words and include them in your search:

* 1967, Natural History (volume 76, page 42)

*: Template:... the musths. It is common knowledge among handlers that male elephants have periodic fits of madness and that they are extremely obstreperous and dangerous at these times. A male in such a condition is called a musth elephant Template:...

* 2006, Lisa Karen Yon, An Investigation of the Adrenal and Gonadal Hormones of Musth in the Bull Elephant (page 12)

*: Template:... musths are those with more pronounced physical and behavioral characteristics (more and longer lasting TGS and UD, more displays of aggression).

Equinox ◑ 15:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The 2006 one starts with "(or more intense)" Justin the Just (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

You can read the whole 1967 quote at IA here. I think it's a valid cite of the "elephant in musth" sense, but the second one is not. This, that and the other (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The meaning of “the first officer told us about the musths” in the 1967 cite can well be, “the first officer told us about the periods of aggressiveness male elephants undergo from time to time”. --Lambiam 04:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

disgorgement

On old English maps (i guess, based on Buache or before him) there are given "disgorgement of the ice", meaning that there is no ice or that there is a passage in the ice sheet of Antarctica. It is correct use of this word? Template:Unsigned

Template:Reply I don't think it's correct to define it as a passage. It probably means that the ice has been discharged from the area in question just as food is disgorged from someone's throat or stomach, so it's just a use of sense 1. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

kimnel

Rare as hell. this quote is perhaps usable. OED has an entry I can't read. There's smatterings of old alt-sps like kymnele in Middle English too P. Sovjunk (talk) 07:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Re I can tell you there are quite some up to the 19th century, enough so they cut it off, though varying in spelling and normalized in Webster 1913, metathetical n←→l to what we lemmatize Template:M. Fay Freak (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

self-segment

"To actualize the order and size of parts of without being required a particular one." This doesn't really make grammatical (or other) sense to me. Is it something like "self-identify"? Equinox ◑ 18:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Re No. You know I am not into tribal politics, I have espoused cognitive psychology. It is, inter alia, retelling things without being prompted a certain sequentialization. You might see from the quoted study about police questioning, or a whole handbook of memory, police questioning, ASD and the law that the typically developed mind’s recalling capabilities are skewed in favour of relational memory and to the disadvantage of item-specific memory if juxtaposed with an autistic control group, as a consequence of the latter’s attention atypicalities.

The Template:W then, for example, has the neurotypical bias of attempting to elicit the temporal and spatial layout of the crime scene from witness’ memories instead of retrieving details that can later be put together (and help NT witnesses recall more related details), which the study authors exploited with post-it notes, and capitalism does in the form of Template:M (without the term being created because this seems to be but employed by single German economist thus far), shifting the value added in economy to consumers who are doing part of a previous job: like back in the day at petrol stations you got a handyman to top up your motorcar and now you have to do it yourself, but this is mitigated by reason that on the other hand reordering data entered for use of mainly the neurotypical mind can be taken over by machines, as in the example quoted from the Federal Register concerning customs declarations filled by travellers. You see the same process on Wiktionary where data passed in quotation templates is displayed uniformly in the output, with the detail however that I just give the parameters impulsively in random order while you probably follow a script to jot them down, in an order that is intuitively logical to you!

Maybe we see in the misunderstanding of the definition how super-distressed NTs are by seeing data scrambled against expectation or even by this being admitted.

If the definition is shifty enough, you see exactly why we need a dictionary entry. That the original author’s definition be comprehensible without context is a requirement naturally imperfectly met for a term described just after having been encountered by him in technical contexts. The correct template is Template:Temp. I am not done with and just started the reframing surely.

Try to define cognitive interview along the way, it is obvious here why I should not do it. Fay Freak (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The two quotes seem to be for totally different senses - the second one, about passports, is clearly just "segment oneself" (with the help of a web service, the travelers segment themselves according to passport/visa/customs status). The first one seems to be just "to segment something oneself" - it's never used without "memory" (or a synonym such as "the to-be-remembered event") as the subject - I'm willing to be convinced it's a term of art in interviewing, but it would take citations unrelated to this particular study. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Re Thanks for having an argument. So you think it would be absolutely necessary to distinguish transitive and intransitive uses? In my view in transitive verbs one can just leave out an implied object. I have another intransitive one about amoeba regrowing, or what one thought about it in 1883, to get our biologists into the boat. Template:Quote-journal

Back to typically developing humans forming groups: Template:Quote-journal

If we chop up senses by our own perceived specification too much, we won’t have anything believable, thrice cited or not.

I admit that yesterday I just wrote something from the first two interesting ones and then went to eat, assuming nothing evil.

Template:Ping help. Fay Freak (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks to me like self-selection into segments or groups. (The Ameba quote is a clearly different meaning of segmenting itself into parts). Kiwima (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I have went through the 46 Template:W hits for "self-segment" and I now assume that the senses of self-segmenting upon being questioned in whichever kind of survey or inquiry are derived from marcomms. The use for the WAFA technique of witness interrogation is just the most psychologized. Fay Freak (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Re I have rewritten a definition under the token of this insight. Let me know what you think, and how much comprehensibility of it is comparatively improved. Fay Freak (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Reply to You got closer, but it was still semi-gibberish. I truly think you shouldn't edit English if you are going to do it in this weird, pompous, quasi-Anglish way. It doesn't help readers and it doesn't make sense. I don't know why you do it. I have tried to improve it: I wrote: "To place oneself in a particular group, for example when responding to a survey." Equinox ◑ 21:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

on

RFV adj. senses "Destined; involved, doomed". Please see Wiktionary:Tea_room/2024/April#on for background to this. Mihia (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me this should be a verb phrase "be on". If "on" were an adjective, we would say "the fight became/seems/appears on". A fight can't be brutally on. We don't say "the on fight". 2601:147:4600:3880:71F8:18DE:F611:7754

I think it is possible to say in this sense (of happening, starting) that something "seems on" or "appears on". Also "the fight is fully on" seems possible. We don't say "the on fight", but plenty of adjectives are predicative only. Mihia (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a sense that we seem to be missing. In the context of an implicit challenge to a competition (a fight, game, sports contest, etc) "It's on" seems to be used to accept the challenge. But the use may be broader than that. DCDuring (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this sense is supposed to be covered by "Happening; taking place; being or due to be put into action". However, I am not 100% satisfied with the way these senses are presented at the moment. I put the "You're on!" sense as a subsense of the aforementioned, but I don't really know whether it is. I find it hard to pin down exactly what "on" means in that phrase. Mihia (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Me too. That's why a phrased it as a non-gloss def. It's just a usex looking for a definition. DCDuring (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

labimeter

+labidometer P. Sovjunk (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Added two quotes to Citations:labimeter. Einstein2 (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

lancely

From what I can read in OED, only Sidney P. Sovjunk (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Added one citation from 1885. Only one left for the three needed. [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 03:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Added a third citation from 1811! [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 16:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The "leaves lancely egg-shaped" citation seems to be an adverb (cf. Template:M). Equinox ◑ 16:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

hear me out

P U C – 12:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

("(Internet slang, humorous) I would have sex with them; used to express sexual attraction to someone, usually a fictional character.") I don't know about it being specific to sex with characters, but I have seen "hear me out" used humorously to imply "I have a controversial opinion and wish to convince you of it". Might be Reddit-speak. A phrase in the same sort of family as Template:M. Equinox ◑ 13:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

It is definitely a meme. See, e.g., "Hear Me out" Has Taken on a Whole Different Meaning on TikTok When It Comes to People's Crushes; Men will say “Hear me out” and show you the most conventionally attractive woman you have ever seen. Meanwhile, women will say “Hear me out” and show you this thing. The question is whether we would ever find any cites that can be used in this corpus. bd2412 T 16:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That Distractify article actually verifies it as an internet joke but as a noun instead of a phrase. The phrase definition should be changed to the general sense of alluding to a suggestion or opinion that might be controversial, which would automatically include the opinion "I would have sex with this character/person," and a new definition should be added for the noun. The general sense would be more in the camp of if you know what I mean which was also tied to an internet meme about being kinda perverted a long time ago. Nicerink (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I too am familiar with this, used like this. It varies between being used as a phrase — saying "hear me out" (with these implications, possible lexical) about someone/something — and being nominalized, like in that image ("their 'hear me out'") or when it's pluralized Template:Google. Because any utterance can be nominalized, e.g. this is my "hold up, let's consider this", and at RFD you might strike someone's "delete" or question their "keep" (also compare Talk:selah, which we deleted), we should consider carefully whether such uses should be viewed as actually being nouns. It may depend on whether we view e.g. "their 'hear me out'" as meaning "their thing that they say 'hear me out' about" or as directly meaning ~"their weird crushes/desires"...? - -sche (discuss) 01:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Mongalian

Alt form of Template:M. Not in Merriam-Webster for instance. What would explain this vowel change? Equinox ◑ 20:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be an obsolete spelling (17- and 1800s, later dates all seem to be reprints complete with long s, etc) and should be relabelled as such if kept. - -sche (discuss) 23:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

impeachmentworthy

What a Germanic/Anglish mouthful. Can anyone cite it? If this fails, then Template:M will also fall to the might of WT:COALMINE. Equinox ◑ 18:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Needs to be moved to Template:M then gain-evaluated. I suppose that'd make things a bit heppener, wouldn't ye say ? Leasnam (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not gonna heppen! Equinox ◑ 19:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You think this is "Anglish" ? yep. you're right. im so busted. Leasnam (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Not going to say anything as your track record speaketh for itself. Equinox ◑ 20:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

LOL Leasnam (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be something like Template:M? Theknightwho (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah yeah yeah I know "impeachment" has Romance connections. But trying to run things into one long German-o-word is belikelike. Anyway, don't shoot the messenger. (Now someone's gonna yell about my "nonX" adjectives. I can't stop ya. But that's a totally different phenomenon.) Equinox ◑ 20:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I cited one definition ("(of an act) Of such character as to warrant [the actor's] impeachment."). I did not find any support for the other 'of a person' sense. I could not cite any sense of the challenged form. DCDuring (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

A use from the US congress??; the rest I could find are online sources: 2 blogs 1 2, a forum 3, and several X's posts 4 (though many are just hashtag-based). [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 20:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

btw, just a handful of Twitter posts refer to the Template:Lb sense (like 3 or 4), the majority refers to Template:Lb. [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 20:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd have thought that the second sense would have found more use. DCDuring (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

laticostate

I just see dictionaries. OED has it, can't see if it has quotes, tho P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

A Google Scholar search finds enough uses. --Lambiam 18:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Cited from those hits (although only barely, most hits are by the same few authors, none of whom look like native English speakers). - -sche (discuss) 13:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Sol III

The planet Earth.

Tagged by Template:Ping but not listed. Binarystep (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Cited. Also I added the science fiction tag as it seems to be used chiefly in that genre: more examples included in the The Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction. [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 20:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Worth noting that the rest of "Sol" planets would be a bit harder to attest Sol I, Sol II, Sol IV-Sol X, and very likely chiefly used in science fiction. [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 20:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Proto-Japonic

How is this adjective sense controversial? We can easily compare it to Proto-Indo-European, which is plainly accepted. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 15:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kiril kovachev The usage example is a pretty straightforward attributive use; it's just obscured by the fact that the names of languages/families often resemble adjectives. Theknightwho (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho I'd argue it's the contrary for words like this: the -ic ending is directly based on the Latin adjective ending -icus, and "Proto-Japonic" as a noun is just short for "Proto-Japonic language", i.e. the adjective sense is really the essential sense of the word, with the noun sense being just a nominal use of the adjective. Even if the nominal use is more common, the adjective should still be considered a proper sense of the word, if not the main sense. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 12:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

but we have phrases like in proto-Japonic, in Chinese, etc. Can other adjectives do that? How should we classify sentences such as she was dressed in green ? I honestly dont know. —Soap— 22:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

seicont

Scots. I was unable to find the spelling Template:M on A Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue or Scottish National Dictionary. YukaSylvie (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It can easily be found in Google Books (Template:Google books) but both uses there postdate our entry and the uses on Scots Wikipedia. I wonder if Template:U can remember what the source for the creation of this entry was.

In any event, even if this is attestable, it should be moved, perhaps to Template:M. This, that and the other (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It is in the dictionary on Scots Online. I disagree with you with regards to moving the page, but if we do that, seicont should certainly be kept as an alternative spelling. embryomystic (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I meant moving the primary form and keeping this as an alt form. The fact that so few attestations are available tends to suggest this is not the primary form. This, that and the other (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

thave

Rfv-sense "To be allowed or permitted to do sth.; To consent to; To submit to, endure, tolerate". Added by the same editor as atew. I suspect some kind of Anglish nonsense or otherwise intentionally trying to revive words that have fallen out of use. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The OED has nothing after 1325, and "thave" is essentially a modern normalisation. Theknightwho (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Nothing in the EDD for it either (only the noun), and I can't find any cites myself, either. - -sche (discuss) 03:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

mander

Rfv-sense "alternative form of gerrymander". Ultimateria (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

cited, but only as a combining form. Kiwima (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Should be moved to Template:M then? Category:English combining forms is a weird grab-bag of stuff, but they all have hyphens. This, that and the other (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Well no, since somebody can look at mander and miss something. The hyphen is just for clarity when mentioning the combining form of a word; known from our Armenian entries where there are not even separate entries and categorization for combining forms. Here for the same purpose, for clarity, we mention the combination at a title without hyphen. Fay Freak (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, AFAICT this should be moved to -mander (leave a "see also" link at mander, I guess). - -sche (discuss) 02:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

saicind

Scots. The spelling is not attested on the Online Scots Dictionary or the Dictionaries of the Scots Language. --YukaSylvie (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It's in a book on Google Books; as Scots is a LDL one published use is sufficient for verification. This, that and the other (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

holiday pay

The, supposedly limited to the UK, sense "a basic wage paid to an employee while they are on holiday. It can be paid for as many weeks holiday as an employee is entitled to, although an employee can spread their complete holiday entitlement over the whole year."

At least in the Netherlands it doesn't work like that. It's just a monetary bonus, you can spend the money however you like, no need to go on vacation. (see vakantiegeld) w:en:Holiday pay doesn't describe the sense we have here either. Ping Template:Ping who created the page and wrote this sense. — Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:Reply That's the way it worked when I was in employment. I retired in 2012. If you don't take any holiday entitlement, you may lose it, it depends on your employer and contract. Self-employed people don't get holiday pay. I'm not sure if anybody on a zero hours contract gets holiday pay, according to Template:W they can. Some firms close down for two or three weeks in the summer, when everyone has to take their holiday. Apparently different countries have different laws. DonnanZ (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Nowadays, in the UK, as far as I would understand the term, "holiday pay" generally simply means that employees continue to get paid in the normal way when they take their (statutory) holiday allowance, whenever in the year this may be, not necessarily (and in practice usually not) contiguously. (No doubt some employers try to wriggle out of paying this entitlement in various ways. There are also potentially complications around determining what is someone's "normal pay" if they are not paid a fixed wage or salary, e.g. they work varying numbers of hours.) Mihia (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

a twig in a bundle can't be broken

As Talk:a stick in a bundle can't be broken. This, that and the other (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

stealection

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I can only find this term under the authorship of one person who goes by the moniker of State of the Union. I have added one quote to the citations page, but have been unable to find quotes by anyone else. If this does manage to pass RFV, it should be reworded, because the term is about the purported act stealing the 2020 election, not the election per se. Kiwima (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, it is now cited, and I have tweaked the definition. Kiwima (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to call this passed on the basis of three "online-only" cites. The practice seems to be to insist on greater than the bare minimum number of cites when online cites are being relied upon. This, that and the other (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

meletin

quercetin obtained from melin. WTF is melin? Denazz (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Some sources give it as a synonym of quercetin-3-O-rutinoside, whatever that may be. Apparently, there was a scientific dispute in the 19th century whether melin is the same as quercimelin, whatever that may be.^[33] --Lambiam 14:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

These 19th-century names for organic compounds are notoriously difficult to pin down. Systematic naming had seemingly yet to be invented, so there is no logic to the naming. Analytical techniques of the time were rudimentary, so one often finds that the same compound is referred to by multiple names, or different texts give different chemical formulas for a particular name. What's more, a lot of useful source material is in German.

This text says that Template:M, Template:M, Template:M, Template:M and Template:M are the same thing. And this German-language article may be useful as well. This, that and the other (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

mot d'ordre

English. P U C – 09:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

[34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. Also in the OED. Einstein2 (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Dated? From an undemocratic time when newspaper readers were assumed to enjoy the occasional French expression in their morning news. DCDuring (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

site

Rfv-sense "sorrow, grief". Compare https://www.oed.com/dictionary/syte_n. Ioaxxere (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

We seem to be missing a Middle English entry for this, but the word was apparently common in Middle English (the MED has 25 cites), indeed common enough all the way through to 1500 that an EEBO search might be productive if someone can work out how to avoid all the other things site means. I also put two Scots cites at Citations:syte (so perhaps this could be moved to syte#Scots if it doesn't pass as English). - -sche (discuss) 03:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

tanto

Rfv-sense Template:Tq

I'm not really sure whether this is actually distinct from the primary definition (Template:Tq), if I'm honest. Of the dictionaries I've checked, only the OED has a relevant entry for Template:M, and they only give the Japanese sense.

According to our entry, both senses can be pronounced Template:IPAchar, but the sense I've RFV'd can also be pronounced Template:IPAchar, but I find this distinction dubious because Template:IPAchar in free variation is common with terms like this. I get the impression this second sense is trying to draw a distinction between traditional tanto and other knives crafted in a similar style, which would explain why it's the only one given the less "authentic" pronunciation. Perhaps I'm being too cynical, though.

Theknightwho (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

surburbanite

An IP pointed out on the talk page that this is a misspelling, and I changed it to such. The quote is real - but how common of a misspelling is it? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Here is the Ngram chart, showing there is one instance of "surburbanite" for every 200 instances of the true spelling. Does anyone remember what our threshold is for considering something a "common misspelling"? This, that and the other (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

autem

"a church", "married". Failed RFV in 2013, was re-added later without cites, but maybe it's citable now? I haven't managed to find anything, searching for "an autem", "the autem" (which finds only mentions of the Latin word, saying the autem appears in one edition but not another, etc), "to autem", "in autem", "autems", "is autem" (for the "married" sense), "got autem", "get autem" (the results are all just Latin)... the one hit for "autem building" is an OCR erroneous combination of two unrelated columns, one Latin and one English... - -sche (discuss) 02:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@-sche I've added 5 cites for the "church" sense, though I'm only confident the 1610 cite is a genuine, period use. It's not very clear from the passage what "could not Template:... keepe his Autem" means, but there's a load of other thieves' cant there (e.g. Template:M, Template:M etc.), and the same book glosses "Autem" as "the Church" later on, so I'm pretty sure it's something like "could not Template:... go to church [without getting robbed]". The 1837 cite from Template:W is clearly an intentional archaism/dialecticism, while the 1823 slang dictionary uses it in a usage example for a different term - Template:M. Both are passable, I guess. The other two are pretty mention-y, as they directly state what the word means, but they're probably worth keeping since they're the only mentions I could find that weren't simply lists of thieves' cant ripped from older dictionaries, or where it's used as part of a compound. The 1566 cite is also valuable as the earliest known recording of the term, too. Theknightwho (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Re-reading it with a fresh pair of eyes, I don't think the 1610 cite fits after all, as I think it's being used to mean "wife" as a clipping of Template:M (i.e. it's "could not […] keepe his Autem [wife] or Template:L [girlfriend] sole unto himself"). Theknightwho (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, alas, I think you're right. "Autem is over" looks alright, though, and "autem ken" is OK as long as autem ken is not a term in its own right (which it seems it is not; at least, we don't have an entry). - -sche (discuss) 23:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@-sche I think it is (Greene's treats it as another form), but I'm inclined to say it's fine, because "autem" clearly has to mean "church" since Template:M just means "house". How about if we add the label "chiefly in compounds"?

Template:Pb

I suspect we probably want to add "clipping of Template:M" as a second sense, but I can find nothing to support it meaning "married" that isn't simply a dictionary entry claiming as much. I suspect it's probably real, as the circumstantial evidence is quite strong for this term having been both widespread and polysemous in the criminal underworld, but sadly the direct evidence simply isn't there. Theknightwho (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I considered suggesting this earlier, but as far as citing "church", we could perhaps also look through the various terms like autem cackle tub, autem quaver tub and autem quaver which have failed, and see if it would work to use their cites for this, iff / as long as we don't also have entries for those things. (IMO we can't use the same citation of "autem ken" to support both an entry "autem ken" and an entry "autem", but as long as we don't have autem ken, autem quaver, etc, we could plausibly use cites of those things for this... but it does mean that if we ever become able to cite those things, it pulls the rug out from under this...) - -sche (discuss) 23:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

pâro

Defined as “The feeling that no matter what you do, it is always somehow wrong—as if there’s some obvious way forward that everybody else can see but you.” and supposedly countable, with the plural pâros. 0DF (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

This looks like nonsense but paro and the variants paro’ and para appear in various British and Irish rap songs (as can be seen by searching at genius.com), most notably in the song ‘Ketamine’ by the Dublin band Versatile, and we already have a French entry under paro. Of course the definition should simply be ‘paranoid’ and the etymology should just be ‘clipping of paranoid’. There's also this example of a NY rapper using the term[40] Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Word comes from the Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows, and the words appear in the Tumblr post that describes it. CitationsFreak (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

quirling

Rfv-sense: A coiling or swirling sensation. Newfiles (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It's in the OED, though marked as obsolete and rare. Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I have updated the entry to indicate it is obsolete, provided a quote attesting the sense, and removed the RfV. Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that I restored the RFV, as three citations have not been found. This could be a tough one to cite as I expect it would not be spelled consistently. This, that and the other (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Three citations for an obscure dialectical term that has been obsolete for two hundred years or so? Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

espace

“Template:Lb Space.” According to the OED (which is the reference in the entry), only recorded in Middle English. J3133 (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems like this spelling only just survived into Early Modern English. Various uses in EEBO, the latest of which is this 1608 text, but I'm not too sure what is going on there (the word "space" is used everywhere else, and there is a footnote which could be read as indicating that "espace" has a special meaning). Some others: [41] [42] [43] This, that and the other (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

surname

Rfv-sense 5 Template:Tq

This comes from the OED, but the OED's definition of "English" is somewhat broader than ours; this is partially reflected by the fact that the user who added this back in 2013 used the first citation in the OED's list, which dates from 1455, which pre-dates the year we usually use to mark the start of modern English (1500) by quite some way. We're a bit flexible about it, but 45 years is too much in my opinon, so I've removed it as invalid. Template:Pb The OED also include citations from 1508, 1553–4 and 1565, but they read like Scots to me, which is the other issue here. I've got no objection moving this to Scots if needs be, though. Theknightwho (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The DSL has a bunch of "Scots" cites (mostly 1500s but with some from as late as the 1680s). Most of their cites are Template:Cd, but similar to the OED (in the other direction), they seem to have included some English as well... unfortunately, despite the DSL's assignment of the cites to this sense, it seems hard to be sure they are actually this sense (it seems possible to read them as meaning the name, instead), e.g. "The Lord Lovet called Fresell [i.e. Fraser] … A surname esteemed honest and very hardy", "Jockies who go about begging, and use still to recite the sluggornes of most of the true ancient surnames of Scotland". - -sche (discuss) 22:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

whoremonger

I am skeptical of the second definition, wherein the word is a synonym of pimp. I can't find this second definition in any of several dictionaries I've checked. This accords with my own personal understanding of the term, by which it can only mean someone who purchases the services of prostitutes (i.e., a john), and not one who sells them. Brusquedandelion (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

beside

Rfv-sense "not relevant to". Does this exist outside of the term Template:M? Seems to be a very straightforward extension of sense 3 ("besides; in addition to"), where Template:M is being used to mean "other than; except for; instead of". This also explains the (now uncommon) alternative form Template:M. Theknightwho (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Marginally. I can find a few cites where people say something is "beside the subject", "beside the topic", "beside the focus" of what they're saying. - -sche (discuss) 16:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Also "beside the mark", a run-in in Century 1911, which is closer to the metaphor of aiming at a target and "beside the question".

We are deficient in contemporary citations of beside and besides, excepting those just added by -sche.

Among OneLook references only MWOnline has "not relevant to" as a definition. They also have three subsenses of sense 1 without an explicit sense: "by the side of"; "in comparison with"; and "on a par with". Their def. 3 is "besides". MW seems to have taken a revisionist stance, trying to bring the definitions closer to their conception of contemporary meaning. In contrast other OneLook dictionaries are similar to MW 1913.

Interestingly, Century 1911 has seven definitions, three marked as obsolete, none of them "not relevant to". The four:

"at the side of; near" (cf. our 1. "next to; at the side of")
"over and above; distinct from"
"apart from; not connected with; not according to"
"out of; in a state deviating from"

Definition three seems closest to our def. 2 "not relevant to", esp. "not connected with".

Our def. 3 "besides; in addition to" does not closely correspond to any of these. I don't think def. 2 at besides: "Other than; except for; instead of." works very well for beside.

Has the meaning of beside the point become more pejorative than beside the mark/question/subject/topic/focus, more reminiscent of "missing the point/mark", "off the mark"? If so, MWOnline's and our separate "not relevant to" is distinct from a definition like "not connected with". DCDuring (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

hockeyist

Rfv-sense: "someone interested in hockey", as distinct from the "hockey player" sense. Einstein2 (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

maru

Rfv-sense Template:Tq

Not seeing how this is an English term at all. It's straightforward to find examples of "maru" being used in the names of Japanese ships, which comes from this sense in Japanese, but in English it's just part of the name of the ship, and isn't a suffix in any conventional sense since it carries no semantic value. Theknightwho (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

vingtillion

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a mistake for vigintillion by someone unfamiliar with viginti (I don't know how else you could get "ving-" from "viginti-"). I've often wanted to create "vigintipede" as a synonym for the house centipede, which obviously has many fewer than a hundred legs (and regularly just about twenty), but the top results from Google are all about a very long bicycle... P Aculeius (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Influence from French, perhaps? Indeed, Template:B.g.c. finds some French hits, as well as one repeatedly-reprinted/quoted English work (originally by Lovecraft? or in his mythos) using the phrase "they preserve a dreadful secret, that untold vingtillions of aeons ago...". Actually, on archive.org I can also find this related book containing the line "...before it sank millions of years ago, or Xoth vingtillions of years before..."; depending on whether or not we consider two(?) authors writing in the Cthulhu mythos universe to be independent, we have one or two Cthulhu cites. And 1940 February, Thrilling Wonder Stories v. 15, n. 02], page 83, says "The dinosaur Trachodon had 2,000 teeth, and when one dropped out, another grew in its place. . . . The vingtillion is the largest number usually given a name? It consists of a one followed by sixty-three zeros. . . .". And 1944-5, Loretto Rainbow, page 215, says "When I am told that between 3 and 4 there is a numerical value that cannot be expressed in whole numbers or decimals, that map-makers need never use more than four colors, that a vingtillion represents the number of grains of sand that Archimedes long ago calculated as sufficient to fill what he believed to be the universe, I just make polite noises". I think this is actually cited? But is another spelling more common? - -sche (discuss) 19:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I found two hits in French on Google Books, and three others that all seemed to be based on Lovecraft. Looks like you found more. The French sources I found weren't scannos, as I thought they might be, and they predate Lovecraft. One instance could be a typo, but the other was clearly deliberate. Cassell's French Dictionary reminds me that vingt is twenty in French—so it seems like "vingtillion" might be a French variant of vigintillion. However, it's clear from both of the French sources on Google Books that the same number is meant. The source you quote above with "a one followed by sixty-three zeros" seems to confirm this in English. Obviously Lovecraft and some of the others are using it in the sense of "an unimaginably large number" rather than a precise mathematical value; his phrase "untold vingtillions of aeons ago" was repeated verbatim in all of the other hits. Obviously the age of the universe was not even estimable when Lovecraft was writing. But it's reasonable that the rare "vingtillion" could have occurred alongside the rare "vigintillion" which is considered standard today. So I guess it's a legitimate, perhaps obsolete variant originating in French. P Aculeius (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

softstem rush

Rfv-sense softstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani). The only unambiguous mentions that I found were actually referring to soft rush (Juncus effusus), a plant which is similar enough that I'm not currently comfortable trying to determine whether any of the mentions that lack a taxonomic name could be referring to the bulrush instead. One source is unambiguous in using "Softstem Rush" that way; but since it repeatedly uses "Soft-stem Bulrush" in the surrounding sentences, I'm not certain whether it was intentional. Qwertygiy (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I have added two cites for "soft-stem rush" referring to Scirpus validus, which is a synonym of Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani. DCDuring (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

swivel-eyed

swivel eye

Rfv-senses to do with squinting; removed out of process by Special:Contributions/John7Appleyard. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

shipbreach

rfv. I hate to do this, but is it only present on Robert Steele's edition of Bartholomew Anglicus' work? The second quote is erronously attributed Robert M. Torrance, but it turns out it also comes from Robert Steele's 1893 edition, as shown in Torrances's own book. So, are there three independent citations for this word? --[Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 13:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Also worth noting that there is a 400 years gap between the last Medieval English instance of the word (shipbreche), and Steele's 1893 book, which would indicate that "shipbreach" is some kind of learned borrowing (and modernization) rather than an inherited word. [Saviourofthe] ୨୧ 14:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

FaCIAbook

Previously failed RFV twice. It currently only has one cite from Usenet, and I would strongly push back against including any message from Google Groups not from Usenet, as that doesn't seem to be durably archived per WT:CFI, nor have I seen a strong consensus for their inclusion. It creates an even worse slippery slope than we've seen with Usenet in the past. AG202 (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I do understsand that citations from the Internet are not valid, but I went ahead and did add them to the citations page for possible future reference: Citations:FaCIAbook. mynewfiles (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Then the entry shouldn't have been recreated since it failed RFV... AG202 (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. It was recreated because I located the three cites on Usenet/Google Groups. mynewfiles (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Wait, that's what I was saying initially. Usenet citations are allowed to count for CFI, but general Google Groups citations do not by default. Google Groups (not including Usenet!) citations are the same as any general internet citation per our current rules. AG202 (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Checking out some more on-line citations, I saw one from a cartoon website that might appear in print, and two Reddit citations. Should be tagged "very rare", in any case. CitationsFreak (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for researching its cites. mynewfiles (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

There’s even a page on Facebook itself of a group with ‘FaCIAbook’ in the title[44]. I think some online uses don’t show up when you do a Google search or aren’t durable but it’s not rare, the word is even popular enough to have found it’s way into various foreign languages where it’s been borrowed from the English. Overlordnat1 (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Given the range of evidence provided I would keep this entry. It is clear that the term has been in use in certain narrow circles online. This, that and the other (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

ningen

Added by this IP, appears to be a joke but I wasn't sure. — BABR・talk 10:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

ningens gets a few hits on Twitter (using plural to narrow it down, ... the singular would probably work just as well though). probably not attestable outside social media, so this could come down to our little-used procedure in which a word found only on Twitter is subject to a vote for approval (mostly we've just been letting them pass when it's obviously real rather than bring it to a vote). —Soap— 11:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

morrot

Like marrot Zebres rouges (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

This would definitely pass as Scots, since the name comes from the Firth of Forth. As English, there are a couple of unambiguous uses by Scottish writers here and here, a mentiony use here and several mentions such as this one and this one. The English sources all refer to a population of Template:W that winters in Scotland and was once considered a separate species from the population that breeds there. The Scots ones seem broader. At any rate, most of the sources are from at least a couple of centuries ago, with more recent ones citing the older ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

billy

Sense 2 is “A billy goat”, with a subsense, “A male goat; a ram.” As billy goat means “a male goat”, this separate subsense would be redundant; however, a ram is a sheep, not a goat. If billy is used for rams, this should not be under the goat definition. J3133 (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't find any other English dictionary that says billy can mean "ram". Very few (only ones published by Merriam-Webster, in fact) even say that billy alone can mean "billy goat". —Mahāgaja · talk 14:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Moved from RfC to verify “ram” sense per Mahāgaja. J3133 (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

agua frescas

Template:Ping marked this as Template:Temp

I could find quite a lot of hits on Google, and the ngram also suggests that it is used, despite being an order of magnitude less frequent than the "correct" plural. Being "rare" doesn't mean that it isn't attested.

--kc_kennylau (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Michigana

found evidence this exists in Chippewan, but couldn't find evidence it exists in English. Additionally, In Chippewan it seems to mean "big lake" rather than the State of Michigan. (though the name of Michigan seems to come from the Chippewan word). — BABR・talk 02:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Found and added two citations for its use in English, though one of them may be less than ideal. I also saw that it was the name of a journal, a beverage, and a farm; some of these may be citable as examples, but I'm not sure how to cite something named after a concept as an example of that concept; surely the journal is a good example. Found a source referring to "a Michigana recipe", but decided that it probably was using "Michigana" as the name of the drink, rather than a description of the recipe, and did not know whether or how to cite that. There are probably lots of examples in local news or publications that are not available on Google, referring to Michigan history or memorabilia; more expert assistance may be needed. P Aculeius (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

myography

Rfv-sense 1: OED says nope Newfiles (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Funny, my OED says yep. Cited. P Aculeius (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Could you add the citations to the entry then? Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I have tentatively folded the senses together as "The scientific study of muscles, typically via myographs." and added three citations (quotations). I am not sure the previous two senses could be distinguished from each other. (I could be wrong.) - -sche (discuss) 12:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Jewish

Rfv-sense "Yiddish". Definitely missing a few labels at least. Ioaxxere (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to find pure cites. IMO, a reference in US-based writings to Jewish newspapers refers to Yiddish newspapers, but that is a probability based on the empirical fact that there are/were hardly any Hebrew newpapers in the US and those that existed had relatively few subscribers. See Template:Pedia. WP articles about these newspapers do not always state in what language they are written, but, unless stated otherwise, one might assume they were written in English. DCDuring (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Yiddish newspapers are Jewish newspapers, so the fact that a Yiddish newspaper is referred to as “a Jewish newspaper” does not imply that Yiddish is a sense of Jewish. Deer are animals, and here a deer is referred to with the term “animal”, but animal does not have a sense deer. A usable attestation should take a more explicit form such as “he spoke Jewish” or “written in Jewish” while the language referred to cannot be Hebrew. It is more difficult to think of usable attestation forms for the cultural sense, since, as for newspapers, Yiddish culture is also Jewish culture – but not necessarily vice versa. --Lambiam 22:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, the RFV'ed sense is the adjective, not a noun (so "he spoke Jewish" doesn't count towards citing it). I have in fact cited the noun sense though, fairly unambiguously, I think. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

fauxpeness

fauxpenness

J3133 (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Even on the web, this instance in the Linux Journal is the only use I spot. - -sche (discuss) 03:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Note the spelling: one would expect Template:M, which does see some more use, but maybe not enough to save it. This, that and the other (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Template:Reply After your note, Template:Ping created it, albeit without any quotations (despite the RfV). J3133 (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Added it to the RFV. User:Mynewfiles, please stop creating entries which either previously failed RFD (as in previous cases), or (as here) creating entries without quotations for entries which are actively being discussed as probably not attested. In general please try to learn to have a better grasp of what is includable. - -sche (discuss) 16:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I've brought this up to them before, especially with WT:DEROGATORY, but it doesn't seem like they've stopped. AG202 (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll definitely be more attentive. mynewfiles (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

give someone a break

Rfv-sense "To provide someone with an opportunity for significant advancement." P U C – 12:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

These are a really weird set of senses: the first one, allowing someone to rest, doesn't look idiomatic at all, but sum-of-parts; and the challenged definition seems too narrow: I believe the phrase really means something more akin to "granting a boon" (a bit archaic, but clear), and is closely related to sense 2, to stop annoying or harassing someone—also perhaps too narrowly phrased. I think these two might be merged, and sense 1 eliminated. P Aculeius (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible that the RfVed sense is sum-of-parts with Template:M having its sense 8, "a significant change in circumstance, attitude, perception, or focus of attention", as in "big break"? 166.181.86.58 14:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it is, but that would be SOP to be honest. Theknightwho (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I would remind you that the sum-of-parts issue is for RFD, not RFV. This is merely to show that the phrase is actually used in the defined manner. Kiwima (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

sugata

Meaning well-gone, apparently. Probs an error Denazz (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it's the opposite of welcome. It's the same as a Pali definition which is at RFD. Justin the Just (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the def to "one who has made a spiritual journey", there are some Buddhist cites available to support something like this. Also something to do with Japanese swords. Justin the Just (talk) 10:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

eruginous (or aeruginous)

Rfv-sense: pertaining to (reddish-brownish) copper rather than (green) copper rust.
I noticed we had entries for both eruginous and aeruginous, and in the process of trying to check which spelling was most common (apparently aeruginous? per Ngrams, but maybe something is skewing Ngrams?), I couldn't find cites of this sense in either spelling, and it doesn't seem like it would be expected based on the etymology (Template:M+). - -sche (discuss) 18:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

However, I see the OED does have "eruginous" defined as "Partaking of the nature or substance of verdigris, or of copper itself" and does cite a remark by Browne (1646) about "ferreous and eruginous earths" and a remark by Harvey (1666) about "an adust stibial or eruginous sulphur", which could be this sense. - -sche (discuss) 18:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

superseminate

WF added the template last year but I guess never got around to putting it up here, looks to have only a single citation Akaibu (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Occasionally I start a process but don't get round to finDenazz (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

failed P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
A few minutes of searching uncovered additional uses. Having trouble locating the original of one of them, but I can cite it from a dictionary in the meantime. Will get it done in a few minutes. P Aculeius (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Took a while, but I found the original texts (or reprints of them), and added several quotes. Hope this will be enough to verify it! P Aculeius (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
RFV-passed. The entry has also been untagged at some point between last December and now but let’s give this 7 days before archiving just to dot the i’s and cross the t’s. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

fireland

"Land that has been degraded by fires." From context, I might suspect this is a term used in the sciences, like bareland, but almost everything I find in the singular or plural is just the capitalized proper noun placename Fireland (Tierro del Fuego) or the Firelands (in Ohio) instead. The only two lowercase cites I found and put at Citations:fireland are 1) referring to the Ohio Firelands, and 2) seemingly a typo for firelane (mentioned in the preceding sentence), respectively. (Likewise, I can find "fireland-access road-wildlife strips" in the 1991 Guide to Abundant Wildlife, but this too elsewhere uses, and probably meant here, firelane.) - -sche (discuss) 00:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Searching for "fireland + soil" seems to strip the extraneous hits and finds a couple of environmental science works. A lot of hits also appear on Google for some part of a piston engine? It seems to mean the top ring of a piston, or maybe the area inside or above that ring ("fire land" is the more common form). Someone who knows more about car engines should add the relevant sense at land as well. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! The Ndiang'ui cite is probably valid: I'm a little uncomfortable that it only uses this word once, and assuming it intended the definition we list, the sentence is somewhat redundant/awkward ("Template:Tq"; it could alternatively be an error for just fire, "Template:Tq", but I admit that's arguably less plausible than assuming it does mean fireland). The ISPRS cite has a lot of NNS/grammar errors but I suppose it still counts (and it does use the word multiple times, which is helpful). I haven't spotted a clear third cite, though there's a report about Apalachicola on Google Scholar which uses capitalized Fireland in a way I haven't had time to work out the meaning of. (I don't take the "Ashleys of America" cite I added to be this sense, because it's referring to lands in Ohio not degraded by fires, which were given to people in Connecticut who'd suffered fires.) - -sche (discuss) 00:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I've added two quotes to the Citations page, although both use the term in a metaphorical sense. Einstein2 (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tweaked the definition because those cites seem to mean "a land of fire", and removed the RFV tag. In an ideal world, we would manage to find one more cite for each of the two senses ("land of fire" and "burned land, land which has been degraded by fire") and split them. - -sche (discuss) 00:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

desulfatohirudin

Couldn't make sense of the formation of this word, particularly the "to" between de- + sulfa- and hirudin, then couldn't find any quotes for it after that, so i'm suspecting this is maybe the "to" is a typo of an actual chemical morpheme. Akaibu (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Ping: It probably has something to do with sulfate. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

See Template:W. For future reference: rfv should only be used if you think an entry may need to be deleted because there's no usage. This kind of inquiry would be better at the Tea room or the Etymology scriptorium. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

rosland

RFV-sense "Heathland; land full of heather." We list two senses: the other is "Moorish or watery land.", which is the sense I can find in other reference works; I haven't spotted cites of this "heather" sense. (Honestly, it might or might not be possible to scrape together three cites even for the "moorish land" sense.) The EDD sort-of combines the two senses (in their entry in ros), which might be advisable if we manage to find enough cites between the two senses but not enough to cite them separately. - -sche (discuss) 06:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

ne'er a

This clearly does not pass the fried-egg test. Is there any way to justify its inclusion? Vex-Vectoꝛ 17:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it an adjective? I think it should have the same POS as no, which seems to be a determiner. Also seems to pass the fried egg test to me. Justin the Just (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

onomatechny

So rare! Phacromallus (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Found 3 on Google books, think it's ok. Justin the Just (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

barbet

Rfv-sense

Any larva of an indefinite number of species of the beetle family Template:Taxfmt, that is covered in waxy threads and feeds on aphids and similar small prey.

The only quote in the entry is discussing the writings of a French author and mentions that he calls a ladybird beetle larva "l'hérisson blanc", or "le barbet blanc". A quick search in Google Books turns up lots of references to birds, but I don't see anything related to beetles. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

brockle

Of food odors: malodorous, flatulent, pungent: smelling of sulfur, hydrogen sulfide, or hydrogen disulfide.
Of animals: variegated, speckled, multicolored; usually used in the phrase brockle-faced.

The compounded form "brockle-faced" is easy to find, though. Ioaxxere (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

snagger

Rfv-sense: Template:Tq. --Svartava (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Cited and cleaned up. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Smurrayinchester We probably want a corresponding sense at Template:M. It falls under "a problem or difficulty with something", but it's more specific than that, as they're issues that prevent a development from being deemed complete (i.e. they get in the way of the developer being able to hand it over to the buyer). Also, I'll have a think about reviewing the definition given here for Template:M, because it's also used in commercial property development, and I don't think it's any less common in the UK than it is in Ireland. Theknightwho (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

a'thin

Scots. Nominated by User:Rakso43243 with rationale "This word doesn't exist, check dictionaries". Ultimateria (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

press button

Rfv-sense "Presbyterian." Quote does not have press button. -saph668 (user—talk—contribs) 15:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Added a cite, there's a second one in the GDoS entry. Einstein2 (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

texter

Sense: “Template:Lb A marker; a felt-tip pen.” Removed by Template:Ping: see Talk:texter (“Citation needed. Texta has this usage, I don't believe texter is used for this.”) J3133 (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

As an Australian, I've never seen this spelling. (The usual spelling is Template:M.) But I guess it's plausible. This, that and the other (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Difficult to search for by itself, but we can look for the collocation texter pen ("texta pen" is not uncommonly heard in Australian primary schools and family households). I find that on this website and in this book, and also in this book which deals with the Australian context but is clearly a speciment of NNSE. This, that and the other (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

bikenap

Tagged but not listed. Doesn't seem restricted to the Philippines. There is also Template:M, which may have a stronger shot at attestability. This, that and the other (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

sam

Surface to air missile. Really also in lowercase? - -sche (discuss) 19:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

RFV-failed. Ultimateria (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

first

Rfv-sense adverb Template:Tq Template:Pb The entry gives a reference for this: Template:Pb Template:Cite-book Template:Pb It's not totally clear from this passage, but I think it's saying that Template:M+ is used as a direct translation of Template:M+ in all senses, including the additional sense "now". However, it would be good to see some actual use. Theknightwho (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

alterhuman

This entry used to simply be defined as Template:Synonym of, but was expanded by new user Template:U. This user wrote at the Grease Pit that they personally identify with the term and felt the definition failed to accurately reflect the way the term is used in the community. Perhaps the real problem is the definition at Template:M is too vague. In any event, it would be good to see some citations (WT:") to assist in verifying Template:M, especially the very specific sense 2. This, that and the other (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Wanderingdrake also deleted a citation because s/he didn't like it. Should probably be restored. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:C92F:A444:8ECC:C889 09:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I am confused as to what Template:Ping means. It seems like a synonym for otherkin, at least going by our definitions. Wanderingdrake defined alterhuman as "an opt-in label and umbrella term for identities that are not considered typical to the human experience" and later added the examples "otherkind, therianthropes, phytanthropes, celestials, soulbonders, spiritual mediums, and plural systems".

However, our definition for otherkin says pretty much the same thing: "A person who claims or believes that their soul, essence, or identity is non-human" i.e. everything he listed above; otherkind, therianthropes, phytanthropes, celestials, soulbonders, spiritual mediums (save maybe for plural systems?). So, it sure seems like a synonym? Either way, it is good to meet a fellow alterhuman, Template:Ping. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

paramento

synonym of parament. Any other cites? Denazz (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Jonson used it, but the sentence is "Your Spanish Host is never seen in Cuerpo, Without his Paramento's[,] Cloak and Sword", which is obviously not a useful cite.

I couldn't find anything else, but it's tough to search for. There's some evidence it might be used in engineering to mean "retaining wall", but I couldn't find much for this either. This, that and the other (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I found a use of the plural: [45] This, that and the other (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

mone

Rfv-sense: English etymology 1. OED's evidence for this word extends no further than the mid-1400s. This, that and the other (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The same situation exists for Etymology 2 (the verb) as well.

(It's worth noting that OED has no modern cites for Etymology 3 either, but we do. So it is not an infallible resource.) This, that and the other (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Very difficult to know how to search for this. There are thousands of hits in EEBO; the few I sampled were almost all alternative forms of Template:M - occasionally alternative forms or Template:M (a sense our entry misses), or errors for moue = Template:M. I found two that looked like possible hits, but the intended sense in each case is very difficult to discern: [46] and there was another one but I lost the link. Template:Ping any searching ideas here? This, that and the other (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I tried checking in the MED what collocations/phrases this occurred in in Middle English, and searching for those in (early) modern English.: "[so-and-so] "was his mone", "without mone", "in mone", "mone's man" ("no mone", "(without) man's mone", "woman's mone", "flesh's mone", "of mone" and bare "his mone" would probably still bring up too much "moan"). The only hits for "was his mone" at EEBO appear to be editions of Chaucer which we probably wouldn't count. These hits for "without mone" could possibly mean something like "compassion" or "companionly empathy", but they probably just mean "moan", as e.g. this more clearly does. The 19 hits for "his mones" also seem like "moan" (and although the cite you link about wights' mones is indeed opaque, I can also find another text about wights' mones in which it means "moans", so perhaps it's an awkward poetic use of "moan" in yours, too). Many hits for "in mone" are also "moan"; others are opaque. (Aside: I can find "wal" and "wall" as obsolete spellings of "wail", which we're currently missing.) The MEDTemplate:'s cites are concentrated in the 12- and 1300s with only a handful of cites from the first half of the 1400s, so it's possible this died out before 1500. - -sche (discuss) 16:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@-sche thanks for helping out! Looking for collocations from MED is a great idea. On this evidence I'd be comfortable to call the noun RFV-failed. I want to check verb forms (moning, monyng etc) before failing the verb. This, that and the other (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

arachnidial

Rfv-sense: anatomy, relating to the arachnidium. Is there such a thing??? Denazz (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there's a Wikipedia article on it[47], though I'm not sure if this is the right adjective to describe things that relate to arachnidiums/arachnidia or not. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

irrespectively

Rfv-sense "Corresponding to exactly 2 items in the opposite order they were listed." Ioaxxere (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I know from experience this word is used this way on rare occasion, usually when they accidentally list the corresponding items in the opposite order. May be colloquial but I wouldn’t know how to go about providing hard evidence the word is used this way. But trust me it is. 104.35.197.130 14:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

white stuff

Was seeing if we had the nautical sense of this term, as we do in the case of thick stuff, and instead found the two dubious(imo) terms instead. Akaibu (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The first sense is easily attestable, although the definition could be expanded to include heroin. The "milk" sense is not in Green's (and was added by WF), but I haven't checked it in other sources. Einstein2 (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

There was a famous series of adverts by the Dairy Council of Great Britain a while ago that even at the time were considered racist by the professionally offended with the slogan 'The white stuff, are you made of it?'. see the following youtube clip of an advert from 2001[48].

Green's has 'white stuff' meaning all of morphine, heroin, cocaine and China White (apparently an opiate resembling fentanyl more than heroin, I mistakenly thought of it as a form of heroin until I checked the link but then I claim no expertise in such matters!) and 'white' meaning all of those things except 'China White'. We have some of those meanings listed at white stuff and white but not all of them. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I expected to see "snow" as a def. DCDuring (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting; I would've thought it meant cocaine, and can find cites of that. I don't know which drug is meant, but this (which I am not presenting as durably archived, just as evidence that terms like this are still in common/current use, since I saw it yesterday by chance, before I saw this RFV) contrasts "that white", with "that green"/"the green stuff"/"weed". - -sche (discuss) 22:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

In different contexts it has or had different meanings beyond those now in the entry. We may wish that they all could be dismissed as SoP, but I'd bet on that wish not being fulfilled in reality. Cocaine seems to be white stuff, as does some brain matter, "crust which surrounds the carborundum crystals", white phosphorus, certain oleomargarine, lime, etc. DCDuring (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

sui generis

Rfv-sense as an adverb: Template:Tq

Given with the usage example Template:Tq, as a synonym of Template:M.

This sounds strange to me; I've only ever heard the legal sense, which is an adjective. Theknightwho (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

To me, too, it seems like an adjective. Why do law dictionaries call it a noun? DCDuring (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@DCDuring It can also refer to something that is sui generis in legal contexts. Theknightwho (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

No dictionary except for legal dictionaries call sui generis a noun. The legal lexicographers must have a reason for calling it a noun. What is the reason? Is it short for "a thing (law, decision, situation) that is sui generis". Or, better, where are the cites? DCDuring (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

A few cites (of the noun) for you:

These look like adverbial cites:

Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. DCDuring (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Added to defs. in entry. DCDuring (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@DCDuring The reason it's used as a noun in legal contexts is because it's a convenient shorthand for "something that is sui generis". Outside of law, it's not a term that people use very often. Theknightwho (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Smurrayinchester There is also a plural form, Template:M ([49]), though it mostly seems to see use as a declined adjective. Theknightwho (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Itzcuintlipotzotli - a nice cryptid critter from medieval Mexico

We already have itzcuintli and its cognates. I propose adding this guy: itzcuintlipotzotli, aka „yzi-cuinte potzotli", „itzcuintepotzotli”, „ytzeuinte porzotli", „itzeuinte potzotli”, „itzcuinte-potzoli” (all from Nahuatl, here is the proof) - the most developed (by me) references are now in its plwiki entry, e.g. Desmond Morris, Dogs: The Ultimate Dictionary of over 1,000 Dog Breeds, Trafalgar Square Books, 2008, page 590, ISBN 978-1-57076-410-3, or its 19th century versions:

John Richardson etc., The museum of natural history; being a popular account of the structure, habits, and classification of the various departments of the animal kingdom: quadrupeds, birds, reptiles, fishes, shells, and insects, including the insects destructive to agriculture, New York, J. S. Virtue, 1877, page 60 : "Of the three different species of Dog included by Fernandez, in History of the Animals of New Spain, ... the generic name Alco, Button, rejecting at once the hairless Dog, identical with the Bald Turk of the Old Continent, admits readily the species called Ytzcuinte potzotli — a Dog, short-necked in an unusual degree, and humped in shape, with silky hair ... "

Frances Calderón de la Barca (quite famous and popular in her days), Life in Mexico 1843 : "Hanging up by a hook in the entry, along with various other dead animals, polecats, weasels, etc., was the ugliest creature I ever beheld. It seemed a species of dog, with a hunch back, a head like a wolf, and no neck, a perfect monster. As far as I can make out it must be the itzcuintepotzotli, mentioned by some old Mexican writers.... " Zezen (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

dymaxion

Adjective: "Able to use technology to maximize the use of resources." I'm sure Buckminster Fuller used it, but did anyone else?

We also have Template:M, somewhat gauchely defined as "A structure or device that is dymaxion in nature" - a better def would be "Template:Lb A name applied by Buckminster Fuller to his inventions.", but perhaps we can do better than that. This, that and the other (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

RHU (via InfoPlease} has: "noting or pertaining to R. Buckminster Fuller's concept of the use of technology and resources to maximum advantage, with minimal expenditure of energy and material."

It still needs cites, though they should be findable in discussions of Fuller's works. DCDuring (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The two problems with the Template:M entry are the adjective POS and the lowercase "d". I can find occasional references to some of Fuller's inventions spelled with a lowercase "d" (dymaxion house, dymaxion car) but these uses only support dymaxion as an alternative case form of Dymaxion and nothing further. This, that and the other (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

gegagedigedagedago

Needs to pass the 3 independent uses criteria of WT:CFI. AG202 (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

And the alt form gegagedigedagedaoh. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:BDC1:47AD:61BB:811D 18:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

absence makes the heart go yonder

Rfv-sense

This was added as a synonym of Template:M, but all I can find are quotes that mean quite the opposite, or are at best ambiguous. Can we find any clear support for this interpretation? Kiwima (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems unlikely. Template:M belongs in the etymology. Could this kind of rhyming derivation be worth an etymology category? DCDuring (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. If this phrase were used in the place of "absence makes the heart grow fonder", it'd be erroneous. It almost feels like an eggcorn for that other phrase, if used in that sense. ScribeYearling (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

srirachi

Rfv-sense

This entry was such a mess that it was hard to figure out what to do with it. If I understand it correctly, it was originally supposed to be an alternative plural of sriracha, and thus an alternative form of srirachas. A quick look at Google books shows it to be used in the singular, possibly as an alternative form of sriracha. I made this an rfv-sense because it's obviously in use, and I don't have the time or energy to sort out the usage. I have no problem with this ending up as cited or resolved, and will be happy to withdraw my nomination if someone who has looked at the usage thinks I should. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

beastlihead

Just Spenser? Denazz (talk) 12:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure OED has numerous cites for this one. Will check again later. This, that and the other (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

NED has a cite from Browne's Britannia's Pastorals: "Peregall to nymphes of old, From which their beastlihed now freely start." The modern OED also includes a curious quote from the 3 January 1887 edition of the New Mississippian, which is hard to find (anyone have access to Newspapers.com?). This, that and the other (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I can find a use in Ford's Christian Repository which is probably(?) this sense, although I'm not certain. - -sche (discuss) 05:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

helios

I was looking for an etymology or a different attestation for this term, but as an internet friend of mine pointed out, it would be easiest to interpret this entry as a faulty interpretation of the plural helioses, which might equally well be the plural of heliosis. This interpretation would have the advantage that heliosis has the meaning "exposure to the sun" according to LSJ, which is much closer to a meaning 'solarium' than just plain helios. One further argument is that the authors of the quotations on helioses also used solaria, not solariums, implying they were knowledgeable enough about classic languages and especially proper plural formation.
Chuck Entz, you reversed the edit, is this enough justification? Template:Unsigned

Template:Ping: Let's see how the rfv plays out. As for the revert: you just removed Etymology 1 and left Etymology 2 hanging. That was bad enough, but this is a cooperative project: someone took the trouble to find the quotes and do the data entry a couple of years ago, and you just obliterated it without explanation. You may be right and it may be a misinterpreted plural of heliosis, but even then, this is an English entry and English doesn't have to follow Latin grammatical rules. It might even have developed a new singular in the same way that pease (plural, peasen) gave rise to pea. The key is whether anyone can find usage of the alleged singular. By the way, your ping didn't work because you forgot to sign your post. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't delete the quotations, I moved them to heliosis because I think that is the correct lemma form. As for the Etymology 2, I will personally adjust that should the move be confirmed. Looking at google books, heliosis is very often used for Ancient sun-therapy and once possibly for a sunroom ( [50], though the context: "practiced by the Greeks in the "Heliosis" or resting places" makes me think it's either a typo or a qualifyer of 'places'). As far as I can see it looks worse for plain helios though (no relevant results for "helios" + "solarium"/"sunroom"/"sun parlor"). The problem at root in my opinion is actually that the idea that the Ancient Greeks had any kind of named sunrooms is actually some kind of misconception derived from a line of citations that leads to no classical or archaeological source. Even Latin solarium just means any part of the house exposed to the sun, mainly the flat roof. In that case its dubious whether a few citations, solely in the plural, warrant a dictionary entry. If anything, the meaning "Ancient Greek practice of sunbathing" would be justified, though it usually only occurs with an added explication anyways
Suryaratha03 (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

writo

Does not seem like a word with much if any normal use. All usage examples in the entry specifically contrast this term with Template:M, as if the writer does not expect the reader to understand it without this context. Arafsymudwr (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I would say the quotes in the entry still count as proper uses (see WT:CFI#Conveying meaning), despite using the term in the context of typos. Einstein2 (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

i agree with Template:Ping that they are still proper uses, but it does seem that the status of Template:M (and indeed most of the words listed as coordinated terms of Template:M) as a word with actual currency will be clearer if we can find attestations that are independent in context to Template:M. ragweed theater _{talk, user} 12:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The proliferation of terms ending o that indicate types of error certainly indicate that -o is productive, though probably in a more or less narrow context. Those that are not (yet) attestable should be shown in the appropriate section of -o. DCDuring (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

toburst

Obsolete synonym of Template:M, with the nonproductive prefix Template:M meaning "in two ways". Template:Pb However, the OED has no citations using this spelling, and even lemmatises it at Template:M. The citations post-dating 1500 variously use Template:M, Template:M, Template:M and Template:M, with Template:M only occurring in Middle English. Theknightwho (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a move to Template:M as the normalized form is in order (?) Leasnam (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Failed Father of minus 2 (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Moved to Template:M (OED headword) Leasnam (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

waffle hole

I can't really find uses that are not referencing the line from Shrek (which doesn't really count as an attestation for an "anus" sense). Einstein2 (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I've added one.[51] TDHoward (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Birminghamize

Only the 1856 quote supports the sense (looking up the 1986 quote, there's a footnote that explains that Birminghamize here means "Reform Ireland's local government along the same lines as Birmingham's"), and I can't find any use of it by other authors. Every Google Books seems to be quoting Emerson. Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

We could probably attest this if we generalised the meaning a bit to ‘to do or say in a Birmingham/Brummie manner’ - the ‘make ersatz’ meaning is after all a specific subsense of that based on offensive stereotypes. Compare Birmingham screwdriver, in fact there are some websites claiming that Birmingham had a reputation for minting fake coins at the time of Emerson too. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

body-ody-ody

Entry says it is Internet slang for flattering (adjective). Every other website says it's a drag queen thing, meaning showing off a feminine-looking body (or something?). And probably a noun. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:9DA8:7B66:71F9:5846 14:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

enchiridion

Rfv-sense "a dagger". there is a reference for this sense, but does it actually pass CFI? ragweed theater _{talk, user} 20:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Milton was probably just playing with the term's etymological meaning, "that which is held in the hand". (Actually he more likely knew that the word was used to mean "dagger" in Ancient Greek.) Century and OED don't include a "dagger" sense. This, that and the other (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I was able to read The New World of Words by Edward Phillips and John Kersey 1720 as digitized by Google Books. And it was right there: ..."also a Dagger". Cmbaugher (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:Reply citation in a dictionary isn't enough for a term to pass RFV; there need to be at least three independent uses of the term in texts. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

yes, the edition of Areopagitica cited in the entry also mentioned The New World of Words. this is still a mention though, not a use, like Template:U said. also note that The New World of Words, like most early dictionaries and glossaries, contains its fair share of dictionary-only words that would not meet the CFI here ragweed theater _{talk, user} 22:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

henchman

Rfv-sense "A person who supports a political figure chiefly out of selfish interests."

This seems backwards to how I'd understand a henchman (who is not selfish but is working in their patron's interests) and I can't find any cites. Even dated hits for "henchman + political" and similar (such as this from 1928) seem more like sense 1. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

To my surprise, MWOnline has this definition: "a political follower whose support is chiefly for personal advantage", so it might be worth a hard search. DCDuring (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Century has: "A mercenary adherent; a venal follower; one who holds himself at the bidding of another". DCDuring (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I have cited this. Kiwima (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the main issue here is that the primary meaning of ‘henchman’ is ‘an evil supporter or follower’ with the ‘servant/groom’ sense being archaic and the more neutral or positive uses of ‘henchman’ being vanishingly rare. Of course in the Venn diagram showing the intersection between ‘evil supporters/followers’ and ‘selfish supporters/followers’ the intersection is so large that we’re nearly just looking at a single circle. An interesting usage of ‘henchman’ to refer to a political supporter in a more positive or neutral light is the following[52] which also uses the phrase ‘hand someone their card’ to seemingly mean ‘hit someone’ - similar to the phrase hand someone their cards (fire them). Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. As Overlordnat1 says, the Venn diagram overlap means I'm not sure about 1 or 2 of the quotes, but I've added one more and I think there's enough to call this cited. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

there'dn't've

--Svartava (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The word comes from this video Hydrogen astatide (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

subconscious

Rfv-sense "partly conscious," distinct from "not accessible to the conscious mind." The latter sense was labeled "dated." What do people think of that? Do you agree with what wikipedia has to say about the usage of subconscious and unconscious (w:subconscious)? Should that sense maybe be split into a technical usage and a colloquial usage? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

‘Dated’ seems a strange tag to me. Perhaps professional psychobabblers don’t use the word ‘subconscious’ any longer but the general public do. I’ve also never personally used or encountered ‘subconscious’ as, essentially, a synonym for semiconscious. I’ve made a few adjustments to reflect this, we might also consider merging the translation table for ‘partially conscious’ at subconscious and the one at semiconscious. —Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

wurbagool

This does appear to exist (although very rare). However, I think we have the wrong continent and probably the wrong taxonomic name too. This, that and the other (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Ping our taxoboffins Template:Ping This, that and the other (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The RfV question remains, but the entry was wrong about the links and the continent. If it fails RfV, the content should be moved to one of the attestable vernacular names. DCDuring (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

this Google Books search shows attestability. It seems dated or even obsolete. It looks to be derived, possibly, from Malayalam. DCDuring (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

monster

Verb sense: "(informal, British, transitive, intransitive) To punish, reprimand or intimidate. "Get the hell out of here!" Dante monstered when Santa approached the high school carolers." — Added by an American. I've never heard of it in British usage. The usage example does not look British either ("Santa" would be Father Christmas; "carolers" would have two Ls). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:580C:F1AF:B902:5AA6 10:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

We might need help from the creator here, Template:Ping. They credited "Oxford Languages" - not sure exactly what resource this refers to. OED has two transitive senses marked "originally Australian", one which essentially means "to harass", and the other which roughly corresponds to this sense, although the meaning is closer to "demonise". This, that and the other (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I searched "monster meaning" on Google when I was 15 and it showed the dictionary. As a verb, it defined monster as an informal British verb for criticize or reprimand. The example sentence stated, "Mother would monster me for getting home late" as in indicator monster is a transitive verb. The bottom of the default dictionary on Google states Oxford Languages is their source. Flame, not lame 💔 (Don't talk to me.) 11:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I am American, so I am not perfect at British vocabulary. Flame, not lame 💔 (Don't talk to me.) 11:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Flame, not lame thanks for that, that's very helpful. Needless to say, Oxford is a reputable lexicography provider, but my cursory searches are really not turning up any evidence for this sense. Maybe Kiwima will be able to find something. This, that and the other (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@This, that and the other Is this not just the same as sense 3 ("to harass")? As a Brit, I have never heard this. Theknightwho (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I’ve not come across this either but ‘monster’, especially in the phrase ‘monster it’ or ‘monster them’ can be easily found online used by British and Australian authors to mean ‘do well at’, ‘do well against’, ‘defeat’ or ‘succeed in’. I'm also seeing 'monster him/her' meaning 'defeat him/her', 'monster' meaning 'devour/demolish' in culinary contexts, also 'to turn a truck into a monster truck', 'to drive a monster truck over' and 'to strike with monstrous force' or 'move forcefully'. There are interesting results if you search for 'monster one's way' and 'monster it over'. Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

annoy

Rfv-sense "(intransitive) to be troublesome." I find an intransitive sense in some dictionaries but I can't actually think of a true intransitive use. I think the adjective Template:M doesn't count. Nor do the contexts in which you can use almost any transitive verb with an implied object, like "Don't annoy!" ("Don't disturb!") or "Mosquitos are designed to annoy." ("Some people just love to humiliate.") Rather, is it actually possible to say something like "The dog's howling annoyed all night long"? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

ara ara

Rfv-sense. Template:Unsigned

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ara-ara ScribeYearling (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

manclaiming

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

has cites on Twitter. it would pass if we say in a vote that it does. probably hasnt caught on much outside social media —Soap— 21:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Possibly coined by the writers of a blog called Shakesville (one writer, Melissa McEwan, writes "Today in Manclaiming" as if it's already an established term). But since it's so simialr to mansplaining it may have been coined more than once, and McEwan's uses of it are about fashion and don't seem so angry. —Soap— 21:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

householdstuff

Franken-entry that can't decide whether it is English or Middle English. This, that and the other (talk) 07:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems like it should be both—Johnson’s dictionary has 3 cites for (Early) Modern English, and the MED has one for Middle English. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 01:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

flother

Two senses, "nonsensical talk" and "miry bog": sadly, I can't find the first sense (the EDD has two cites for "nonsensical talk", see the talk page, but they're both spelled vlother), and I can only find the second sense in the placenames Robinson Flothers and The Flothers. If more placenames could be found, ideally in the singular, I at least for my own part would be willing to accept placenames as cites (whether keeping the entry at lowercase flother, or moving the semantic and etymological info to Flother(s) and defining it as "used in placenames"). Apparently the bog/placename sense is also found as flodder, flotter; Flodder Hall was formerly known as Flother. - -sche (discuss) 19:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:M may well be citeable: see [53] [54] This, that and the other (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

As for Template:M itself, I found [55] and [56].

Also "At last and suddenly, / beyond the blinding flother of a squall, / the ice is gone ... creeping fogs, / then sudden whirling flother of blind snows, but the sense seems to be different. This, that and the other (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The EDD has a sense "foam, froth, lather, esp. in phr. all in a flother; also used fig." which it seems like that cite, and the "hotchy potchy in a flother" cite, might be using. I put the two cites you linked onto the cites page. - -sche (discuss) 07:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

With your cites and others, I've cited and created vlother. Between "flothers ... The Flothers", "Flothers", "Robinson Flothers" and "Flothers Wood", we (arguably) have enough cites to support either the "miry bog" sense of flother or a place-name sense Flothers (or Flother). If we interpreted the last three cites on the citations page as meaning "state of disarray", we would also have enough for such a sense as that... - -sche (discuss) 19:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

yew pine

Rfv-sense: (Appalachia) A red spruce, of species Picea abies (syn. Picea rubra).

I have not yet found support for this at Google Books, but I haven't looked elsewhere, eg, DARE. DCDuring (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

cheese up

Four senses, all very rare at best in Google Books. I couldn't find anything for these two: (i) "(intransitive) To become cheesy (overly dramatic, emotional, or exaggerated)"; (ii) "(transitive) To make (someone) smile". Beware scannos of "cheered up". 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:BDC1:47AD:61BB:811D 14:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

ryth

I managed to (mostly) cite rith and rithe, but haven't been able to cite this (which is also listed as having a somewhat different definition). - -sche (discuss) 01:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Failed Father of minus 2 (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

flawsome

Rfv-sense "Someone or something that is both flawed and awesome". At least one of the sources is not durably archived, and the editor who added this sense appears to be one of the authors of the other one. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am a co-author of one of the sources quoted. Is that a problem?

As I wrote in the discussion on the entry page, a quick search of the word flawsome on Amazon retrieved 19 books published since 2016 with the word flawsome in their titles, along with dozens of t-shirts, wall art, mugs, and products using flawsome in this sense. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Flawsome&crid=38ARPH88PPRO4&sprefix=flawsome%2Caps%2C1320&ref=nb_sb_noss_1 I'm happy to find more usage of it, it that's not enough.

I'm truly baffled by the resistance to adding it. The concept is meant to combat the dangerous mental and physical effects of perfectionism, which include depression, anxiety, anorexia, chronic migraines, and even suicide -- well documented in the research and a growing problem among young people. Embracing flawsome is an important idea and we should all be eager to validate this sense of the word.

If it's just about using my own work, by all means delete that part. But please keep this widely used and understood meaning. TomCollins842 (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Easily cited from books.

@TomCollins842 thanks for your contribution to Wiktionary! We have objective rules for deciding whether or not to include words (WT:CFI#Attestation). These rules do not align well with your suggestion that we should "all be eager to validate this sense of the word", but equally, the identity of the person who creates the entry is of no consequence. Surjection drew attention to your conflict of interest as it is often a sign of spam, but it is clear that this word is genuinely in use by people who are entirely independent of you, so it will be kept. This, that and the other (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

aranga

Template:Movedfrom

Arangas, a least in Russian, is the singular, not plural, also used in official documents (well, kinda, official, but like museum documents and news), also massively in different kinda stories. Can not find so much ethnographical material with usage in Russian or English. The -s ending is anyway not plural. Tollef Salemann (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tollef Salemann are you arguing that the word doesn't exist? Or that the plural is wrong? Either way, those issues are for WT:RFVE. This, that and the other (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

aranga doesn’t exist, because arangas is the singular. What is aranga I don’t know. What plural is for arangas I also don’t know. But it is RFD for aranga, not arangas. Tollef Salemann (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

"doesn't exist" → needs to be dealt with at RFVE. This, that and the other (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It's actually easy to find this (in italics) in English texts [57] [58] [59]. The Buryat word for the concept is Template:M according to https://buryat-lang.ru/. This, that and the other (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Nice! I never knew that Buryats had this concept. Tollef Salemann (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Paulistanic

Invention? Nothing relevant in Google. Maybe check the Paulistania entry too. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:756A:CAA2:165E:E801 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

meow button

2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:756A:CAA2:165E:E801 18:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

replying to IP, I added quotations from Twitter. Juwan (talk) 07:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

One is a dead link (404), the TheKervAlt tweet. Not durably archived? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:3DE6:D319:85F9:3589 10:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

it's not a dead link, I can access it just fine. this might be because Twitter is a horrible platform and may hide NSFW posts if you are logged out. viewing these on an archive works, but the Internet Archive is still down and read-only. if you know any other archiving solutions, please post it and I can archive these properly. Juwan (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Never had a Twitter account in my life. However, Wiktionary had its "hot word" policy for words that popped up quickly. I'm not sure it was intended for words where a Google Web search finds about 20 results, all referring to the same initial tweet. -- (Funny Eqx story) My client had their Twitter account permanently blocked (and like Google there's no way to actually contact them and restore it) because the social-media intern set the "age" to 20 years, meaning "our organisation has existed for twenty years". Twitter immediately decided "you must have been underage when you set up the account then" and banned it forever. VERY funny. I've been telling them "nobody uses Twitter any more anyway, for political reasons" but... yes, they shouldn't listen to my marketing ideas, in the same way I don't allow marketing to edit my program code. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:89DB:E713:C8BF:E57E 21:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

#MeJew

#MeJew. The two quotations are article titles; more mention than use. Ultimateria (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This was the name of a panel at Sundance 2023 and a blog at The Times of Israel, and it apparently also appears on T-shirts sold by an entrepreneur. I can find no evidence of it being used as an actual phrase in general, recognizable use, certainly not to mean what the page claims it's used to mean. Hydrangeans (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

transmove

Only Spenser Template:Unsigned

Just dumping a bunch of cites here for now, as it's clear that Spenser's sense is not the only one in use. I found this NNSE use (note "ovarian circle" instead of "cycle", and the "percentege" misspelling, as two NNSE hallmarks just in this small snippet) and something here. An old use and some poem. Another Japanese NNSE use potentially, a chemistry use. That's about it in GBooks. Need to sort these later. This, that and the other (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

transpass

3 definitions. forthglide listed as a synonym is also suspect Template:Unsigned

Probably legit. OED and Century have it, with two senses each. Century cites Template:Cite-book and this poem. I think "pass away" just means the same thing as "pass by" in this context, as opposed to being a direct reference to death. This, that and the other (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

nomen nescio

This is not English. Our sense line would hardly persuade you otherwise:

Template:Lb See the Latin section for definitions.

At best it's Translingual. Of the four cites, two are italicised and three are mentions. This, that and the other (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Lots of Latin phrases are used in English, and this is one of them. I'm finding various examples on Google Books where it's used as a stand-in or substitute for a person of unknown (or concealed) name, or as the name of a hypothetical person in examples (besides the ones where it's just defined, but not used, which come up first). Will try to add some citations in the next couple of days if nobody beats me to it (feel free, I may not have time tomorrow or Thursday). P Aculeius (talk) 05:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, well, look for French and German (etc) results too. You may well find it's Translingual. This, that and the other (talk) 09:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Since I'm not fluent in French or German, I'm not likely to be able to find and sort out mentions from uses. I'm just saying that you can't infer a phrase not having a meaning in English because it's Latin, which is what the first two lines appear to say. It's not clear from reading your post whether the discussion of the cites relates to "at best it's translingual" or what grounds there are for that assertion (which, to be clear, I am not attempting to refute). My reply only concerned its use in English, because that's the reason it's here, and that's the only language (besides Latin) that I'm able to verify its use in. P Aculeius (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

distemperate

Rfv-sense: diseased; disordered P. Sovjunk (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

trifling

Rfv-sense: (African-American Vernacular) Of suspicious character, typically secretive or deceitful; shady.

No. I disagree. It generally means lazy / work averse. Template:Unsigned

Your def is a better fit for the given quote. Needs to be confirmed with further evidence. This, that and the other (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

drock

"(UK, dialect) A watercourse." I managed to cite droke, for a valley sometimes with a watercourse, and can find cites of drook that appear to correspond to cove (a valley on land or an inlet of the sea), but haven't managed to find cites of drock in any water-related meaning beyond the one the EDD has (which I've put on the citations page) which they define as ~a drainage ditch. I can find drock as a word for a plough-part. I also noticed that a surprising number of people hyphenate be-drock, mu-drock, re-drock like that... (The etymology of all these words is also obscure.) - -sche (discuss) 15:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

spook

Rfv-sense Template:Tq Not in the OED.

I have a feeling this is intended to refer to Template:M, but that isn't what springs to mind when I read "hobgoblin" in isolation, as it's a figurative use of the term, so if that is the case then this definition needs improvement. However, if it truly is intended to refer to Template:M then it definitely needs some citations. Theknightwho (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The reference to a hobgoblin is present in Webster Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged originally published in 1993 and reprinted by Könemann (page 2204).-- Carnby (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 1993, p. 2204.

Bartlett's Dictionary of Americanisms (1859), "Spook. (Dutch). A ghost; hobgoblin. A term much used in New York." Webster's New International Dictionary (1911) gives: "A spirit; ghost; apparition; specter; hobgoblin." In these two, the words are treated as synonymous; for some reason the Wiktionary entry separated "hobgoblin" into its own sense when it was created back in 2005. OED (1919) gives fewer synonyms: "A spectre, apparition, ghost."

I haven't added any examples yet because I'm not sure whether "hobgoblin" should be folded back into the main sense. It's also a bit difficult to figure out how to tell whether "spook" describes a hobgoblin other than by searching for the two together. But I find: The Optical Journal, vol. XI, No. 6, "Tales of an Optician: In the Form of a Man" (1903): "Nevertheless, it was such a relief to find he was not a ghost, hobgoblin, spook, spirit, apparition, or some such airy substance..." Arthur Kent Chignell, An Outpost in Papua (1911), "Peter, in the afternoon, when he came to me with a cut finger, explained that it was all the fault of a Dau (devil, ghost, spirit, spook, hobgoblin, what-you-please)." Tom Stoppard, in "Shipwreck" (2002) has Turgenev playing with Karl Marx' suggestion of the phrase "the ghost of Communism" by replacing "ghost" with "phantom", "spook", "spectre", "spirit", and finally settling on "hobgoblin". This is of course too early to have been influenced by Wiktionary, so it appears to confirm that all of these words can be considered synonymous, even though for many of us "hobgoblin" instead calls to mind an imp, rather than a ghost.

There are likely other and perhaps better examples; I came up with these three in the first three pages of Google Books results. But I'll wait to add them until I have an idea whether to recombine "hobgoblin" with the first sense, since we may not need so many examples for each synonym. P Aculeius (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the underlying issue is whether hobgoblin should be used as a definiens in this entry (or possibly any entry). It was apparently a synonym in the US of one sense of spook. Maybe it still is a synonym of one current definition. An even deeper issue is whether we should use as definiens any term that currently has multiple common definitions. DCDuring (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that gets us anywhere; not only is it a possible meaning of "spook" explicitly given in numerous sources (if we include the many dictionaries that say it is, as well as those that seem to use it as such), but all of the other terms seem to be defined by reference to each other: "ghost", "spirit", "spectre", "spook", "apparition", "phantom"—and nearly all of them have multiple common definitions. And I think that no matter what verbal contortions we resort to, any particularly useful definition of "spook" is going to depend on other words that have different possible interpretations. The fact that the best dictionaries all do so would seem to make this inevitable. P Aculeius (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Where it could get us is a differently worded definition or, better, placement as one of the synonyms of the first definition of spook.

At least some dictionaries don't define their words with synonym clouds: I think Webster 1913 does so the most. We should place hobgoblin where various thesauruses (not ours, however) place it: as a synonym of ghost, spook, and other members of the cloud. It could be slipped right in under def. 1 of spook. DCDuring (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

orogen

Rfv-sense "a mountain pass". (If this is real, I suspect the definition is ... more complicated than just "a mountain pass". For example, reading Merriam-Webster's definition of kratogen, I can see how a kratogen might happen to be a mountain pass, but it doesn't mean "mountain pass". And they define orogen as an antonym, so it would sooner seem to refer to a mountain than a pass...) - -sche (discuss) 07:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The term would probably cover any orogenous zone, not just "mountain pass". DCDuring (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

vlei

Rfv-sense: the regional US usage. I haven't managed to find a vlei in the US. I can find vly, but vly is a separate word with a different pronunciation, slightly different meaning, and different etymology (not involving Afrikaans). - -sche (discuss) 05:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

embracable

a longstanding page, added originally as a misspelling, recently converted to a US spelling. I doubt that it is a valid US spelling. But Im not sure it even passes the CFI requirement for a misspelling, since even if we find cites they could be typos.

There are also unembracable and embracability, added by Special:Contributions/2601:182:D7F:5470:0:0:0:B219. the same person who changed the first page to a US spelling. Thanks, —Soap— 09:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Now has 3 cites. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:B977:C884:A1B0:2E60 10:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

next next hour

"(Philippines) The following hour after the subsequent hour." Do people even say "next hour"? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:B977:C884:A1B0:2E60 10:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

There are many lects in Anglophonia. DCDuring (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

(RFDing based on Template:M was another option. But this one I can't find even when I search filtering by site:.ph on Google.) 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:1A1:860C:900E:E6C7 20:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

magnet play

Rfv-sense - the sexual sense. I don't think this is a term. I can find references to "magnetic play", but not "magnet play". Kiwima (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

georealism

Needs a real definition, but might not exist outside the one book mentioned, anyway. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:49D0:1ABA:3934:4EBA 13:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

fpoon

Not in GBooks. A few joky Internet uses, nothing serious. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:49D0:1ABA:3934:4EBA 19:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Any chance that the author was confused by the appearance of "ſpoon" in older printed works? Someone unfamiliar with 'long-s' would likely mistake it for an 'f', and perhaps assume it to be a hybrid instrument, like a spork (which evidently dates from a later period; the name seems to be twentieth century). I suspect occurrences of "fpoon" in Google Books from around 1800 or earlier would usually be scannos for "ſpoon". P Aculeius (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I've added one. TDHoward (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure that the first two citations are either independent or uses of the word: they are both examples of how spoonerism doesn't work in real life—both pointing out that "spoon and fork" are spoonerized as "foon and spork", not "fpoon and sork". Which makes them hypothetical examples of a phenomenon that is also explicitly said not to occur. And the fact that they both make the same point about the same combination of words—nine years apart—suggests that they arise from a common source, although neither is available to me, even in snippet view, and in neither case is the author of the article cited. It seems likely that they have the same author, or that the first was used as a source by the second. I'm also not sure that the third citation counts as a use either: it is simply an example of someone intentionally blending the two words as a joke. What we don't have is an example of somebody using a "fpoon" or finding one in a drawer: these three citations are two examples of making up a word for the purpose of demonstrating how they make it up, but never using it. P Aculeius (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

McDank's

Don Dons

There's one Twitter (X) quote for Don Don's here[60] and several for Mc Don Don's (also there's one Trip Advisor review for a 'Mc Don Don's). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Maccern

MacDak

Mac Shack

Muccini's

McDonald's nicknames, apparently created based on red links in Thesaurus:McDonald's. Einstein2 (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I worked with someone who called McDonald’s ‘Dirty Don Dons’ and in the time that I worked with him I sometimes used that phrase myself as did some other work colleagues. I haven’t heard it without ‘dirty’ in front though. Overlordnat1 (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

shit in someone's mouth

To accuse someone of lying. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:49D0:1ABA:3934:4EBA 21:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

shit in one's mouth

To accuse someone of lying. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:49D0:1ABA:3934:4EBA 21:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

crap in someone's mouth

To accuse someone of lying. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:49D0:1ABA:3934:4EBA 21:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

roody

Template:Lb rank in growth - WTF does that e'en mean? P. Sovjunk (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

OED just calls this a variant form of Template:M but has only Middle English evidence for it. I guess Webster only found roody in the sense "vigorous, robust" that is seen in "in ruddy health" (incidentally, our entry completely misses this sense). Nothing useful in EDD. This, that and the other (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

acontiate

A moth of genus Acontia.

Seems to be used mostly in collocation acontiate anemone. DCDuring (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

vlissmaki

Maybe appeared in 2 books? Whalespotcha (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

clatch

5 requests for the price of 1Whalespotcha (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

car mileage

Rfv-sense: The amount paid by one road for the use of cars of another road. Kiwima (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that and was like, WTF? Whalespotcha (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
I think the rail and auto labels are reversed. Railroads in the US, pay each other for the use of their railcars. Something similar must happen among the railroads of the EU and wherever there are interconnected systems. DCDuring (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Or both labels should be for rail transport. DCDuring (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

damn you all in hell

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I've found just one hit for this exact phrase in Google Books; it looks like a mistake for the same phrase ending "to hell", which makes more sense (though, shouldn't "Hell" be capitalized, as it refers to the name of a particular place?). It looks like both entries were created by the same author. I'm not sure how to categorize the phrase for Wiktionary, since it's not really idiomatic, but seems to be a common collocation. The current description seems inadequate. But in any case, "in Hell" doesn't make sense, since by definition anybody in Hell has already been damned. That might account for its scarcity compared with "to Hell": it's an occasional, but nonsensical mistake. P Aculeius (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

declinate

Rfv-sense synonym of "decline" (in the grammatical sense). Zacwill (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It's out there, but perhaps rare enough to be regarded as an error. I've added two. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:1051:7725:5B14:15EF 19:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

deck

Euphemism for "dick", i.e. penis. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:1051:7725:5B14:15EF 21:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

WTFO

Rfv-sense "(slang) walk the fuck out". — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

sanguisuge

methinkes belonge to middel EngliTemplate:Long sh P. Sovjunk (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Citeable from some 1500s texts: [61] [62] and [63]. Will cite properly later. This, that and the other (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Cited now. This, that and the other (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

go

Rfv-sense of Template:M being Template:Clip of in the UK. I've heard multiple British people say "go [place]". This is attested since 2018 and does not appear to be used by immigrants. I, a Canadian, always say "go to the [place]"/"go to [proper noun]'s" except for "home". I've seen Americans teach "go [place]" to be bad grammar, but I can't find anywhere including on Wiktionary saying this British construction exists.

Can this be said in a formal British workplace/court/interview?
Do other verbs allow omitting "to the"?
Is this construction transitive, i.e. is the "[place]" a direct object or an adverb?

76.71.3.150 12:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It's informal and I can't think of other verbs that allow this construction off-hand. I'm not sure about your last question, it's unlikely that someone would say 'I'm going big shop' or 'I'm going really big shop' instead of 'I'm going shop' if that's what you mean. It was surprisingly hard to find evidence of this quite commonplace informal use of 'go' online but I did find the following Australian website[64] (I'm gonna go shops on Monday arvo) which demonstrates that this is found in Australia as well as Britain, at least occasionally.--Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I would have never thought of "?I'm going shop" because the "I'm going shopping" I say blocks that. I do agree I've never heard it with adjectives / adverbs / other words in the middle. Compound words are a related grey area like the "going steakhouse" I just saw.

This might be similar to the "he tended bar" construction. "He tended bars" is 72.25x rarer, while "going pubs" is 8.24x rarer on Google. To me, the second word becomes uncountable, but the data isn't conclusive.

Nevermind my last question. Some things that follow verbs "are not customarily construed to be the object" even if they're not prepositions, but in this case "pub" is seemingly used as an adverb. In this case, I found the following tests to determine the construction is transitive:

"I went pub" → "*the going of pub by me" but "I built a house" → "the building of a house by me" (test for direct object, distinguishes the rfv-sense from the sense "(transitive, colloquial) To enjoy. (Compare go for.)")
"I went pub" → "*I am pub" but "I seemed upset" → "I am upset" (test for subject complement)

I added your Australian quote. The source saying "Sometimes key words can be left out, such as ‘to’ or ‘the’, which makes it sound lazy." implies other verbs allow this construction but I can't find attested quotes either. 76.71.3.150 23:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

As a Victorian I've never heard this. Maybe the sentence in that primary school slide deck is a weird NSW-ism, or belongs to some emerging sociolect I'm not familiar with. But I'm dubious. This, that and the other (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm also dubious, particularly about the "UK" tag. In England, I don't hear people saying that they are going to "go pub" or "go shops", not in ordinary language, not even colloquially. The citations that we presently have are from low-quality sources and seem to me to be somewhere between lazy (or possibly deliberate) abbreviated writing and just plain bad English. I expect we could find instances of "staying hotel" or "living USA" or "arrived the airport" or any other kind of broken English or telegraphese. It doesn't mean that we have to recognise it in the dictionary. However, if other people feel that "go pub/shops/etc." definitely does exist at a sufficiently established level of usage, then fair enough. Mihia (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
It’s a very real phenomenon. We already have entries for go toilet and go potty and it’s easy to find hits using a Google Advanced Search for ‘go Tesco/Sainsbury’s/Asda/Morrisons’ too. Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
"Go toilet" and "go potty" are baby-speak though, and Google hits exist for almost any broken English or telegraphese phrase that you care to type in. Is this "go pub", "go shops", "go Tesco" thing something that you have personally heard significant numbers of British people saying? Mihia (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes I have. Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, fair enough, perhaps I need to get out more ... you know, get out pub, get out shops, that kind of thing ... Mihia (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

kilo-metre

Template:Movedfrom

There's no point in having this page even with the Template:Tl template on it. The template claims, "Some information about this term is available in Appendix:SI units", but that's not true; the appendix only lists the actual spellings Template:M and Template:M. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I think kilo-meter might be relevant to this as well. 2001:BB6:B84C:CF00:4996:ED56:2800:E202 12:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

RfV If this were to pass RfV, it could be created as an alternative form. Here's what you get from a Google Books search Purplebackpack89 20:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a question for RFV. If the term exists it should have a proper form-of entry. If it doesn't it should just be deleted. I'll move it there. This, that and the other (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Not too easy to search for thanks to end-of-line hyphenations. There are also some "primer" type texts that spell out "milli-gram(me)", "kilo-metre" etc when first introducing the terms, then use the single-word form throughout the remainder of the text. This, that and the other (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

prolegalism

Seeking quotes, given that a definition was requested. I found two not very enlightening quotes, and nothing else. Kiwima (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

According to my psychic powers, the second one is a scanno involving a repeated line:

professional and industrial class founded upon wealth and

legalism. That again is yielding to the rule of [the] pro-

legalism. That again is yielding to the rule of the pro-

letariat, founded upon work and association.

The non-busted text can be found at [65], in which no prolegalism is to be found. This, that and the other (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

femalia

Sense 3: A supposed language or dialect spoken and understood by women. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:24A4:A456:B71E:24F0 16:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

wolven

Rfv-sense "One who is wolflike in appearance or character". Ultimateria (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be from a specific fiction series: "Blood and Ash" and "Flesh and Fire" by Jennifer L. Armentrout. So should not be included. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:FC:ACA7:543A:629 18:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

scard

Rfv-sense A shard or fragment.A shard or fragment. P. Sovjunk (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I can find a variety of works using this, but in works where the term only appears once, it's hard to be sure it is intentional as opposed to an error (of typesetting, etc) for shard. In the 1921 Lyceum Magazine, volume 31, page 20, it is perhaps even an error for score(?) : Template:Tq
However, the 1911 Palæolithic Chronology by Fredrik Arentz uses the word repeatedly, and never uses shard: Template:Tq I can also find potscard mentioned in various books. It seems to be real but rare. - -sche (discuss) 19:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Arentz is the only clear user of the term I can find. It's in the EDD as a word used in northern England, the Lake District, Yorkshire, and Lancashire; Wright mentions that it was used in the 19 June 1897 Yorkshire Halifax Courier, if anyone can find that. - -sche (discuss) 22:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

outdream

Rfv-sense: To pass or escape while dreaming P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

↓

Rfv-sense: "Template:Lb Template:N-g". Tagged by Template:Ping but not listed. Binarystep (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

waterthief

Can't find it as a single word. Always spaced or hyphenated. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:305E:EF5B:D73:2F77 23:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I had given up on finding any cites for waterthief and was about to remove the page, but then I started seeing a few. Leasnam (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

schediasm

Jotting sth down. Confuse not with abbbr schediasm. P. Sovjunk (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Found in [66] [67] [68]. Need to properly cite This, that and the other (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

scholiaze

Nonce P. Sovjunk (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Failed, kept quote Ungreaaseddish (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

scious

OED just has our quote. Obvs there's lots of con-scious hits to be ignored P. Sovjunk (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

scottering

The burning of a wad of pea straw at the end of harvest. specific to 18th century Hereford. Most specific language item I've seen in yonks P. Sovjunk (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Failed, Ungreaaseddish (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

seelily

Just used by Donne P. Sovjunk (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Failed, kept quote Ungreaaseddish (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

septentrionally

nonce P. Sovjunk (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Failed, kept quote Ungreaaseddish (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

throwe

Lathe Template:Unsigned

I suspect this is just an alternative form of a sense of Template:M that we don't have, but which is strongly implied by our entry Template:M and exists in OED with wide-ranging and numerous cites. (In later use it seems to refer to a small lathe used by clockmakers.)

As an aside, the evidently tautological term Template:M may not be properly attestable. This, that and the other (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

inflect

"To influence in style. No other poet has inflected me in style as much as Milton." The phrase "inflected me in style" cannot be found in Google (except for this Wiktionary entry) so it is at best a poor usage example. I doubt the sense exists at all. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E4C3:4992:FA7C:740B 11:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to find much even for "inflected me", other than obvious errors, typos and rubbish, probable correct/intentional uses of the "curve towards" sense, or dubious examples from low-quality sources. Could be a blend of "influence" and "affect", I suppose, possibly deliberately coined, perhaps independently on occasions, or accidental mixing up of words. Also, if the word itself means "to influence in style" then it seems unnecessary to say "No other poet has inflected me in style". Mihia (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Added 5 years ago by @Tooironic, who is still with us. This, that and the other (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

deliver over into

Doesn't make sense to me, as defined. You may e.g. deliver over a captive to the guards, but not "into" the guards. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E4C3:4992:FA7C:740B 15:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

You can deliver over something into the hands of someone, though. Or into custody, etc. But this is just sum-of-parts: deliver + over + into. I note that we don't have "deliver over", presumably since it's transparently sum-of-parts, and the only reason we have "deliver over to" is because the same user created both of them simultaneously. There will be plenty of hits for these on the internet, but none with any other meaning. I think both of these should probably go to RfD instead of here. P Aculeius (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

preverb, prenoun

Those words are real grammatical terms, but "preverb" is used for a large variety of languages, much more than the definitions in the articles, and "prenoun" does not appear to be specific to Algonquin languages. 87.88.150.15 22:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

breaking

Rfv-sense "breaking news". The current cite is just the regular participial use, "Breaking:" followed by the news item. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I would guess that this is just a misunderstanding of what "breaking" means in that cite. Mihia (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

scutiferous

Rfv-sense: Carrying a shield or buckler. - nonce term P. Sovjunk (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Found two uses in nineteenth century architectural descriptions of medieval churches, both referring to carvings of angels, in the first instance at least bearing the arms of the family associated with the church. Cited those—how many citations does a "nonce word" require? All other instances were dictionary or glossary entries, though some of them are quite old—the OED cites one from the 1650's, but there are a number of others up to and I think later than the Webster's entry. I suspect that the biological term is derived from this use. I saw one use of "scutiferous" in a recent graphic novel, but it was hard to tell whether the literal or biological sense was intended—I think it described some creature, so probably the biological sense. There are more and still older attestations in English for scutifer, a shield-bearer, from which the adjective is derived. P Aculeius (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Failed, kept quotes Ungreaaseddish (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

sea crow

7 birds. Good luck P. Sovjunk (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Some definitions are ascribed to the Orkney Islands, one to Ireland. There are also fish referred to by this name.

The avian definition could possibly could be saved by combining into a single definition: "(mostly regional) A sea or coastal bird, variously ...". There is more hope for the gunard definition. DCDuring (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The various species attributions could be relegated to Usage notes or even the talk page. DCDuring (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

May I point out that the jackdaw is not a sea or coastal bird anyway. You get them anywhere. Mihia (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
As the usage seems mostly regional or even context-dependent, it is still plausible that birds capable of flying to Iceland, the Faroes and even North America might be called sea crows. This collocation is close to being SoP, as some two-part vernacular names can be. DCDuring (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

semined

Just Jonson? P. Sovjunk (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

It looks like nonsense. What next? Will seeded tennis players be described as 'semined'?! --Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

OED has two non-Jonson quotes, which i've added. should pass now. (the 1672 quote is derivative of a different Jonson's quote, but it's distinct enough to count as a separate instance.) ragweed theater _{talk, user} 00:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

also the definition might be problematic: there are sources on google book that simply gloss this word as "sprinkled" or "speckled", much less intense a meaning than the one given by Webster 1913 ragweed theater _{talk, user} 02:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

triultimate

antepenultimate. Seems to be an Urban Dictionary invention. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:706E:1E2C:7A3A:8647 01:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

cupboard banker

Can't find anything online. OED has only one citation, from 1463 (so should be Middle English?). Wouldn't we require three though? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:8565:D9E0:D5AB:25D2 15:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

age

RFV sense: "The people who live during a particular period."

Previously raised at Wiktionary:Tea_room/2024/November#age_(3).

In my opinion, examples such as "This age thinks well of our departed Bishop" will not do, since this kind of transference is a regular feature of English -- e.g. "This century thinks of itself as digital and connected", "This town thinks it's important" etc. etc., -- so logically we would end up having "people who live during a particular century", "people who live in a particular town" etc. as definitions, which seems unnecessary. Mihia (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Mostly agreed, though perhaps this should be noted under sense 6.1, which seems to be the sense in question: "by extension, the people or institutions of said time", or something similar. P Aculeius (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Domeas

Added by Template:Ping, apparently an English first name. All I can find on Google is "The Domeas Symbol of the Renaissance", apparently a typo of "The Dome asTemplate:...", also some Danish website called "Domea", genitive "Domeas", and what is probably the aforementioned user's Soundcloud. Wikiuser815 (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

You need a copy of my drives license, birth certificate, and social security card? 107.116.170.129 02:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

commotrix

Possibly just a dictionary word. Wikiuser815 (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

peam

"Deliberate misspelling of peak." I've personally never seen this, and there's no quotes. -saph668 (user—talk—contribs) 17:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

unprobably

Rfv-sense improperly Template:Unsigned

Has Template:M ever meant “that can be approved of”? Fay Freak (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe it has, but I have no evidence. DCDuring (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Failed Wars at my door (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

unseminared

Only Shakespeare Template:Unsigned

Failed, kept quote Ungreaaseddish (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

unsuffering

Noun sense. Quote is Middle English Template:Unsigned

adrop

Created on the basis of a mistaken quote (the original text had ‘adrip’, not ‘adrop’), but could it be citable nonetheless? There seems to be another alchemical sense, too, that we currently don’t have, so any quotes that can be found should be checked for what sense exactly is being used in context. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 00:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Found and added one. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:A9A6:8F1F:C512:66C7 13:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

block-ornimint

Template:Ping have a difference of opinion over whether this is entry-worthy. Bringing it here for resolution. This, that and the other (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge with block-ornament. I moved it back since I didn't think trying to normalise it was good practice but looking now the Westminster Gazette may be the only place where this spelling is found. -saph668 (user—talk—contribs) 14:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

If it is only found once, we should delete this entry. This, that and the other (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

"Ornimint" is eye dialect, suggesting an East End Cockney or such. The same kinds of spelling are common in Dickens. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:A80F:6E3D:D9E4:21B1 09:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

whally

Only Spenser Template:Unsigned

Alternative form of Template:M? There are more quotes at that entry. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 03:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

serrous

Just Browne P. Sovjunk (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I found several quotes where "serrous" refers to a saw-toothed shape or motion, and added them to the entry; I am confident enough to say that IMO this is adequately verified, but I will defer to others to close this RfV. Most hits on Google Books are typos/scannos for "serious" or "ferrous", and it also seems to be an alternative spelling for serous. I was not able to tell if "serrous iritis", an eye disease, relates to the saw-toothed meaning. P Aculeius (talk) 13:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

serviceage

Just Tasso, whose translator spelled it wrong...ſeruiceage P. Sovjunk (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how it's misspelled; that's merely an older typographic convention, where 'u' and 'v' are not distinguished. This dictionary has two uses in Tasso, one of which did not come up on a Google Books search, and a second meaning in Template:W, which also did not appear in my search, and which I did not search for separately, since I did not think it would go toward verifying the current entry. I also saw a few 20th century agricultural uses, where it seems to refer to hiring male livestock for breeding, but these were snippet views and possibly from newsletters, and again would not go toward verifying the entry as it stands. Perhaps I'm mistaken and these can be used somehow. P Aculeius (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

i got 2 phones

Entry title most likely misspelled. Also, I feel that the two senses should be merged, if we can find evidence that people actually say this. CitationsFreak (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

All of this user's entries need urgent attention. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:4CA0:A52A:7027:A02D 17:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

floptoker

Added by Template:Ping. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 20:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Also see:

Template:Col

Of these I doubt floptoker (I don't even think that's spelled right) or floptok meet CFI. -saph668 (user—talk—contribs) 23:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

None of these look like protologisms to me, and while seemingly absent from 'durably archived' media, I think that they could pass according to wt:ATTEST's 'clearly widespread use' criterion. This is one of those requests that would have had Template:Ping a little up in arms. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 22:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

All of this user's contributions are suspect, so I'm linking them to this discussion. See Template:Contribs. Ultimateria (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

mint choco

Never heard of it. No GBooks hits for "mint choco is" or "love mint choco". 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:F9AC:CC62:6541:2A8E 17:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

We have choco as a shortened form of "chocolate". Most probably "mint choco" has been used or said somewhere. However, just because "choco" is short for "chocolate", it doesn't IMO mean that we need to separately include the "choco" version of all phrases involving "chocolate". By the way, isn't mint chocolate SoP anyway? Mihia (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

leatherwear

Sense 2: "polymer material made to look like natural leather". Seems odd that the -wear suffix would be used when it doesn't mean clothing. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:F9AC:CC62:6541:2A8E 20:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

waped

Anything beyond Middle English? Template:Unsigned

Failed Father of minus 2 (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

wappet

Yappy dog. Template:Unsigned

Failed Father of minus 2 (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

ware

Rfv-nautical sense vb Template:Unsigned

One possible: "Stand by to in all studding-sails, and to ware to the eastward." [69] Mihia (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Two more possibles on the same page at [70].

warence

Mentions. Template:Unsigned

I added a mention and three uses from a. 1500 to 1857, with 19th century ones referring to 16th or 17th century texts. It appears to be quite obsolete. Cnilep (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

big back

2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:4CA0:A52A:7027:A02D 15:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I've heard in use before. CitationsFreak (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

market

RFV-sense "a grocery store".

Never heard of it where I live (in England), not in the normal sense of a single-entity store or shop. If verified, we should ideally label where, when and/or by whom this sense is used, Mihia (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this is somewhat common in the US (usually to mean "supermarket" or occasionally "green grocer"), but it turns out to be hard to search for as political economics texts seem to crowd out more "homely" usage. Cnilep (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if we can't find actual citations, I think confirmation by AmE speakers that it is in use will be plenty good enough to verify. Probably then we should also label it AmE. Mihia (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

AHD has "1a A store or shop that sells agricultural produce: bought vegetables from the corner market." That accords with my idiolect. I don't know about general applicability of market to a supermarket. I suspect that people would accept that a supermarket or grocer was not the same as a market ("produce market"). There is a grade of stores that differ in the portion of their sales that are of produce rather than other grocery (and other) items. Probably people differ in where they draw the line between a (produce) market and a supermarket or grocer.

I don't hear greengrocer being used in the US.

Google Ngrams does not help much with separating market ("grocery store") from other senses of market. Comparing shopping at the supermarket|market|grocery store|grocery in Google Ngrams US English corpus shows them being used almost equally, with shopping at the supermarket much more common from the 1950s through the 1960s, becoming less common that the others.

Inspecting uses of shopping at the market finds most to be in non-US contexts or by apparently non-US authors.

FWIW, according to Google Ngrams, in US, comparing grocer,grocery store,grocery,greengrocer,green grocer,produce market,supermarket:

grocer was by far the most common in the 19th century.
grocery store accounted for nearly half of the total uses of grocery in 2022.
grocery/grocery store are much more common than greengrocer/green grocer/green-grocer/produce market combined.
greengrocer, green grocer, and green-grocer combined have become more common than produce market.
From 1950s until very recently, supermarket was more common than grocery store. DCDuring (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

mds

Template:Lb Template:Abbreviation of Template:Ng

We have a number of stenoscript abbreviations at Cat:English stenoscript abbreviations but I am dubious that they can be attested according to WT:ATTEST. Let's start with this one. This, that and the other (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami Please respond to this, and see also Wiktionary:Grease_pit/2025/February#badly_formatted_stenoscript_entries (sorry, this should have gone in the Beer parlour). We need to be able to attest them as well as clean up the headers; otherwise they will be removed. Benwing2 (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

As you noted at the Grease pit, 'put[ting] each POS under its own header ... could get unwieldy.' Indeed, especially with abbreviations that cover multiple words, and especially with ones that are also words in normal English orthography, where having multiple stenoscript entries would unduly dominate the page. But there's also the problem that many of these substitute for simple letter sequences, and not all of those correspond to affixes, or at least not consistently to affixes, and in those cases I don't know what POS we would use. But that's a matter of layout, and I agree that 'possibly we should make an exception here.'

Attestation is a more difficult issue. I occasionally come across stenoscript abbreviations in manuscript form, and I thought it would be useful if they were covered here on Wikt where they'd be easily accessible. They're certainly notable in terms of use in the real world, but finding multiple attestations in digital format will be more difficult.

If that's not feasible, what about an appendix? kwami (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

There are multiple hits on Gbooks for mds., but as an abbreviation in normal English text, not as stenoscript. An example is here. It is spelled out explicitly, and as mds without the period, here, though for 'merchandise' only, not for all the meanings it has in stenoscript. That abbreviation dates back at least to 1856 and so was evidently borrowed into stenoscript, but I also see the reverse, stenoscript used in abbreviated English manuscript. kwami (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami An appendix would be fine; we routinely create appendices for terms that won't pass WT:CFI but people consider notable for some reason. See for example Appendix:Star Wars derivations, Appendix:Star Wars/protocol droid, Appendix:A Clockwork Orange, etc. Benwing2 (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

How do readers find things in these appendices? I picked a red link from the Star Wars appendix, lado azul da Força, and when I pasted it into the search box I didn't get any hits. The appendix entry didn't show up. Even where under the search results where it says, 'See whether another page links to lado azul da Força,' the appendix didn't show up even though it does link to it. [You'd have to select 'Namespace: Appendix', and how many readers are going to know to do that?] So if they don't have their own entries, and don't show up on search, what's the point of having them at all? kwami (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, appendices can be categorized and found that way, and a link to the appendix could be included in the article on the word Stenoscript. But regardless of that, if these terms can't pass CFI, they don't belong. From Wikipedia's article on Stenoscript, it seems like this system was never very popular, so I would not be surprised if they can't be sufficiently attested. Benwing2 (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking how someone who came across stenoscript abbreviations in papers they found -- say financial records they inherited -- could look it up. They might not know it was stenoscript, esp if it was just the occasional abbreviation rather than full stenoscript that would obviously be something distinct. Sure, if they heard of stenoscript and wanted to check it out, they could look it up on Wikipedia. But what if they just came across pn or mds and wanted to look it up -- where would they go if not Wiktionary?

I remember stenoscript being offered in adult ed classes in the US in the 1980s, alongside piano and macrame and ballroom dance and self-defense classes. So it wasn't exactly obscure. kwami (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami Were you able to find attestations of any stenoscript words so as to make them pass CFI? Benwing2 (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

No. I haven't had time to spend on this, but I doubt I'd be able to find much apart from instruction guides. kwami (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I could easily believe that mds would be used to abbreviate merchandise in various contexts, although the "stenoscript" aspect seems like more of an etymological detail rather than a context label - the abbreviation is not being used in the context of stenoscript. The verb abbreviation and abbrevation of less common terms like merchandiser seem more doubtful to me. This, that and the other (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

patterning

Rfv-sense: "An assault [...] deliberately filmed to be shared on social media."

This is a hot sense from 2022. I suspect that it may have been used by educators or the like at the time, but not so much by the youths whose behavior it is supposed to refer to. I found a handful of uses in print between June 2022 and May 2023. Do editors in the UK use/know it? Cnilep (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Compare MLE pattern up, which I gather is used for something like "punish, put in one's place". Cnilep (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

‘Pattern’ can have that meaning when appearing on its own, not just when followed by ‘up’ with the result that ‘patterning’ is the participle/gerund form and basically means ‘assault’ (though not necessarily one that’s filmed or recorded in any way). We could source these definitions for ‘pattern’ and ‘patterning’ from British rap songs at genius.com. I've just added some stuff to pattern and pattern up, more to come! --Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

whiting-mop

2 senses Template:Unsigned

Added several quotes, all 17th-century. A couple of them look like they could go under either sense, since it seems to me that the writers are deliberately comparing girls to the fish; I originally put the Heywood quote under sense 2, but here a man is addressing his lover as a whiting mop, so I decided it was probably an example of sense 1. The Jordan quote I initially thought was a literal example and sense 1, but evidently it refers to the sea-man's lover, who is ashore, while he is at sea with the whales and sharks. The Massinger one reads like a reference to the fish, but in fact (as several notes make clear) Camillo is referring metaphorically to Mirtilla, with whom he is speaking. P Aculeius (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Passed Father of minus 2 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

pretense

An act of pretending; a false or simulated show or appearance; a false or hypocritical assertion or representation.
Template:Ux

Template:Ux
Affectation or ostentation of manner.
Template:Ux
Intention or purpose not real but professed.
with only a pretense of accuracy
An unsupported claim made or implied.
- Template:RQ:Conrad Lord Jim
An insincere attempt to reach a specific condition or quality.

Possibly I'm just having a mental blank about this word, but I am struggling to see as many distinct senses as we (and in some cases even more so) other dictionaries list for it. Even sense 2, which I added myself, is arguably just a "false show or appearance". But what about senses 3, 4 and 5? Can we come up with examples that do not actually on inspection simply mean "a false show or appearance", per sense 1? I don't see how the existing examples achieve this. Mihia (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Def. 2 is distinct by reason of uncountability.

I'd expect some definitions to be of neutral phenomena and others of negative ones, though an "especially" or "usually" might make one def. cover both.

MWOnline has four definitions (of 7) that have one-word synonyms: pretentiousness, pretext, make-believe/fiction, simulation. These are not synonyms of each other.

Google Ngrams has the following nine "adjectives" as the most common ones directly preceding pretense: false (nearly twice as common as the other eight combined), mere, such, little, other, fraudulent, hypocritical, slightest, only. The plural adds various, specious, frivolous, plausible.

I'm not sure whether this means that pretense is intrinsically neutral and needs a negative adjective or that pretense is usually used in cases where the negativity warrants extra emphasis. DCDuring (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

"false pretence", also "false pretences", is very much a set phrase, and I would expect it to be conspicuously common. Nowadays the word "false" seems strictly unnecessary (I can't think of any modern neutral or positive uses), but apparently this phrase dates back hundreds of years, so I suppose it is possible that at one time there could be a "true pretence", or perhaps it was always strictly redundant and just used to reinforce falseness. I really don't know. There is certainly, as I alluded to in my post, no shortage at all of multiple different definitions of this word in different places, but what I would like to see at Wiktionary are examples that actually illustrate the alleged differences between our senses in a clear way, so that definitions of one sense can't just as well be substituted into examples of another. And, in particular, modern examples that on inspection are not essentially "false or simulated show or appearance". This is what I am struggling to come up with. Thanks for reminding of the countability issue. Sense 1 is (or should be) actually both countable and uncountable. I'll address that. Mihia (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I am having difficulty separating senses 3, 4, and 5 from sense 1; they all seem to be slight variations of it. P Aculeius (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

quectogramme

Some SI unit nobody has ever used, presumably. User has numerous edits that seem not to have been checked before adding them. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:5DAD:DEFF:9D45:D65F 23:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Revvy

Template:Movedfrom

name not listed on any reputable name list website, can't find any real person with the name (except a fictional character from FIFA 20 who is male, and besides this article was created years before that), *if* it did exist it would probably be an abbreviation of Reverie but i can't imagine almost anyone is seeing this name out there in their daily life Toffeenix (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Send to RFV Polomo47 (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Searching a database of old census records, I did find some women (and some men) with this given name in the US, and examined the photocopies of the records to confirm that this was the spelling used. It may be a variant of Revie or Reva. I added two records of women with the name, and two fiction books where men have the name. - -sche (discuss) 20:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It might also exist as a surname, see e.g. Template:B.g.c.. - -sche (discuss) 20:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Passed? (Technically I only bothered to type up two cites for the female given name, and three for the male, if anyone wants to quibble...) - -sche (discuss) 04:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

tract of land

Sense: a woman's breast. And the associated plural; I'm not sure whether I need to tag that as well. I believe this is a misunderstanding of a sketch in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where the ruler of the swamp castle is trying to persuade his uninterested son to go through with an arranged marriage. He says, "she's got huge... [gestures as though holding a large pair of breasts] ...tracts of land!" But I don't think that he's using "tracts of land" as a metaphor or euphemism for "breasts".

There are two issues here: 1) is the character using the phrase "tracts of land" to mean breasts, and 2) has the phrase entered general usage with that meaning? There is a second definition in the entry, but it is literal and sum-of-parts; not sure if that needs to go to RFD if this sense is deleted.

As for 1): I think the editor misinterpreted the line. It's unclear to me which of three interpretations—all jokes for the viewer—should be placed on the line, but in none of them do the words "tracts of land" refer to breasts. A) the father is about to say "breasts" or some equivalent, but changes his mind and instead refers to her literal tracts of land. B) because he knows he cannot refer directly to her breasts, he gestures in such a way that his son should understand that, while he can only mention her literal tracts of land, she also has huge breasts. C) he only ever meant to refer to literal tracts of land, but the gesture was meant to mislead the viewer into thinking that he was going to say "breasts" or some equivalent.

As for 2): irrespective of whether my assessment of the scene is correct, has the phrase entered general usage to mean "breasts"? There are (predictably) many internet references to it, but all or nearly all refer directly to the Monty Python sketch. A search on Google Books for "her tracts of land", which I would expect to find if writers use the phrase to mean "breasts" reveals only references to literal tracts of land. For that matter, scanning 25 pages of results for "huge tracts of land", I still found only references to literal tracts of land. Not even one trashy novel! I'm almost surprised by that; but then, I don't think that anyone would understand such a metaphor without being familiar with the Monty Python sketch. As a metaphor for breasts, as opposed to a visual gag, the phrase is rather clunky, and I do not imagine there is any significant usage that does not refer directly back to the film. P Aculeius (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I can readily find examples of this:

And everyone was too busy staring at her tracts of land to actually ring it up.
You can see him glance straight at her...tracts of land...right before he goes in for the embrace.
Big-Breast Pride: She is rather proud of her...tracts of land.
Her lower body seems scaled up, and her tracts of land do not really hang like sacks of fat
You can see him glance straight at her...tracts of land...right before he goes in for the embrace.
I think some of the fat from her butt was taken and given to her tracts of land during her transformation

... and I could go on. On this basis, I don't see why we shouldn't keep, but we could consider whether to make the plural form the primary entry. Mihia (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

But are people really using this, or just referring over and over to the Monty Python sketch? You can find lots of random internet content, but how much of it is actually citable to published sources? The film is almost fifty years old, but the most likely collocations found zero hits in Google Books. And it's so awkward that nobody would understand what it means without somehow pointing baffled readers to Monty Python. Are there any good sources that are completely independent of Monty Python? Because the entry has been tagged requesting examples for more than three years, and there's still nothing there. P Aculeius (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

What would you consider to be a use "completely independent of Monty Python"? I mean, how would you recognise this if you read it or heard it? Mihia (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I would only exclude uses that mentioned Monty Python, the specific skit, or the actors therein. DCDuring (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I would also only search for usage in publications after the airing of the skit (c. 1975). DCDuring (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I might be wrong, and stand to be corrected if so, but I got an impression that P Aculeius was looking for something more than this – looking to exclude cases where the speaker was "mentally referring to" or "thinking of" the sketch, even though it is not explicitly mentioned, but I don't know how it is possible to tell, short of actually contacting them and asking. I mean, you could say the same about e.g. bucket list or other phrases that have an exact known origin. Were the people quoted in our citations of bucket list "thinking of" the film when they used the phrase? Does it disqualify the entry even if they were? Mihia (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I think what we want are citable uses where the author provides no indication that he or she is alluding to the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and relies on the reader to understand that "tracts of land" means "breasts" without any other clues. If the author has to explain what he or she means by alluding to Monty Python, including clips, stills, or more extensive quotes from the movie, then the phrase isn't idiomatic. I didn't find any obvious examples in books, and a general search turned up clips, memes, or random message board posts, most of which relied on the reader to recognize the exact joke from Monty Python. I didn't see anything that looked citable. Maybe someone else will have better luck, and the entry can be verified. P Aculeius (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

My examples above "should be" absent explicit reference to Monty Python (that was the intention!). I'm not sure where we stand at the moment on "random" Internet mentions. These were apparently sufficient in the recent case of "go = go to the". Personally I believe that we should accept these, provided that the source is not just "rubbish", e.g. bad or broken or non-native English, "telegraphese", etc., which can be a value judgement. I think that these sources are most likely to throw up words and phrases that readers will not understand and will wish to look up in the dictionary, and hopefully ours, if we include them, rather than UD. Mihia (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

And they may be fine, but I don't know where any of them are from, so I can't really comment—except one of them looks like it might be from TVTropes, which is a lot of fun to spend (or waste!) time reading, but I don't think it's citable. I may be wrong! P Aculeius (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I've had time to look over the citations for "go = go to the", and there are five: two from Twitter, two from Reddit, and one from a pdf file produced for a school. I would not have thought these counted as durably archived sources, though a search of the Beer Parlour brought me to a 2022 debate about whether certain sources were allowable, which ended with no consensus about either Twitter or Reddit (of the two, Twitter seemed to have more support).

With no consensus, I suppose there is no formal obstacle to using them if they can demonstrate that "tracts of land" is understood to mean "breasts" without any context pointing to Monty Python. That said, I would not regard them as particularly good sources, because I do not know whether they are durably archived or whether the hundreds of billions of tweets that have been tweeted will still be available—and searchable—in another five or ten years (particularly as they can be edited and deleted, along with the accounts that posted them, at any time). I know even less about how Reddit works. And I have no confidence at all in what is basically the electronic version of an anonymously-authored school worksheet.

I'm not a policy warrior, and I'm not making it my mission to eliminate quotes from sources I don't feel are very good. I just think that we ought to be searching for sources that demonstrate lexical use, other than by an insular community of people who've all seen the same movie. P Aculeius (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

choconutty

"A biscuit made with cocoa and desiccated coconut". Sounds like a brand name; a cursory Google Images search turns up several different products. Ultimateria (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

white eel

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I added a reference to the article since the article didn't have one. Template:Unsigned

Delete I think it's arguable that the original Polish term Template:M could be reasonably attestable (cf. the Polish Dancing Cow lyrics), though Google search only returns mentions from the Polish term, indicating that it did not enter the English lexicon.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

affile

Meaning to polish Template:Unsigned

aftercast

Rfv-sense throw of dice Template:Unsigned

While I have read some commentators pointing to a connotation of dice throws in the use of this term by John Gower or Gerard Manley Hopkins, it does not seem to be part of the denotative meaning - rather, it looks more like definition 2 (a consequence). Kiwima (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

agrom

Mentions Template:Unsigned

Was able to find one instance that I think would count as a use, amid dozens of definitions in various dictionaries and medical references. Also a lot of hits for other things beginning with agro-. A bit surprised I did not find more uses in literature pertaining to Indian medicine; perhaps someone else will have more luck. P Aculeius (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

cathedral

Rfv-sense Lower-case form of Template:W's "the Cathedral", i.e. American media/academia with its alleged left-wing bias. It seems to always[?] be capitalized as a proper noun. Wikiuser815 (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Wheel of Fortune

Jeopardy

This is an RFV of the sense "A television game show where word puzzles are solved by filling in the missing letters". The sense was previously discussed 17 years ago, but only two editors participated substantively. The sense requires quotations which are, among other things, not "about any person or group specifically associated with the product or service" or "about the type of product or service in general", and do not "identify the product or service to which the brand name applies, whether by stating explicitly or implicitly some feature or use of the product or service from which its type and purpose may be surmised, or some inherent quality that is necessary for an understanding of the author's intent": WT:CFI. The quotations currently in the entry all seem to refer to the American game show. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should try to capture TV shows under WT:BRAND - I mean, yes, there is commercial value in the intellectual property of Wheel of Fortune as a trademark and as a concept, but that doesn't make Wheel of Fortune a "product or service".

In any event, we should still exclude the names of TV shows, but it's really an RFD question. See the recently concluded RFD for Friends (bottom of the page at Talk:Friends). This, that and the other (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

...although having said all that, it may be possible to find evidence of figurative use of this name... This, that and the other (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Template:Reply Well, let's see first if any figurative uses can be located. I've also added Template:M to this nomination. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

cop

Sense:

Template:Lb The crown (of the head); also the head itself. Template:Defdate

Template:Ux

14th–15th c. is Middle English. J3133 (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

antistrophe

ẵRfv last-sense Template:Unsigned

The definition appears in Century 1911, without any citations. DCDuring (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Not in A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms, which does say: 'Perhaps because so many rhetorical figures involve a "counter-turning" of some sort, this term has attracted a cluster of different meanings in addition to the above [ie, our def. 4 and yet another one]." I've found it hard to cite rhetorical terms. DCDuring (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

aphrite

IP added a new definition Template:Unsigned

rollerbladings

A plural. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:1D65:5ECD:A51F:A81F 22:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

apomecometry

Limited use. One in a weird poem, awkwardly rhyming with Mahometry. Template:Unsigned

~~Failed~~ Father of minus 2 (talk) 12:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I was looking into this - will comment soon. Long story short - it may be citeable as -metrie. This, that and the other (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

textbook fear

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Send to RfD. This appears to be nothing more than shorthand for "a textbook case of" fear, i.e. "fear in its basic definition", which seems like the sum of its parts. Nothing in the entry suggests that it is in any way idiomatic, and I do not think there is anything to search for. It might make sense as a gloss of "bibliophobia", but that does not seem to be how it is defined. P Aculeius (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can understand it, the distinguishing feature of this sense of "textbook fear" is supposed to be that you hear or read about something being difficult/dangerous/frightening and fear it only for that reason. So, for example, if you often encounter spiders in your house, and you are terrified of them, you might have a "textbook fear" in the sense that it is a "classic" fear described in textbooks, but it wouldn't be "textbook fear" in our sense because you originated it yourself. Whether this is a clear and valid distinction, and, if so, whether it is a property of the word "textbook" or solely of "textbook fear", I do not know. (By the way, our definition seems poorly worded. The phrase structure seems not to be totally coherent.) Mihia (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I cleaned up the formatting, but I'm very skeptical. I look forward to any citations that show support for any non-SoP definition. This smells to me like someone misinterpreting standard attributive use of textbook. If enough people misinterpret textbook as it seems from the RfVed definition, there should eventually be citations that support a further extension of the meaning of textbook. I wouldn't think that fear would be the only noun modified by such an extended sense of textbook, so, even if this collocation is cited, we should see whether there are other collocations that show the same extended meaning of textbook.

At textbook#Adjective we have: "Having the typical characteristics of some class of phenomenon, so that it might be included as an example in a textbook.". DCDuring (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

On the subject of textbook#Adjective, I added an example there, "Well done everyone, the tree fell exactly where we planned. That was textbook", partly to try to bolster the case that this is truly an adjective (which is ambiguous in many of the existing quotations), but then it struck me that our existing definition, that you quoted, does not exactly capture this kind of usage. The "tree felling" example does not describe something with "typical characteristics" so much as something "done exactly correctly, in the way that a textbook might describe". Do you think we are missing a sense? Or is it all part of the same sense? Mihia (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The predicate-use example helps. BTW, some other dictionaries use classic as a synonym. Maybe we could broaden the current definition, perhaps "typical or ideal"? DCDuring (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, ", so that it might be included as an example in a textbook." does not really define the term, but rather explains the (obvious?) sense development. DCDuring (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

In the end I found it difficult to broaden the definition in a way that appealed to me, so I made a separate definition. Anyone who prefers to merge them, please go ahead. Mihia (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't distinguish senses 2 and 3 under "textbook", as they seem to be describing exactly the same thing. That said, I haven't tried to merge them, so I can't really comment on how difficult it is. But to return to "textbook fear", I fear we still haven't escaped the textbook use of "textbook" as an adjective. It still seems to be a textbook example of a phrase that means nothing more than the sum of its parts. P Aculeius (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Returning to the RFV, I think it might be difficult to find examples that we can be certain are meant in this alleged special sense rather than the general "textbook" sense. I had a quick trawl of Google results, and found some that could be read as our sense, but all of them could be read in the "normal" sense too. Perhaps someone else might have more luck. Mihia (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Let's just give it its 30 days here. We can then RfD it and have our debates there, if necessary. DCDuring (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I added a new sense at textbook:

Template:Lb Learned from, or as if learned from, a textbook, as opposed to personal discovery or experience.

Template:Ux

Perhaps even if "textbook fear" does exist in the RFV'd sense, this definition might just about cover it? (I think there is a slight question about whether all the senses at textbook#Adjective are truly adjectives, but that's a different discussion.) Mihia (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Coastal Tupian

Added as a synonym of Nheengatu. I couldn't find any mention of it online, and the name itself doens't make much sense, as the language is spoken in the Amazon region.

The other synonyms added at that page don't have references either, but I was able to found some mentions:

Trooper57 (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

here

This place; this location.
Template:Ux

Template:Ux
Template:Lb This point or stage, visualised as a location.
Template:Ux

Template:Ux
Template:Lb This time, the present situation. Template:Rfex

RFV sense 3 as distinct from sense 2. It already had a request for examples; I can't think of any. Mihia (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the countable use seen at e.g. here? That may be what was meant by the Template:Q label. This, that and the other (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

astel

In mining Template:Unsigned

Failed Jin and Tonik (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

scourage

Rfv-sense:

The act of scouting or skirmishing

I see a lot of errors for scourge (typos? misspellings?), so it's possible this is just buried in there somewhere. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

shirl

Rfv-sense To slide. Excrement Voider (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Found two quotations listed in OED, and added. Was able to see one of them and elaborate on it. A third was from a glossary, so I left it out. There are probably more published uses, but a Google search was swamped by people named "Shirl" and "Shirley", the words "shield", "shields", "shielded", "Stirling", "shearling", etc., and if the word is dialectic then genuine uses may be less likely to have been digitized and indexed searchably. Maybe someone else will have better luck. P Aculeius (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

throw lathe

Template:M (by itself) exists in this sense, but the term throw lathe seems to only exist in dictionaries and one particular encyclopedia entry that appears many times in GBooks results. This, that and the other (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

throw

Rfv-sense: "The flight of a thrown object" as distinct from "The distance travelled by something thrown" and various other senses in the entry. It is not in OED, Century or Webster. It was added in 2003 by Template:U with the usex "a fast throw", which does not seem to support the sense as defined. This, that and the other (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

A throw itself seems more like sense 1, the act of throwing. The "distance" sense gives as an example the expression, "a stone's throw", which really does relate to distance. I'm not sure whether the sense here is or isn't an example of sense 1, since "a quarterback's throw" seems to be the same thing, but at the same time in the example here, "a fast throw" seems to refer to a thing with qualities besides merely the act of throwing: the path of a thrown object, or other qualities associated with the traveling object. Perhaps some rewording is in order. P Aculeius (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that "a fast throw" is not quite "a fast act of throwing", and also there are examples such as "his throw reached the boundary", where it is again not really the act that reaches the boundary. It could be quite hair-splitting to try to reflect this in the definitions, perhaps. On another point, I question whether the single idiom "a stone's throw" justifies a whole sense "The distance travelled by something thrown". I'm not even totally convinced that "throw" in itself means a distance even in that expression. Or are there other examples? Mihia (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you're right, it's the idiom that confers the meaning of 'distance'. It's not really a meaning of the word 'throw'. P Aculeius (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

There are cutesy variations, such as "a pebble's throw" when referring to proximity to a beach, but I think this kind of thing hardly counts as different. Mihia (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

atmo

Rfv-sense

atmosphere (of a planet) -- Really? Kiwima (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Most of the hits I see for e.g. "the atmo was" refer to "atmosphere" in the sense of "ambience", which is a sense we don't have. However, also fairly easy to find "The intent of the scene was clearly to indicate that the atmo was breathable", "'Get that thing off my ship!' Hunter snapped, slamming down the hatchway before they could even verify if the atmo was breathable." etc. My feeling is that "atmo" is an informal or slangy abbreviation for potentially any sense of "atmosphere" and it would be easier to list it simply as that. Mihia (talk) 20:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

morpho-syntax

Rfv-sense "grammar". is this really a separate sense from sense 1? the morphosyntax of a language naturally is (part of) the grammar of that language, and i doubt the word "morphosyntax" is ever used to include other aspects of a grammar e.g. phonology. also see the rfc for this word. ragweed theater _{talk, user} 14:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ragweed-theater it's worth noting that this sense originally read "More formal term for grammar in a linguistic sense". I guess what they meant was, what the lay-person calls the "grammar" of a language is called its "morphosyntax" by linguists. How do we express this? Perhaps using Template:Tl with a qualifier or Template:Tl on sense 1? This, that and the other (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

thank you for the cleanup! I've added Template:M as a near-synonym to Template:M, with a qualifier directing the reader to the usage note there, and added a usage note for Template:M. hopefully this is sufficient, and the sense in Template:M can be removed ragweed theater _{talk, user} 16:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

ammo-

only derived form given is Template:M. (what is the CFI for affixes? i couldn't find it in the guidelines. i apologize if i missed something obvious.) ragweed theater _{talk, user} 23:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

We could definitely do with some clearer guidance from CFI here (not only on this topic). At a minimum, if we can't find three English terms that start with this prefix, it can be summarily tossed. This list contains some obscure biological terms which need further investigation. This, that and the other (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

thank you! it would be really nice if we can have an official guideline on this.

it seems to me that a "three (presumably verification-passing) words that use the affix" criterion is potentially too strict-- for example, say there is a combining form Template:Smallcaps, for which we find three formations (say Template:Smallcaps-ic, Template:Smallcaps-phobic, and Template:Smallcaps-form, or something like that). now let's say every one of these terms is seemingly a one-off formation. in this case none of the three derived terms would pass verification, but i do believe Template:Smallcaps itself should pass: its productivity is basically on par with a full word that is attested three times. ragweed theater _{talk, user} 23:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

back to Template:M: a search in OED does not turn up anything relevant other than Template:M. Template:M < Template:M + Template:M should be considered a wholesale loan from Ancient Greek Template:M or Latin Template:M. out of the wiktionary lemma list, Template:M, although ultimately < Template:M + Template:M, should be regarded as a loan from (scientific) Latin Template:M and coined there. similarly goes Template:M, though i'm not entirely sure of the meaning of the name-- "sand-wanderer"? besides these, Template:M points to Template:M, and almost everything else goes back to Template:M in one way or another (via Template:M or Template:M).

to sum up, there seems to be no intra-English use of the suffix Template:M besides Template:M, or at least the OED and en-wikt data do not represent such use. ragweed theater _{talk, user} 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

shrood

Uses I see seem like pron-spelling of "shroud" P. Sovjunk (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Failed Father of minus 2 (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

again

4.2. I ask again, I say again; Template:Non-gloss

Template:Ux

4.3. Here too, here also, in this case as well; Template:Non-gloss

Template:Ux

9. Moreover; besides; further.

Template:Quote-text

RFV sense 9 as distinct from 4.2 and 4.3. As far as I can tell, the sole present example (Herschel) is either 4.2 or 4.3 (not certain which; full context at [71]). Mihia (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't really say the first two are distinct, but I concur that the third one is not a new meaning. P Aculeius (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

protopia

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

barcon

Ship. Called barcone in Italian, and probably in English too Template:Unsigned

throw (2)

The distance travelled by something thrown.

Template:Coi

Presently the only example is an isolated idiom in which it is doubtful anyway that the word "throw" itself means "distance travelled". I'm not convinced that this is enough to justify the claimed sense. Is there any better basis on which to keep it? Mihia (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mihia I'm not sure if you have access to OED Online, but it offers a range of cites for this sense. Some of these have been there since NED (sb2 sense 6): [72] - we could very easily copy these cites if wanted. This, that and the other (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

There does seem to be variety or productivity in those quotes. Perhaps this usage has now largely collapsed around "stone's throw" as a special idiom, so that reference to other projectiles can seem to be merely a conscious variation of this to modern speakers, at least in the pattern "a X's throw". As far as "throw" itself truly meaning "distance" is concerned, as opposed to the whole idiom or expression conveying the idea, it did occur to me that many other words could be used in the same way. We could say "within the hop of a frog", "within the jump of a flea", "within two tumbles of a louse", "within three bounces of a beach ball", etc. Does this mean that "bounce" is "a distance bounced", "tumble" is "a distance tumbled", and so on and so forth? And does "in two shakes of a lamb's tail" make a "shake" a measurement of time?

I see that Oxford Learner's Dictionary gives "a javelin throw of 57 metres" as an example of sense "the distance that something is thrown". I think that this is going too far. Surely this is just "X of measurement" pattern, like "an ascent of 1000 ft", "a whale of twenty tons", or anything else. Mihia (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

basto

Ace of clubs. It is any clubs card in a Spanish deck Template:Unsigned

yield (2)

Template:Lb Profit earned from an investment; return on investment.
Template:Lb The current return as a percentage of the price of a stock or bond.

Template:Quote-journal

RFV "law" sense. Is there really such a sense distinct from the finance sense? The existing example does not appear to demonstrate so. Mihia (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The "law" label is implausible to me.

Yield is sometimes an amount, sometimes an annualized rate (as % of either face or market value) in finance, easily cited if necessary (I would assert widespread use.). It is generally a 'yield' of money on money. As an amount it could easily be combined with definitions that applied to timber, crops, fish, effort, labor, etc. DCDuring (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

batule

Springboard. I've seen it called a Batule board Template:Unsigned

beat the dust

Rfv-sense To take in too little ground with the forelegs, as a horse. Not clear what that actually means Template:Unsigned

I would understand it to mean that the horse's pace is too short, except that I don't understand why it would be only the forelegs. I mean, if the rear legs made more ground than the forelegs, then they would overtake the forelegs and the horse would get in a terrible tangle. Perhaps it is more visible in the forelegs, or just because the forelegs lead? A number of mentions of this in dictionaries of horsey things, e.g. [73] [74] [75], apparently more or less copied verbatim one from another. Mihia (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

bellibone

Only used in Spenser, this splendid word Template:Unsigned

Added two quotations. J3133 (talk) 10:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I had a problem recently with my bellibone ... Mihia (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

biangulous

I only find dictionary entries Template:Unsigned

Failed Father of minus 2 (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

smolt

3 adjective senses P. Sovjunk (talk) 09:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

balk

Rfv-sense: fishing thing P. Sovjunk (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Failed+deleted Jin and Tonik (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

depertible

Only 1 hit. Any non-Bacon (veggie) hits? P. Sovjunk (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

citing this would be difficult, but Template:M, which we currently don't have, would likely pass. ragweed theater _{talk, user} 21:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Failed, kept quote Ungreaaseddish (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

binervate

Only seems to appear in dictionaries, codebooks and elocution books Template:Unsigned

Found three uses in technical journals, though one is imperfectly cited as it was only available in snippet view. No doubt there are more uses in similar publications, but not many are available through Google Books. I'd say it's adequately cited now. P Aculeius (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

cop

Rfv-sense KOP in dutch means head, so that makes sense Template:Unsigned

formula

Rfv-sense "(especially religion) A formal statement of doctrine". if i'm reading the context right, the "formulae" in the one quote we have now doesn't seem to refer to "statements of doctrine", but the set phrases and/or structural elements (the specific ways one should say the prayers, etc.) in the rituals. it would then correspond to the primary sense listed in the OED: "A set form of words in which something is defined, stated, or declared, or which is prescribed by authority or custom to be used on some ceremonial occasion"-- which is a sense we happen not to have at the moment. ragweed theater _{talk, user} 20:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I would simply rewrite this sense along the lines in OED—and reorder the senses a bit accordingly. P Aculeius (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

blastide

Didn't catch on Template:Unsigned

RFV failed Father of minus 2 (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

blenk

3 verbs Template:Unsigned

blowess

This spelling. Appearance as blowesse exists Template:Unsigned

abgregation

Only one use available. This, that and the other (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Not in the original OED; very hard to search for due to the large number of hits for abnegation and abrogation with indistinct 'n' or 'o'. P Aculeius (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't find any stray hits or scannos when I searched, just loads of old dictionaries. Did you search for "abgregation" in quotation marks? This, that and the other (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

No, but I'm not aware that enclosing a single word in quotation marks would produce any different results; I did a general search and then narrowed the results to occurrences in books. As far as I know, quotation marks are used to enclose a string of words to produce an exact match, so they should make no difference to a single word. And if occurrences of abnegation or abrogation have been misindexed as abregation, then they ought to appear whether or not you enclose abregation in quotation marks; I don't know how doing so would eliminate hits for words that have erroneously been indexed with the same spelling. P Aculeius (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@P Aculeius oh, I think you have been searching for the wrong word. This one has two Gs. This, that and the other (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

So I have. begins self-flagellation P Aculeius (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I cannot find any instances of "abgregation" besides dictonaries, of which there are many. OED says "apparently never used" (1888), and Johnson said "rarely used", but any examples would have been included in OED. Not a word I would really expect in more recent times, unless someone was being deliberately florid. P Aculeius (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

boist

Obsolete word for box. Template:Unsigned

soyned

some scannos for joyned, Middle English P. Sovjunk (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

furry

Rfv-sense 4: "(informal, slang) Someone who is sexually attracted to anthropomorphic animal characters." Added a month ago by an IP here; removed by another IP today.
As I understand it, the question is: if someone does not identify with an anthropomorphic animal character or have a fursona (i.e. is not a furry in senses 2 or 3, which at present seem ill-distinguished), but is attracted to furries, does that make that person a furry? It seems possible. - -sche (discuss) 06:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

That's how I understand the term, yeah. Would be hard to cite (how do you prove someone doesn't have a fursona?), but I did find these:

Template:Quote-book

Template:Quote-book

Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

bonny

Rfv-sense ore Template:Unsigned

bordraging

Only Spenser Template:Unsigned

both-hands

Only in Jonson? Template:Unsigned

January 2025

boydekin

Old synonym, spelled boydekyn mostly Template:Unsigned

brantail

Common redstart. Only in glossaries Template:Unsigned

brigose

I see one more hit only Template:Unsigned

Failed + deleted Ungreaaseddish (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

burrow

Rfv old mining sense Template:Unsigned

Failed + deleted Ungreaaseddish (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

twilitten

Sense: “Template:Past participle of”. It was changed from “Template:Past participle of” by Template:Ping (“We're still missing the verb "twilit".”) after the previous RfV, but no quotations were added. J3133 (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that's a mistake; if so it should be reverted, obviously. P Aculeius (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Even if it should be reverted to “Template:Past participle of”, I could not find any uses as a past participle instead of an adjective (I added all quotations that I could find). J3133 (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

airgasm

RFV of all senses

The free-fall one is potentially citeable (I found two, plus a mention), the skydiving sex one is obvious vandalism, and the facemask one seems to be a joke during the pandemic that was mentioned but never actually used as a word. Smurrayinchester (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

caburn

Old nautical term Template:Unsigned

cacotechny

Appears in wordbooks mostly Template:Unsigned

It turns up in this strange text, which I find rather difficult to make sense of. Also in the Stratford Monthly [76] = [77]. This, that and the other (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Arctoidean

In this orthography. DCDuring (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

bluet-eyed

Only used in one poem by Wallace Stevens from what I can see, and even in that one poem it's not clear what it means (the next word is hands, so the poem actually says his jigging bluet-eyed hands). The first hit on archive.org at first appears to be a second use, but this is simply a book of poetry quoting the Stevens poem. —Soap— 21:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

i see now that its actually the [women] came for his jigging, bluet-eyed, [their] hands [outstretched] so the sense is presumably as we say it is after all, but i still see only one use of this. —Soap— 22:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

canderos

Any usage as resin? I see it used as a South American fish Template:Unsigned

the fish sense is most likely a variant of cañero ~ candiru that came through from its plural form somehow. no comment on the main RFV other than it might be cognate to candy if it's real. —Soap— 20:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Failed + deleted Ungreaaseddish (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

cardiac

Rfv sense medicine for the stomach. Surely, for the ♡??? Template:Unsigned

See cardial for explanation on how it came to refer to the stomach. Still deserves an RFV since our only connection is through Webster. —Soap— 20:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

carpetmonger

Rfv-sense gallant. Used by Shakespeare. Instinct tells me this should be sexual. Template:Unsigned

Our second nounal sense of gallant is ‘seducer’ so I see no contradiction here. The definition could be slightly reworded to make the meaning more clear though, I suppose. Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

carpetway

Rfv-s agricultural sense Template:Unsigned

catapuce

Any modern English? Template:Unsigned

Please sign and date your posts by typing ~~~~. Thanks. — Sgconlaw (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

catechetically

Rfv-sense by Q and A Template:Unsigned

This was originally just one sense, and somebody split it. Anyway, the reference is to catechism, where (e.g. Catholic) children had to go through a question-and-answer session to prove they knew their theology. Probably findable if you exclude typical religion terms from your search. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:45DC:DAFF:2127:3937 10:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's cited, although it's maybe hard to split this sense from the religious sense. A lot of overlap. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

skar

sense wild; timid; shy Rowjanes (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

skilder

3 definitions Rowjanes (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Failed + deleted Ungreaaseddish (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

skirr

Rfv-sense tern Rowjanes (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Failed + deleted Ungreaaseddish (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

skullfish

2+yr-old whale Rowjanes (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

manna

Rfv-sense

This showed up in requests for definition. Two sets of rap lyrics, by the same artist, so not independent. Still need two more quotes. What is there is not enough for me to figure out what the definition should be. Maybe someone else has a better idea and can add a definition and quotes. Kiwima (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:Ping: Just a wild guess: some phrase starting with "man". At any rate, I don't think it has anything to do with the biblical manna, so it probably should be under a different etymology header. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

We could actually contact Template:W through his record label and be like "yo, what's a manna?". I remember we have contacted authors before to ask them for definitions of their words. Where was that? Father of minus 2 (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

could it mean I'm? Father of minus 2 (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Contextually it looks like "man is" (as a transcription of speech, it could equally be "manna" or "man a"). We have "a" meaning "had" (a#Etymology 4) and "will"/"going to" (a#Etymology 9) but not a present tense is - I don't know if that's a feature of Template:W. It rings bells but I can't think of any examples. Also possible it's actually "man [ Template:W ] inked up" plus "a#Etymology 13" ("empty syllable added to songs"). Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Those would also be my two guesses, FWIW. - -sche (discuss) 16:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

cephalotomy

Rfv sense of using a certain tool to carry out a certain gruesome medical procedure. Note to potential RFVers, a strong stomach is required! I couldn't face checking the quotes, it makes me uneasy Template:Unsigned

It's an old medical term (this is Webster 1913 after all), and looks citable, but it's for a procedure that we almost certainly don't do anymore. It was apparently common in classical times for a stillborn baby and was in use until early modern times. It seems there were 84 cephalotomies performed in Wurtemberg between July 1821 and July 1825, which makes it seem like a pretty busy place, considering that there were only four cephalotomies performed in the Prague Clinic between 1789 and 1811. —Soap— 19:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

goatress

According to the OED, only used in Barley-breake by W. N. J3133 (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Failed Ungreaaseddish (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

nasicornous

According to the OED, only used in Pseudodoxia Epidemica by Thomas Browne. J3133 (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Found a second use. The word also appears in that notorious "difficult-words book" Percarus, which I avoid citing. This, that and the other (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Added a third use. J3133 (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

guff

Rfv-sense Template:Tq

I've heard it used to mean "fart", which is the sense listed above it, but not this. Theknightwho (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Failed + deleted Ungreaaseddish (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

chime

Rfv-sense chine Template:Unsigned

Added 3 cites, easy to find. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:4CE7:E0A7:278F:C0B4 01:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

hold one's pee

Sense 3: "To hide the effects of one's drunkenness; to convincingly behave as though sober while drunk." 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E1D1:5689:6B17:5A15 01:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

May have been a mistake by the creator assuming that since pee is a euphemism for piss, it can stand in for that word even in the sense of alcohol. Either that or they just didnt think it through. I agree this seems unlikely and wouldnt really know how to search for it. Calling alcohol piss requires a speech register that just doesnt overlap much with the situations where we'd want to use a euphemism. —Soap— 23:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

anthropophuism

Scant uses are available, but surely not enough to sustain two senses. I suspect the real sense is more nuanced than "human nature". This, that and the other (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

slatterpouch

nonce TypeO889 (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Failed, kept quote Ungreaaseddish (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

slipskin

Rfv adj sense. Only Milton? There's a creature called slipskin too, which we're missing. TypeO889 (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

spellken

Just used in Byron? Hopefully not, tis a cool word TypeO889 (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

gayvuti

Alt spelling of Template:M. Ultimateria (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Failed Ungreaaseddish (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

solidare

Nobody ever found non-Shakespearean uses. 23:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Template:Unsigned

smartle

Just in old provincial glossaries Father of minus 2 (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

smeltie

Mentioned plenty, generally in old fishing books saying "smeltie is what Scots call this fish". No uses foundFather of minus 2 (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

smerlin

yet another old fish word. Sorry there's so many. I blame Template:User for importing a massive old dictionary Father of minus 2 (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

onism

Appears in many listicles, popularized by Template:W, but I see mentions rather than uses. Ultimateria (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

lypophrenia

"Feeling sad for no clear reason." Might be from that Book of Obscure Sorrows which is full of protologisms. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:3947:C247:AEBD:7431 18:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

circumflant

Nice word, probably only used the once Template:Unsigned

coaxation

Any more usage (not More usage)? Template:Unsigned

cottonary

Brown nonce Father of minus 2 (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Failed, kept quote Ungreaaseddish (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

concrew

Nonce word Father of minus 2 (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

misdread

Nonce word Father of minus 2 (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The verb is sufficiently cited in the OED. Einstein2 (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Adding the OED's two modern English cites and a couple more I found, the verb is cited if we combine transitive and intransitive use. The noun may be a Shakespeare nonce. - -sche (discuss) 02:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

countercaster

Nonce word Father of minus 2 (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Failed, kept quote Ungreaaseddish (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

coportion

Nonce word Father of minus 2 (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

concupy

Nonce word Father of minus 2 (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

immethodized

Nonce word Father of minus 2 (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Failed, kept quote Ungreaaseddish (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

subnuvolar

Nonce word Father of minus 2 (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

thaasophobia

The hits all seem to be lists of phobias and things like "fear of boredom, which is called 'thaasophobia'". We need uses that convey meaning, not mentions. A few seem to be using it in a sentence, then saying: "that's the term for..." as if the sentence was meant only to show off the new term. That looks like a mention to me, but I'll let others decide. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

added two more citations in the citations page. the four citations we now have look fine: if i understand the CFI correctly, uses with parenthetical explanations are still uses, not mentions.

the variant Template:M also exists, though probably not going to meet CFI. i've added it to the page for the sake of indexing ragweed theater _{talk, user} 15:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

soler

Rfv-sense A loft or garret. Father of minus 2 (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

squealer

Rfv-senses of birds Father of minus 2 (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

entermewer

Just Browne Father of minus 2 (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

also spelled intermewer. Those together would get 3 solid quotations. --85.48.184.181 08:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

spade

Rfv-sense 3: Template:Lb The vulva of canine species. RhymeWrens (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

raise to the ermine

Rfv-sense "To add ermine to someone's coat of arms"

Can't find any citations of this, which seems like an overly literal reading of the phrase. Every hit is metaphorical and refers to the ermine robes won by lords and judges. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

debris

Sense 3, "The ruins of a broken-down structure." Must be distinct from main sense 1, "Rubble, wreckage, scattered remains of something destroyed." Other dictionaries (Chambers, Merriam) do not seem to distinguish, and in my experience debris is small pieces, never large components like castle ruins. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E1CB:650D:44C7:C96 17:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

provenial

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

pim

“A penis”; added by 111.65.51.232 today. J3133 (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

clap someone's cheeks

Not mine. Father of minus 2 (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

There is also (already) Template:M, which is mine.... Leasnam (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

If not a joke listing (with "Not mine" meaning "don't clap WF's cheeks" and not "this entry isn't by me"), note that we have clap cheeks already. The only thing I really see missing from the latter are 2 more cites and a figurative sense by extension, meaning "to beat someone handily (e.g. at a game)". Hftf (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

plumber's cleave

Nothing to be found beyond one single Google hit, on a casual message board. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:ACDD:EC70:5574:123 23:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

figgle

Newly added noun: "(New England) A person who makes uneducated and controversial decisions." 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:2921:96CC:86C1:8A99 15:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

groupoidality

I've only spotted a single use on Google Scholar, and nothing on Google Books or Archive.org. - -sche (discuss) 07:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

crotalo

Instrument like a cymbalom. Either we are missing a definition of cymbalom, or this isn't right. The crotalo, or at least Spanish "crótalo" is a different instrument. Template:Unsigned

I can only conclude you are being deliberately obtuse in refusing to sign and date your nominations by adding ~~~~ after them despite being asked to do so. Undated nominations become difficult to track, and it is unreasonable to expect other editors to clean up after you by adding Template:Temp templates. This is your final reminder; if you continue to add large numbers of unsigned and undated nominations I am just going to remove them on sight. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we are missing a sense at cymbalum: "This variety of cymbalum is very similar to modern Spanish castanets" [78]. Then on top of that, I cannot really find examples of crotalo used in English except in old dictionaries; crotale/crotales is common in English though. Hftf (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

cruive

Rfv-sense hovel 90.167.177.39 Template:Undated

Plenty of quotations here. Zacwill (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

symbolful

2 hits in Google Books- both false positives. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

benthoses

Of the attestations I could find for this supposed plural form of benthos (which I could count on one hand), all appear to be possible errors by writers for whom English is not their primary language, and all dictionaries I have consulted do not cite a plural form.

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The obvious joke is that this is about hoses that are bent. Just on a whim, I checked for benthose, and there are at least a few hits for that as another spelling of benthos. That raises the question as to whether benthoses is the plural of benthos or benthose. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

"Benthose" also appears to be a surname in West Virginia >_<

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

ginkyoes

Supposedly a plural form of ginkyo. Two search results on Google, one of which is from Wiktionary itself. Gelasin (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

tartan (etymology 2)

"A kind of long covered carriage". Appears in some 19th-century dictionaries (e.g., [79], [80], [81]), some citing "Simmonds", but I see no actual use. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

smither

Rfv-sense light rain. In old dialect dictionaries Father of minus 2 (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

snippack

Old Shetland name for common snipe. Just mentioned in some bird-dialect books. Father of minus 2 (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

sollein

Just used by Spenser in Modern English, methinkes Father of minus 2 (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Lemmatised by OED as Template:M but it's really Middle English - not sure what we have the ME word as, if we have it at all. Any post-1500 cites would reflect a transitional form between this word and Template:M. This, that and the other (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

soothness

Tagged + unlisted since 2023 Father of minus 2 (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

sorbition

Old glossaries only Father of minus 2 (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Found in the plural here in EEBO, and also in this journal on plant diseases (where it presumably means "absorption"). More searching required. This, that and the other (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

pingeon

Variant of Template:M. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:BCD3:14D1:4199:AD20 01:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

speet

Old word for stab Father of minus 2 (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

machete

"To hack or chop crudely with a blade other than a machete." Like: I macheted my sausage with a dinner knife? Can't find real citations in GBooks. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:88F4:DA9A:6206:1B9E 01:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Shanbeh

Created by a certain User:Liggliluff. This appears to be just a transliteration of the Persian word for Saturday. I can't find clear citations that use this in English and aren't mentions. Benwing2 (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

firststringer

Judging by Google Books, only the hyphenated form first-stringer exists. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:88F4:DA9A:6206:1B9E 03:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

damningness

Only found in Henry Hammond's work90.174.2.217 07:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

sakai

Is this English? The one quote provided certainly doesn't instil confidence. Not sure how to search for it really. This, that and the other (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

decussatively

Only used by Thomas Browne 85.48.185.76 12:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I've added what else I could find. The 1898 cite is summarizing Browne's view of how the anointing was performed, but it isn't a "verbatim or near-verbatim quotation" AFAICT, so it arguably counts, and AFAICT so does the 1881 quotation, but it's marginal and probably needs a Template:Tl. - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

dejeration

Only one use found 85.48.186.106 19:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

dempne

Candidate for Middle English only84.78.18.185 23:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

dentiloquy

Only in glossaries. 84.78.16.189 12:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

deporture

Apparently a misspelling of departure, actually 213.143.50.55 05:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

derdoing

Only attested in Spenser's work 84.78.18.236 07:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

detrite

Worn out 213.143.50.46 05:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

devenustate

Only appearing in participle form devenustated, to where it would be moved in the event it fails RFV--213.143.50.46 06:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

sullen

Rfv-sense "Lonely; solitary; desolate". Had an "archaic" label, but an IP recently removed it. This sense has three quotes... but they're all Middle English. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

mixmaster blong Jesus Christ

Nothing but mentions and mentions of mentions regarding an alleged term in Bislama or Tok Pisin for "helicopter"(note that this is an English entry). Aside from that, this is more of a rant than a dictionary entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Why not move it to Tok Pison for starts? Also, the labels for the def. seem wrong in the way that they are for many of our entries:

I don't think that the term disparages helicopters. To the extent that the term disparages Tok Pisin speakers and their language, I'd have thought that the disparagement was a characteristic of the term itself, not just of the definition. If this is meant to refer to Tok Pisin speakers, I would have thought that the offensive tag covered that.
Our mainspace definition at the entry for offensive is strictly about the possible result of using the term. Our definition at Appendix:Glossary#O adds the element of intent: "Language that is intended or likely to cause offense; a kind of impolite language." I don't think that intent should be of any importance in applying the label 'offensive'. For that matter the 'likely' seems to imply that this is a matter of empirical evidence. I think "(sometimes) considered likely" would adequately reflect the lack of other than anecdotal evidence. (Note also that both parts of the Appendix definition define the adjective offensive as a noun, not an adjective.)

I suppose this might be a BP matter, though it just seems to me like a matter of careful use of words, ie, good diction. DCDuring (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The earliest reference I can find to the expression is in this 1965 text attributed to Christl Thalhammer (an Austrian model not known for writing in English - one suspects it was actually written by Template:W, who wrote a lot of travelogue-type books). The author is quoting one Lee Robinson "spinning his tales", but he does seem to have at least some idea of what he's talking about when it comes to the linguistics of Tok Pisin. He mentions that helicopters had been "recently introduced into New Guinea by oil search teams" and astutely observes that "'mixmaster belong Jesus Christ' [is] a description of the article rather than a name in itself" - a distinction evidently lost on later writers.

The next available text, [82], is dismissive of the term as an invention by "expatriates".

This text, only available in snippet view, apparently includes the term (but I can't get Google to show it to me) and references other circumlocutions to "Marshall 1949", which I'd love to locate but sadly haven't been able to identify.

Of course, none of this helps with verifying the English term. But if we wanted to attempt to verify a Tok Pisin term, this would be a starting point on the way to finding out whether the term is real or spurious. All the earliest references point to New Guinea, so I think a Bislama term can be ruled out. This, that and the other (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I dusted off my rusty Wikipedia editing skills and added a paragraph to the article on Tok Pisin, w:Tok Pisin#Circumlocution, using the fruits of this research. I think our entry can be deleted - (a) patently not an English phrase, (b) only ever mentioned, not used, and (c) almost certainly fabricated and not a genuine part of Tok Pisin. This, that and the other (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

vector

Rfv-sense: "The way in which the eyes are drawn across the visual text. The trail that a book cover can encourage the eyes to follow from certain objects to others."

A very wordy and specific definition, but "vector + eye tracking" or "vector + book cover" don't seem to turn anything up. Just a lot about vector graphics and the sense 2 vector encoding of eye co-ordinates. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Google search https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=vector+The+way+in+which+the+eyes+are+drawn+across+the+visual+text throws up several pages with content that seems related to this. "book cover" might be slightly over-specific but otherwise it might hold up. Mihia (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

didal

Old spade--213.143.51.30 17:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

disaventure

Apart from Spenser, I can't find any non-Middle English quotes --84.78.16.213 07:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

disaventurous

Only found in Spenser --84.78.16.213 07:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

discourtship

Only Jonson --213.143.50.98 15:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

disespouse

Only Milton, only past participe --213.143.50.98 15:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

February 2025

grip

Two noun senses:

Template:Senseid Template:Lb Assistance; help; encouragement.
Template:Senseid Template:Lb Someone who is helpful, interesting, admirable Template:, or inspiring.

Added here along with corresponding verb senses. The verb senses failed RFV in 2022 and were deleted here. Mihia (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

see-through fence

=chainlink fence? Tagged in August2024 Father of minus 2 (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

CU46

Unlisted Father of minus 2 (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

FDR

Unlisted Father of minus 2 (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

alligator

Rfv-sense binder of tress Father of minus 2 (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

? The sense in the entry is "One who binds or ties." - nothing to do with tress. OED has it so it should be real. This, that and the other (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

attendement

Nonce. Unlisted Father of minus 2 (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Failed, kept quote Ungreaaseddish (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

away

Rfv-sense come on, go on Unlisted Father of minus 2 (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

carindery

Unlisted Father of minus 2 (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

siddow

Unlisted Father of minus 2 (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

sirt

Unlisted Father of minus 2 (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

motornapping

Unlisted Father of minus 2 (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

qcepo

Unlisted Father of minus 2 (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

More likely Peruvian Spanish, possibly from local language. DCDuring (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

suffixlessness

Unlisted Father of minus 2 (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Cited. Einstein2 (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

unbegilt

Unlisted Father of minus 2 (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Failed, Ungreaaseddish (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

commorse

Unlisted Father of minus 2 (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Pannonian

Rfv-sense extinct language. Unlisted Father of minus 2 (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

insignis

Unlisted Father of minus 2 (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

pentadecasulfide

Unlisted Father of minus 2 (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

sticker

Rfv-sense "stickier". Here is a citation that says "rye dough is softer and sticker", but the very same book elsewhere says "rye dough is softer and stickier", strongly suggesting sticker is simply a typo. The 1998 cite is likely also a typo; the book contains various typos, e.g. a photo of two people is captioned "Here are Melinda and shopping for vegetables." Can we find works that use sticker repeatedly and consistently (works that do not also use stickier)? Or find some other evidence that this is an intentional spelling and not just a typo? - -sche (discuss) 16:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

clooged up

Zero Google Books hits. It occurs on the Web, but I suspect those are all just typos- no one intentionally spells it that way. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

tidy

"A tabletop container for pens and stationery. a desk tidy." This is actually desk tidy and I don't think it's ever just called "a tidy". 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:D461:2CF4:88FD:F4D1 08:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

if we rewrite the definition a bit we can probably come up with a sense that covers the use of tidy in Template:M, Template:M, Template:M and Template:M. ragweed theater _{talk, user} 14:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I had a go at a new def. Could be better still, I suspect. This, that and the other (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

OK, but if it's never a "tidy" alone, then the sense must be marked with something like "in combination". 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:1070:8DBC:498C:45B1 20:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

good point, though see the 19th-century quote i've just added (taken from OED) ragweed theater _{talk, user} 18:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Corinthian

rfv-sense for "Horse show-class in which contestants are members of a formal hunt and wear its livery, as opposed to appointment show-class."

rfv-sense for "A small tubular wafer used in desserts" (if real, probably from the wafer cookies brand named Corinthians, in which case refer to WT:BRAND) ragweed theater _{talk, user} 10:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

sprod

Young fish Father of minus 2 (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

rizzonomics

No quotes and seems like a shitpost. - saph ^_^^⠀talk⠀ 04:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I found many usages on social media such as this YouTube video, but this was the only non-social media use I could find: The University of Arizona website. Ca (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

There’s also ‘rizzology’ which would probably be just as hard to durably attest if we had an entry for it. Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Weirdly enough, Template:M proved attestible through print cites. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Wow! Great work citing that. Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

dispreader

Just used in Milton --85.48.184.44 19:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

~~Yes, delete~~ This, that and the other (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

No, I take that back. There's also s:Page:The_Book_of_the_Thousand_Nights_and_a_Night_-_Volume_3.djvu/152 and [83]. That's three. This, that and the other (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:Reply Added those quotations. J3133 (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

dispunct

Rfv-sense adjective. Only used in Jonson's work. The verb might fail RFV too --85.48.184.44 19:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

sprag

Rfv-sense young salmon. Father of minus 2 (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

half-fish

Another obscure salmon word Father of minus 2 (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

If verifiable, the definition might be Template:Q, since we now know that different species of salmon have different growth cycles, and I think even within the same species some may grow faster than others. In other words it wouldnt be a useful term. —Soap— 12:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

GNU reports this as "Prov. Eng." and Century 1911 (earlier years?) had it (labelled "Local, Eng.", with "Willughby" as source) before MW 1913 had it. OED? Template:W (1635-72) was, among other things, an ichthyologist and linguist. His Historia Piscium (1686) was written in Latin and his journals are lost, so it is unclear whether he actually used the English word half-fish. OTOH Google Books has many reference works with half-fish with this definition and many books about fish or fishing have mentions of the term, often citing Willughby/Willoughby, but at least as often using the same wording without citing him. Many of the mentions refer to the term being used in Yorkshire, by fishermen on the river Template:W. The term is one in a sequence (yr. 1: smelt; yr. 2: sprod, yr. 3: mort; yr. 4: forktail; yr. 6 et seq. salmon. At Wiktionary only smelt lacks the salmon definition. DCDuring (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The NED has a single cite from Template:W, a correspondent of Willughby, which also seems mentiony. The English Dialect Dictionary has the same cite. DCDuring (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay so it looks like it's a term for a four-year-old specimen of a species that typically matures after five years. If this stays, I want to write a usage explaining why it wouldnt b e appropriate to use for other species. —Soap— 22:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the word only in the definition could cover that. DCDuring (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

distasture

Only in Speed, or French 85.48.184.198 08:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

bing chilling

Rfv-pronunciation. --ChemPro (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I guess its verb is pronounced as Template:IPAfont, whereas its noun is pronounced as Template:IPAfont with the stress on the second syllabyle of Template:M. --ChemPro (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

heterocrinally

Apparent error, only in one single paper by NNES. The etymology is also nonsensical. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E4C0:8321:7D29:10A0 18:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

i do agree that this probably isn't passing CFI, but what makes you think that the use here (assuming this is the paper you mean) is an "apparent error", or that the etymology is nonsensical? the word is clearly intended to mean "in a heterocrine manner" in that paper since it's used besides Template:M and Template:M ragweed theater _{talk, user} 12:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

whiteheaded

"Of the skin, having or consisting of many whiteheads." One Google Web hit only for "whiteheaded skin". Anything like "whiteheaded pustules" actually means "having a head on it that is white" i.e. apex. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E4C0:8321:7D29:10A0 19:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

xenophile

Sense 2: "A person with an interest in celebrating people's differences." Needs to be distinct from the other, likelier sense: "A person who has a love of foreign people and culture." 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E4C0:8321:7D29:10A0 19:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

eath-kent

Template:Lb Easily known.

The expression (also spelled "eith-kent", "aith-kent" etc) is in various dictionaries but no actual uses are forthcoming. It may be citeable as Scots, but that needs more research.

What's more, it's trivial SOP as defined. I think it really means "well-known". This, that and the other (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Moved to Scots for the time being... Leasnam (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

pain in the ass

Rfv-sense "causing discomfort or frustration". This needs quotes, and I think if it were an adjective it would be hyphenated pain-in-the-ass. - saph ^_^^⠀talk⠀ 09:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

squeakquel

someone added an rfv for this but it doesn't seem to have been raised here so here it is. i do see this being used on social media sites sometimes, often as the fixed part of a snowclone à la Template:M (try "the squeakquel" site:tumblr.com "the squeakquel" site:x.com on google to see what i mean if you're not familiar). citing this with durable sources might be problematic though ragweed theater _{talk, user} 14:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Surprisingly attestible. Several instances refer to the 2009 Alvin and the Chipmunks film, but it has been used generically, and to refer to other (real and hypothetical) rodent films. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

bababna

"deliberate misspelling of Template:M". possibly a meme, though google search doesn't reveal much ragweed theater _{talk, user} 14:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

dorn

Raja clavata, a fish --90.174.2.212 12:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

cyberfarting

Rfv-sense:

Template:Lb The act of repeatedly sending virtual media to a user via cyberspace with malicious intent.

This definition misses the point, since it's not the sending of just any virtual media, but of sending virtual media of someone farting.

The whole entry needs to be reworked- the usage seems to be entirely in reference to the recent prosecution of a woman in India for allegedly doing this, so it's probably a hot word that doesn't fit the labels in the definition line, and it probably should be lemmatized at the verb cyberfart / cyber fart. I decided to post it as an RFV rather than an RFC because it's completely wrong in its present form and should be deleted if not cleaned up. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

dorsiparous

No use found--90.174.2.104 10:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

doupe

Unlisted. The carrion crow --90.174.2.104 11:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

down the wind

Rfv-sense decaying. Only found in L'Estrange --90.174.2.104 11:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

absoluter

It is a wrong comparative (it has three syllables!). In addition, I could not find it in Ngram (English). All the examples that I saw were in German. Note that it is easy to find absolutest (probably it has been confused with absolutist). Template:Unsigned

Search for "absoluter than", in Google Books: [84]. It can be found. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:1CF6:D817:8F6E:7C72 13:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

It can be found apparently 8 times, but one appeared 2 times and other 3 times. At the end only 5 occurrences. From these the first is a quote, two were poems (one of them requires absoluter to rhyme with computer); other was a Science Fiction novel where the speaker was extraterrestrial and obviously English was her second, third, fourth,... language. Finally, I could not read the last occurrence.

We can conclude that this word is so rare that it must be an error or a poetic license! Adelpine (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

dripple

Senses weak or rare--90.174.2.221 01:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

drunkenhead

I couldn't find 3 citations --90.174.2.221 01:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Looks like Middle English: Template:R:MED. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Endia

Template:Derogatory — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Failed. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

earth oil

I don't think this is used any more--90.174.3.209 23:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Just mark it "obsolete", then. It's still a real historic term, for inclusion in dictionaries. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:8434:3A38:6DBF:78CC 14:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

semicomposting

Few hits on Google; the page itself also needs cleanup. - saph ^_^^⠀talk⠀ 16:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

much for muchness

2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:8434:3A38:6DBF:78CC 18:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

edulious

Browne was the only one to use this Template:Unsigned

absentee

RFV sense "One that is nonexistent or lacking" as distinct from other existing senses. No examples, and I am not exactly sure what kind of thing this is referring to. Mihia (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

pedication

Rfv-sense "sex with a boy." A conceivable definition judging from the popular etymology of the Latin etymon, but the uses I've seen all take this word to be basically equivalent to "anal sex" or more specifically "anal penetration", with no reference to pedophilia ragweed theater _{talk, user} 01:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

bever

Rfv-sense: to tremble. The only use available in OED is Middle English. It seems to have survived in dialect, but it's not clear whether it should be considered Scots or English. This, that and the other (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

contrib

Other dictionaries (see https://onelook.com/?w=contrib) list this as an abbreviation without giving a pronunciation, suggesting it is not a clipping. — Paul G (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Added 3 showing plural. I don't see what more proof can be offered. (Sorry that the cites are somewhat truncated: this is due to Google refusing to show full pages these days.) 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:C45D:16B0:6A08:44BE 14:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

effrontuously

I found 2 quotes. Ours and "effrontously break" --85.48.186.48 08:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

egerminate

One hit for egerminating, all else was dictionaries --85.48.186.48 09:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

barely cited ragweed theater _{talk, user} 18:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

niggism

(might count as derogatory, depending on how one views it) — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

emendately

Only 1 use, and lots of dictionaries and telegraph books --85.48.185.69 13:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

empyesis

Only used in Ancient Greek

emuscation

Only used by Evelyn --85.48.185.69 19:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

encomberment

Only modern English was Spenser's. Some Middle English found

grammar

Rfv-sense "Template:Lb A formal system specifying the syntax of a language." Doesn't really look like a distinct sense. there could definitely be a nuanced difference between this and Sense 1, but the way the one quote we have now uses the word grammar, although certainly adapted a bit for its purpose, is imo still an ordinary use of Sense 1 ragweed theater _{talk, user} 16:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

See Template:M for a more thorough definition. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:C45D:16B0:6A08:44BE 14:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

gnodde

English verb. Apparently in Chaucer, so probably should be Middle English. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:C45D:16B0:6A08:44BE 14:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

fluffy cow

cute entry. The quotes I see don't convince me. Father of minus 2 (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Are they like the one in the entry? That one seems like usage of SoP [[fluffy + cow. DCDuring (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

leak

Rfv-sense 4 ("The person through whom such divulgation, or disclosure, occurs."), as distinct from sense 3 ("A divulgation, or disclosure, of information previously held secret.") which the usage example could also be using. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I think I have heard "Who is the leak". This should be citable. DCDuring (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I thought I'd find more, but I believe I've found three unambiguous ones. DCDuring (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

squinance

Plenty of old French shit, little English Father of minus 2 (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I was just reading this entry yesterday! What mischief are you up to, WF?

Anyway there are lots of results in EEBO, which may well be enough to cite both senses. This, that and the other (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

click off

Various implausible senses having no connection to clicking. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7554:3300:196:C6E0 19:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

The first three senses seem synonymous to senses of Template:M:

Template:M 1 = Template:M 1 literally
Template:M 2 = Template:M 2
Template:M 3 = Template:M 1 figuratively

So we could somehow collapse these to a single sense "To tick off (to check off; to list)" perhaps? This, that and the other (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

My feeling is that these are valid senses (though possibly don't need to be three separate definitions), probably based on the idea of clicking one of those hand-held counting gadgets. I can find a few relevant examples of "click off the miles", "click off the days", "click off the items" etc., albeit not quite as many as I expected. Mihia (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

megalops

Rfv-sense: "A large fish of species Template:Taxlink (Atlantic tarpon)." or an extended definition like "any of the genus Template:Taxlink of tarpons". Not easy to search for because of the other sea-life definition, the genus name, and use as a specific epithet. I've tried searching for the plural form and on Google NGrams for the upper- and lower-case forms with a or the, but the displayed search results don't differentiate by letter case. I also tried '"a meglops" tarpon -crab' at Google Books.

I think many lower-case versions of genus names are suspect. The hard redirect lower-case search term to upper-case entry and the use Template:Tl with the upper-case form at any entry for a valid lower-case form should be sufficient help users decode and properly encode. DCDuring (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

enrange

May only appear in Fairy Queene. I noticed some hits where "enranged" looked very likely to mean "enraged", though it is not a common misspelling --85.48.184.181 08:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

enseel

I found nothing but mentions in encyclopedias, dictionaries, and an alternative spelling of enseal. --85.48.184.181 08:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

neo-Nazi

Template:Derogatory English noun sense 2: Unsourced pejorative. 67.209.130.161 10:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

It’s trivially easy to cite evidence that people use neo-Nazi to refer to right-wingers rather than ‘actual’ neo-Nazis. If anything this should be an RFD as this sense is hard to disambiguate from sense 1 as it’s a matter of opinion is someone is a neo-Nazi or not. It doesn’t help that we have circular definitions defining neo-Nazi in terms of neo-Nazism and neo-Nazism in terms of neo-Nazi though. Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

If that's the case then the speedy deletion can be cancelled. Otherwise this sense would require to be sourced. Also, this sense can also mean the use of the term "Template:L" as a "Template:Synonym of". 67.209.130.161 18:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I think this should be sent to RFD as suggested by Template:Ping. It seems to be just a loose labelling of certain people with sense 1. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Re the definitions of neo-Nazi and neo-Nazism being circular: formerly they were less circular, it changed sometime between 2022 and now (and should be changed again to better explain, in one entry or the other, what some typical characteristics of neo-Nazi ideologies are). - -sche (discuss) 23:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Does not fall under WT:DEROGATORY because it does not refer to an identifiable individual or group of people or geographical location.

At which point are uses just wrong or deliberately ignorant?

I don’t know or easily find it in the same context as Nazi at least. In particular, save for some 4chan protologisms there is hardly any grammar neo-Nazi. Fay Freak (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble understanding how this is not derogatory in the same way that, say, piece of shit is derogatory. Are we restricting the normal meaning of derogatory to suit the shortened RfV process? Shouldn't we have some kind of 'adverbial' modifier of derogatory to indicate our special use of the word? DCDuring (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:Tq Yes, in that vote and Template:derogatory—which does not depend on how an entry is dressed in the end. We don’t use the term differently in the label (provided by Template:label), so the dictionary usage is unaffected. Of course, people less experienced than me are confused – and we didn’t really make efforts not to make them – and then inadvertently try to confuse you as well, by social suggestion; in other contexts it would be gaslighting but this is a tad exaggerated here. Fay Freak (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

This does come within WT:DEROGATORY, as the term denigrates "an unnamed person, group of persons, or geographical location on the basis of ancestry, ethnicity, gender or sex, religion, or sexual orientation, or with the use of a demeaning or obscene term". — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

So neo-Nazi is demeaning. Isn't piece of shit also demeaning? Isn't any pejorative term applied to "an unnamed person, group of persons, or geographical location" also "demeaning" and therefore subject to this accelerated time-pressure for citations? This seems like a device to enable crypto-prescriptivism. DCDuring (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

It does not even depend on what the term means or demeans. The contexts motivating the motion are that somebody is reasonably expected to think “that’s me” and therefore be offended by a term found on Wiktionary, which some external actors could make a game of, poisoning the reader and editor community supporting us, which hinges on emotional investment, not equal with all derogatory terms. It was all about message control by streamlining the verification process more than lexicography. Our lawmaking therein cannot be observed to have had the intention of changing the final dictionary content; therefore, too, general accelerated checks for all demeaning terms were recognized to be unworkable, such that the present term does not come within WT:DEROGATORY. Fay Freak (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

As Overlordnat says, there's surely no shortage of citations where someone who asserts that he is not a neo-Nazi is nonetheless called a neo-Nazi by someone else, in the same way it is trivial to find people calling various liberal or left-wing capitalists (in the US Democratic Party, etc) "communists" or "socialists", or (as discussed at RFD recently) to find certain people calling LGBT people "groomers", or calling a fake Rolex "real", or calling real information "fake news" ... I think I agree with others above that the issue is not whether this is attested per se, but that it should (arguably) be deleted regardless. - -sche (discuss) 23:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

immacuble

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

occasional error for Template:M. a pre-Web example here, but otherwise seems pretty much uncitable. however note the readily attested (if obsolete) Template:M, which we don't have yet ragweed theater _{talk, user} 16:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

phytozome

Template:Movedfrom all attestations I can find are for the comparative platform for green plant genomics Phytozome, no usage of phytozome as a name for plant genomes. Anatol Rath (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Move to RFV. Inqilābī 15:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Did the RfV move get lost in the mail? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Failed Father of minus 2 (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Moved to RFV, of course. Ultimateria (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

capiscist

Added yesterday by 2001:4479:5705:E700:DE8:E4CA:D279:3D02 to Template:M as an alternative form but there is nothing on Google Books. J3133 (talk) 07:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

parabaptism

According to the OED (which has one quotation from a dictionary defining the word), “Obsolete. rare. Apparently only attested in dictionaries or glossaries.” J3133 (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

parabaptization

A synonym, also “Obsolete. rare.” in the OED (with only one quotation). J3133 (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

start

Rfv-sense: A handle, especially that of a plough. Provincial, apparently Father of minus 2 (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Shitsrael

Template:Derogatory — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Failed. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Shitsraeli

Template:Derogatory — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Failed. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

sand snake

Rfv-sense: "A wisp of sand blowing across the ice."

Uncited. Very poetic, poorly worded for a dictionary. DCDuring (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

GLOW

"Girls living off welfare". Zero Google hits for GLOW plus this quoted phrase. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:C50E:411F:93D2:A255 22:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I also cannot find GLOW with welfare, anti-feminist (see below), or other seemingly relevant terms.

I checked out the acronym Template:M, which is listed as "see also". This appears to have been the creation of a "men's rights" / anti-feminist organization around 2006. The entry was created in June 2006, glossed as both "men going their own way" and "maximum gross take-off weight". The men's rights group might be defunct; the url of their discussion forum, menforjustice.net (originally mgtow.net), currently hosts an advertisement in Thai for what appears to be slot machines.

Like MGTOW ("maximum gross take-off weight"), both GLOW and GLOM have aviation-related meanings: "gross lift-off weight" and "-mass", respectively. This feels like an in-group joke.

At any rate, I cannot verify GLOW or GLOM in the sense "girls living off X". The page Citations:MGTOW does, however, have sufficient citations of that acronym, mostly online but also in print media. Cnilep (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

betager

Hot word from 2021 meaning beta reader cum manager. I cannot find a single occurrence, though it may be used on Archive of Our Own, a fan fiction site where the supposed coiner seems to be active. (The site requires sign-up, which I am not motivated to do.) Even if it is, however, the word would need independent attestation as well. Cnilep (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

RFV-failed Cnilep (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

staw

be fixed, stay. OED has quotes, but probably not matching this defn Father of minus 2 (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

esguard

Only appearing in the Knight of Malta.--85.48.185.209 19:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

euchymy

Untagged

Cited. This appears in loads of 18th century dictionaries, but no papers I could find from that era. It does appear, however, in at least one medical book and metaphorically in some (IMHO rather florid) work from the 20th. I added two mentions for history and three uses for attestation. Cnilep (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

RFV-passed. Cnilep (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

pervert

English noun sense 1. 67.209.129.159 14:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Cited. A very important and basic historical sense. The sexual use of the word is more modern. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:DCF2:CDF7:FC1F:D3F 16:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

RFV-passed This, that and the other (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

cursable

Very bad or hateful; accursed; damnable. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:DCF2:CDF7:FC1F:D3F 15:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

exacinate

Although exacination does exist --85.48.185.26 09:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

All I’m seeing for exacinationis mentions in word books and typos/scannos for examination. Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

strany

Uncitable bsolete bird name, number 686 Vipgame321 (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I haven't found any clear uses yet, but OED provides three mentions of it as a name for the guillemot or a particular variety thereof:

1804 Thomas Bewick, History of British Birds, vol. II, p. 188: "The Foolish Guillemot. Willock, skout, kiddaw, lavy, seahen, or strany. (Uria Troile, Lath.—Le Guillemot, Buff.) This Guillemot is a plump, heavy bird in proportion to its size..."
1833 George Montagu, James Rennie, Ornithological Dictionary of British Birds (new edition): p. 502: "Straney.—A name for the Guillemot."
1896 Alfred Newton, A Dictionary of Birds, p. 398: "Around the coasts of Britain it is variously known as the Frowl, Kiddaw or Skiddaw, Langy (cf. Icelandic. Langvia), Lavy, Marrock, Murre, Scout (cf. Coot and Scoter), Scuttock, Strany, Tinker or Tinkershire, and Willock."

There are similar examples; Charles Alexander Johns, Birds in Their Haunts, various editions; Encyclopedia Britannica, 1910; etc. Unfortunately, while the word may appear in works using local dialect from Britain, but is difficult to search for because "Straney" is also a surname, and a book search for the word by itself turns up people with that name. If you add the word "guillemot", you're selecting for dictionaries, and excluding uses. "Strany bird" might be less dictionarian, but it's unlikely anyone would call one that, any more than we would search for "wren bird" or "chickadee bird". AI will find recent things, but probably not literary uses, since this combination won't appear in books. Searching under "strany", I note Tim Birkhead, Great Auk Islands (2010), p. 124: "The terms 'strang' and 'strany' were Scottish names for the Common Guillemot or Razorbill (Lockwood 1984; see also Appendix 1)..." So I suspect this may be citable, but it will take more time and effort. P Aculeius (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:Reply did you try searching for potential plural forms? That sometimes helps. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I did now, but I'm not having any luck. Still a lot of names, and a word in Polish. I'm beginning to think that a lot of dialect words don't make it into print outside of dictionaries or guides. But maybe someone else will have more luck. P Aculeius (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Tamil Pokkisham

Indian political thing. Can't find much. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:D8D8:8AE7:2BDD:6149 10:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

003

Transgender sense. 109.145.141.176 22:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

What is the number even supposed to refer to? Googling "003" transgender turns up nothing of use. This, that and the other (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Based on the creator's other contributions, Template:M. Ultimateria (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

004

Transgender sense. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:D8D8:8AE7:2BDD:6149 22:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

lordgirl

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

deucebag

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

fabbot

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

infusibility

Etymology 2: “Capability of being infused, poured in, or instilled”; “rare” in the OED, with only “in N. Webster, American Dictionary of English Language ; and in mod. Dicts.” J3133 (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

funkface

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

expurgatorious

Sole use in Milton's work--85.48.186.228 11:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

extradictionary

Sole use in Browne's work --85.48.186.228 20:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

barefooter

Rfv-sense A member of the barefoot movement; a person who chooses not to wear shoes or socks.

Sense not established. I could see it being used to refer to someone who habitually goes barefoot, so we could leave the second part of the definition, but I couldnt find three cites in print media even for that looser sense. They're all about waterskiing apart from a couple of unclear uses which I don't have access to the necessary context to understand (and some of the books arent readable at all). —Soap— 21:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I see a reasonable smattering of hits on general Google search for "barefooter" -waterskiing -skiing. Term definitely seems to exist (agree we could possibly lose the first part of the definiton), but I don't know exactly where we are on citing "random Internet content". See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_barefooters. Huh! Mihia (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

spatial computing

Rfv-term "Template:L". 67.209.130.155 13:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

famulist

An inferior student at Oxford Uni. I would expect this to be easily cited, but alas no --90.174.3.113 13:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

fascinous

Caused by witchcraft. I sense there is meaning of evil, or fascinating. --90.174.3.113 13:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Now has 3 cites. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E8F4:FC55:BA05:C287 13:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

tide

RFV sense "Something which changes like the tides of the sea."

Such as?

(Note "changes like", i.e. rises and falls with a regular periodicity, not to be confused with something being like the tide because it is a flow or current, which is covered by other senses.) Mihia (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

fauces

Rfv zoology sense --90.174.3.113 19:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Cited. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E8F4:FC55:BA05:C287 22:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

fellinic

Only appears as fellinic acid. What should we do in these cases? --90.174.3.113 19:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Could use Template:Template. Mihia (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

yapacholic

Not widely used. Ioaxxere (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The user has now added 2 references, but they both support yapaholic (no c in the middle) so this was clearly added as a misspelling and needs to be moved. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:F8CB:CED2:10CA:A3B 12:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

atpatruus

Latin only? I'm seeing a lot of dictionaries. Ultimateria (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

fermillet

Only other citations are in French--90.174.3.113 08:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

fetuous

Nonce word--90.174.3.113 08:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

stime

Probably Scots. Vipgame321 (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

stokey

Just in some crappy old dialect dictionaries Vipgame321 (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

March 2025

geck

Rfv-sense Scorn; derision; contempt. Vipgame321 (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

botsplaining

Not a term in wide use- just sourced to some tweets and a Hacker News comment. ScienceFlyer (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

tonitrocirrus

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

intergern

A Template:Ping special Father of minus 2 (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Schwarzschild density

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Schwarzschild density:

Looks well attested to me. DCDuring (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

They have different values. I'm not sure there is a single consistent value that can be attested across multiple works. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Then edit that part out. In such theoretical physics a few orders of magnitude doesn't seem to get people upset anyway. DCDuring (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The current definition does not make sense; it has dimension

𝖬 𝖫^{- 𝟣}

(mass/length), whereas a density should have dimension

𝖬 𝖫^{- 𝟥}

(mass/volume). A definition found in the literature that does make sense is: the mass of a black hole divided by the volume of its Schwarzschild sphere, where the latter is defined as a sphere whose radius is the Schwarzschild radius.^[85][86] ‑‑Lambiam 13:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

OTOH, errors in dimensional analsys do get theoretical physicists upset. An entry quality improvement to be celebrated. DCDuring (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

wager

“Template:Lb A wager is a judicial prejudice constituted by acknowledgement of power.” This sense added on 15 January by MystMage (edit summary: “While description of a wager as an oath by law is trepidation of its existence (it is valid valuable and a wager comprises an oath) it does not have any necessary rapture of the power of denomination for illicit bargains or illegal possession of commerce. (An oath cannot become complex by every valiant actor; which any wager could be done through)”) has come to my attention because the only other edit by this user was made today, replacing the cited and referenced definition on Template:M with “meaning genuine of militant crucible.” (edit summary: “i erased your made up definition”). J3133 (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Looks like a candidate for a SPEEDY. DCDuring (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The constitution of verficationalism is intrinsically bound to an assumption of semantic content with respect to the phraseology employed in the exposition of a presumptive sense, which is sadly absent in the present obfuscation, which can only direct us to the conclusion that any hope, however faint, of a diligent search revealing instances of uses of said sense must be foregone and that eventual deletion is inevitable, with which, in my opinion, one should make haste. ‑‑Lambiam 22:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Speedily deleted with agreement. J3133 (talk) 07:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

glaver

Rfv-sense To prate; to jabber; to babble. Vipgame321 (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

strale

Sense pupil. Well, and sense arrow, for kicks. Wars at my door (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

strockle

Just in glossaries etc. ?Wars at my door (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

strull

A bar placed so as to resist weight. OED suggests nope Wars at my door (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

stulty

Didn't survive into modern English Wars at my door (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Added 2 cites. Leasnam (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

stylometer

An instrument for measuring columns. How would it measure columns anyhow? Besides, there is clearly a thing called a stylometer, in the world of science (unsure what it does). And this is used informally for a gauge of how stylish something is, like a coolometer. Also, stylometry is something quite different. Wars at my door (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

It might be an engineering device similar to a caliper or a compass. Probably related to the subject of this 1661–1662 tract, which appears to discuss the various orders of columns and uses the word, though I'm not sure whether I can find a discussion of it in English. Not in the original OED, but in Webster and The Century Dictionary. There's a technical use probably unrelated to columns here (1997). Looks like something to do with chemistry, but I can't tell exactly what kind of instrument it is. This (1957) probably refers to the same thing, though I can't be sure from the snippet view. I think this snippet (1970) might explain it: a photoelectric device used to measure chemical spectra. I see two or three other hits on Google Books that appear to be the same kind of thing used in physics. Here (2014) a stylometer appears to be an instrument for measuring, calibrating, or testing a stylus. Same word, different type of instrument. This seems clearly related to the first use, measuring (or perhaps describing) columns; the photoelectric device seems to be etymologically related, though I'm not sure of the exact details. P Aculeius (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

subdulcid

Just one quote found: subdulcid , and agreeable nature Wars at my door (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

subhastation

Not seeing English Wars at my door (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

lemoga

Rfv-sense

We have 5 citations... but they're all just quoting the same source. Any citations for "lemoga" that aren't referring specifically to Armathwaite Hall (which I think would fail WT:BRAND, since it's just a name they're using to promote their courses) Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

foggage

Rfv-sense verb --85.48.185.123 14:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

"Foggaging" is all over Google Books: did you try searching? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:381E:5671:C85F:C72 14:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

retigga

Template:Derogatory

Seemingly Urban Dictionary cruft. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:381E:5671:C85F:C72 15:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Online-only cites are easily available, but it's difficult and dirty work. This, that and the other (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

love

The process of supporting all conscious beings in living the way they desire to live, without intentional harm, abuse, neglect, deprivation, indifference, negativity or greed expressed towards anyone, including the self.

“... love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence.” (Erich Fromm, 1956)

This sense was added on 15 February by Lover of Humankind (“added def. of love c/ quote”), but apparently has not been disputed (including an out-of-place blockquote). J3133 (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Seems to be a direct quote from one Chiboola Malaambo, according to his website https://www.readytochange.life/. Potentially a copyvio, but in any case not a dictionary definition. -insert valid name here- (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Lover of Humankind

A.

INTERNET ARCHIVE WAYBACK MACHINE

https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/READYTOCHANGE.LIFE

/web/20250318090702/https://www.readytochange.life/

B.

(C. Malaambo MD, 2023, p. 11)

C. Malaambo MD, (2023) Quantum Love Theory. Chiboola Malaambo MD Publishing, page 11. https://www.lulu.com/shop/chiboola-malaambo-md-and-chiboola-malaambo-md-and-audrey-higbee-msn/quantum-love-theory/ebook/product-kv8reje.html?page=1&pageSize=4

C.

(C. Malaambo MD, (May 17, 2023, at Prologue)

C. Malaambo MD, (2023). Quanta. Chiboola Malaambo MD Publishing.

May 17, 2023, at Prologue

Kindle Edition

https://www.amazon.com/Quanta-Chiboola-Malaambo-MD-ebook/dp/B0C5M1MMQ5/ref=sr_1_1?crid=18UL8Y0TMY6KH&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.8G9BDeMneFCLESnqZBielw.GW_gUNW9aosr8Aub_HvehiNBrngA6CwwlR6S6kqvB3E&dib_tag=se&keywords=chiboola+malaambo+books+quanta&qid=1742296554&sprefix=chiboola+malaambo+books+quanta,aps,501&sr=8-1

D.

(C. Malaambo MD, May 10, 2023, p.1)

C. Malaambo MD, (May 10, 2023). An 8 Word Dictionary of the Master of Love. Chiboola Malaambo MD Publishing.

Kindle Edition

https://www.amazon.com/Word-Dictionary-Mastery-Love-ebook/dp/B0C4ZP4SBN/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2UYHKE9PYNONJ&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.y2n0YqFMkaahHiUhrzLwZQ.8Ran-cLtLBeppTBaZYv5UNX_awsqVkKu-lXLIJtU40U&dib_tag=se&keywords=chiboola+malaambo+8+WORD+DICTIONARY&qid=1742297230&sprefix=chiboola+malaambo+8+word+dictionary,aps,364&sr=8-1

(C. Malaambo MD, May 16, 2023, p.1)

C. Malaambo MD and L. Deal (May 16, 2023). MWE, A Science Based Preschool Model Designed to Make the World Better for Everyone

Chiboola Malaambo MD Publishing.

Kindle Edition

https://www.amazon.com/MWE-Latonya-Deal-ebook/dp/B0C5HKBVYL/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2LJREOB74437F&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.RLC-Cs-Hr3LK3hizwrr8Aw.GdbpICGQjXhjMN4W4cfU2M5G799-4Y_QtsaE0SWwBCU&dib_tag=se&keywords=chiboola+malaambo+MWE&qid=1742297492&sprefix=chiboola+malaambo+mw,aps,509&sr=8-1 180.249.106.103 11:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

A.

INTERNET ARCHIVE WAYBACK MACHINE

https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/READYTOCHANGE.LIFE

/web/20250318090702/https://www.readytochange.life/

B.

(C. Malaambo MD, 2023, p. 11)

C. Malaambo MD, (2023) Quantum Love Theory. Chiboola Malaambo MD Publishing, page 11. https://www.lulu.com/shop/chiboola-malaambo-md-and-chiboola-malaambo-md-and-audrey-higbee-msn/quantum-love-theory/ebook/product-kv8reje.html?page=1&pageSize=4

C.

(C. Malaambo MD, (May 17, 2023, at Prologue)

C. Malaambo MD, (2023). Quanta. Chiboola Malaambo MD Publishing.

May 17, 2023, at Prologue

Kindle Edition

https://www.amazon.com/Quanta-Chiboola-Malaambo-MD-ebook/dp/B0C5M1MMQ5/ref=sr_1_1?crid=18UL8Y0TMY6KH&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.8G9BDeMneFCLESnqZBielw.GW_gUNW9aosr8Aub_HvehiNBrngA6CwwlR6S6kqvB3E&dib_tag=se&keywords=chiboola+malaambo+books+quanta&qid=1742296554&sprefix=chiboola+malaambo+books+quanta,aps,501&sr=8-1

D.

(C. Malaambo MD, May 10, 2023, p.1)

C. Malaambo MD, (May 10, 2023). An 8 Word Dictionary of the Master of Love. Chiboola Malaambo MD Publishing.

Kindle Edition

https://www.amazon.com/Word-Dictionary-Mastery-Love-ebook/dp/B0C4ZP4SBN/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2UYHKE9PYNONJ&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.y2n0YqFMkaahHiUhrzLwZQ.8Ran-cLtLBeppTBaZYv5UNX_awsqVkKu-lXLIJtU40U&dib_tag=se&keywords=chiboola+malaambo+8+WORD+DICTIONARY&qid=1742297230&sprefix=chiboola+malaambo+8+word+dictionary,aps,364&sr=8-1

(C. Malaambo MD, May 16, 2023, p.1)

C. Malaambo MD and L. Deal (May 16, 2023). MWE, A Science Based Preschool Model Designed to Make the World Better for Everyone

Chiboola Malaambo MD Publishing.

Kindle Edition

https://www.amazon.com/MWE-Latonya-Deal-ebook/dp/B0C5HKBVYL/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2LJREOB74437F&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.RLC-Cs-Hr3LK3hizwrr8Aw.GdbpICGQjXhjMN4W4cfU2M5G799-4Y_QtsaE0SWwBCU&dib_tag=se&keywords=chiboola+malaambo+MWE&qid=1742297492&sprefix=chiboola+malaambo+mw,aps,509&sr=8-1 180.249.106.103 11:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

pathotic

Rfv-sense:

Caused by or related to disease, pathosis.

There is definitely a missing sense used in rhetoric/discourse analysis (something to do with appealing to the emotions), but a cursory search only turned up that and scannos for "pathetic". Chuck Entz (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:Re I have added you the rhetoric/discourse analysis sense. As for the other usage, I would not believe it—to be more than a mistake of overworked medics not exactly maxxing out their English proficiency—even if it were encountered. It leaves the question, however, what the adjective belonging to pathosis is. Perhaps positively none, this is the point of attestation processes, to exclude theoretical words. Fay Freak (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

palitard

I added a citation page including the first result from Template:Google which is a paper dictionary entry (so a mention, not a use).

For context, https://redd.it/1gz0rpn#lzplpud (archive) mentions creation of this entry by Template:U (presumably in order to document existing usage).

However, the sense I would like verified (#3) is unrelated; this is an Template:Template request. Arlo Barnes (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:Re RFV-closed. This is a mis-OCR for palliard. Else it is frowned upon to add senses which oneself one RFVs, though here I understand your desire for documentation: theoretically you could raise all possible attention and then add a term to Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. Fay Freak (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah, that explains why it was seemingly out of alphabetical order; I didn't catch it because to my eye the 'i' really did resemble a 't' and the 'l' an 'i'. I have moved the citations page to the relevant place. Arlo Barnes (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Jewlensky

Template:Derogatory

The quotations on this term are from Usenet, which is not a reliable source. This is the first word listed in "Derived terms" for the English section of Zelenskyy. I am unable to find any indication that this term is widespread use and question if its existence violates WT:NPOV. Alxeedo (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:Reply It is specifically stated in our criteria for inclusion that “Usenet messages posted on or before 21 February 2024” are acceptable for attestation. J3133 (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:Reply Fair enough. Regardless, as far as I can tell, this term has not been "verified through use in durably archived media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year..." Alxeedo (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:Re If a word is used every other day on various social-media services (we don’t include site-specific words or other universe-specific words), in some corners of which you too expect it, it also suffices, per the passage added by Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-01/Handling of citations that do not meet our current definition of permanently archived, materially repealing the passage you refer to by the Template:W rule, because people used their lockdown time to move against most accessible words. Usenet is not really the reason why we have this or any word. Just informing you since you have entered with a Wikipedia frame, that this will pass with some Reddit, X, or Telegram, or potentially YouTube audio quotes (if somebody dares say it with his face aloud), which indeed need to be included per WT:DEROGATORY, another passage added in the same year against site abuse you might imagine. Fay Freak (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:Re I see, thank you for the historical context. This all makes sense. I will try to more carefully understand the guidelines of Wiktionary since I have received a decent amount of feedback at this point that I am putting the cart before the horse with some of my attempts to fix or remediate some perceived issues. I can withdraw this RFV if that is permitted. Alxeedo (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

A third quote from Usenet even has been added, so this is RFV-passed anyway.

Thank you for your understanding, Template:Ping. As you might imagine, due to mere niche acquaintance of the public with this project, as opposed to the brand Wikipedia—most people are interested in facts and not wording, Template:W or Template:W etc.—, the manpower accumulating here is much scarcer than we would like it, compare the size of Wiktionary:Administrators/List of administrators vs. w:Wikipedia:List of administrators, about a twentieth, and many restrict themselves to foreign languages needing coverage even more since we are somewhat complete after twenty years in English, leaving here cynically exhausted hardballers and like two men at a time and some driveby for many a popular language, however we hold it as a vantage that with such interest “reliability” of publications, if not of the edition of a text per se, has no bearing, for we aren’t writing biographies of living persons. We are writing the etymological dictionaries nobody has written (for all languages of the Near East to some degree!) and man is sticking his neck out with all this doomscrolling (another word almost no dictionary has) while learning about diverse kinds of social grievances and preparing for the bar exam: basically I watch out here to make sure changes do not falsify achievements in our coverage and developments don’t go worse and to teach motivated young people: unfortunately you see backlogs either way, but yet we are not too much confused about what we include and it is easier and more sustainable to contribute here than in Wikipedia’s jungle of bureaucracy and suspicious interests, if you only get the idea! Fay Freak (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:Re The Armenian etymologies link is fascinating; thanks for this. Will try to learn more and contribute where I can. Alxeedo (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Greetings Alexeedo,

Thank you for your input and understanding. I'm very sorry about my demeaning and uncouth tone that I used towards you in the discussion page under Zelenskyy. mysteryroom (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:Re No worries at all. Apologies from my end as well -- I came in with bias of my own and misused WT:NPOV. I was thinking from a BLP standpoint which does not apply outside of Wikipedia. That is my fault. Will be more considerate from now on. Alxeedo (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

No problem at all. Sorry again for my uncouthness. Wishing you health and happiness. mysteryroom (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

quoddamodotative

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

samesexer

Even the hyphenated form seems dubious, but this one is really pushing it. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:BD8F:976:A4DC:6C26 21:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

If one fancies, Google Books has more than enough quotes. Some might see better previews than I do on my German machine. [[Special:Diff/80727272/84174297|Template:Tq]] never was a good reason, what do you think a dictionary is for, other than to tell you things you haven’t heard or read. Fay Freak (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

To adjudicate Scrabble games mainly. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:BD8F:976:A4DC:6C26 22:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

grunkle

"Attested from 1825." I doubt it Ioaxxere (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Cited although 1825 seems a clear error (I find the word "grunkle" in some old dictionaries, but as a dialectal term for a snout). Rather morbidly, it's most easily citeable from obituaries. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

(Have moved the main lemma to gruncle, since that's far more used. The spelling "grunkle" is overwhelmingly Template:W fandom.) Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

number three

Rfv-sense; this seems an obvious extension from number one and number two, but does it really meet CFI beyond being an easy nonce coinage? Courtesy ping, @User:HildaSimp. 🌙🐇 ^⠀talk⠀ ^{⠀contribs⠀} 18:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

gabarage

Only dictionaries --85.48.185.77 14:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

gaddish

Adjective. There seems to be another meaning related to Judaism--85.48.185.77 18:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

successary

Nonce word? Jin and Tonik (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

succision

Nonce word, just used by Bacon Jin and Tonik (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

gargil

Distemper in geese.--90.174.3.25 09:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

garookuh

Fishing vessel. It probably has other spellings --90.174.3.25 09:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

affrayment

not much Jin and Tonik (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

padow

Toad Jin and Tonik (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

gripe

Rfv 3 nautical senses --85.48.185.67 13:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

grise

Rfv-sense a pig --85.48.185.67 13:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

OED has this spelling as a variant of Template:M Leasnam (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

grossulin

A vegetable jelly. It is certainly some substance, but "vegetable jelly" doesn't look like the right definition. My guess is it is an old word for something with another name--85.48.185.67 14:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Pectin is the ingredient that makes jelly gel, so "vegetable jelly" isn't that far off the mark. A number of 19th-century reference works in Google Books state that grossulin is a synonym for pectin. I'm sure some scientist found a gelatinous substance in gooseberry fruit that later was shown to be the same as pectin, and the name was forgotten. I would label it as an obsolete synonym of "pectin". Chuck Entz (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

gulist

A glutton--85.48.185.67 18:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Berlin

Rfv-sense Fine worsted for fancywork; zephyr worsted. Berlin worsted is citable tho Father of minus 2 (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Added 3 cites. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:35B6:BA4F:9DE7:52D2 22:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Passed Father of minus 2 (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

squirmish

Ety 2, "skirmish". Usual tosh by this IP; all quotes given are mentions. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Cited. 2601:240:8002:E690:9995:D46C:8193:D473 02:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The noun under etymology 2 is cited but not the verb. Also, could etymology 1 not be 'squirm+squeamish' rather than 'squirm+ish'? -Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

to-burst

Carry-over from [toburst] above, which failed verification. Leasnam (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

xanadu

A grayish-green colour. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:11A0:2DBE:F4B2:929F 18:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

This will surely fail WT:BRAND as it is a type of green paint produced only by Resene, a New Zealand company. This link[87] claims that it was used in Paul Klee’s ‘art’ but that is impossible as the ‘artwork’ in question was produced in 1922 and the NZ company was founded in 1951! Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

It was dropped in WT:REE and I said no. Then someone dropped it again. We need better hygiene. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:6439:7FE9:917C:AB93 00:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

guttersnipe

Rfv-sense poster?? for a kerbstone --90.174.3.109 19:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

hake

Rfv-sense loiter --90.174.3.109 09:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

heep

Hip of the dog rose. It is probably just an old spelling of hip. --85.48.185.87 09:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

femcel

Sense 2: "(loosely, Internet, slang, ironic) A woman associated with and/or adjacent to the incel 'aesthetic', 'vibe', or other connotations."

Looks like this might reflect actual in-the-wild usage (Template:M seems to be an oft-ironic TikTok phenomenon) but it needs to be backed up by cites demonstrating usage distinct from the "involuntarily celibate woman" sense. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 12:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

suffraginous

nonce word Ungreaaseddish (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

OED has 5 quotations 122.56.85.105 21:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

telarly

nonce word Ungreaaseddish (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

suggillate

Rfv-sense To beat livid, or black and blue. Citeable, but probably meaning to bruise Ungreaaseddish (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

OED has one use as a verb: "Arminius paved his way first by aspersing and sugillating the fame and authority of Calvin. / J. Trapp, Commentary Evangelists & Acts (Acts xxi. 28)" Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

superconsequence

Nonce word? Ungreaaseddish (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

swinebread

Truffle. Only found as the swine-bread plant Ungreaaseddish (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

tangfish

seal. Mentions in dialect books. The tang (another fish) possibly has this name Ungreaaseddish (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

henfish

Rfv-sense young bib --90.174.3.169 08:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

hieron

Temple --90.174.3.169 09:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

hernani

Any real-world usage or just a dictionary word? It's not even much of a dictionary word; it was copied here from Webster 1913, but it isn't listed in Webster's Third. Can someone check what the OED has to say about it? —Mahāgaja · talk 12:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:Reply the OED doesn't have an entry for this word. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

So it might even be a nihilartikel. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Added 3 cites with no trouble from GBooks. We will be a poor dictionary if we say "not in the OED, can't be a word" without checking. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:C9B5:DFF3:D287:C6E5 18:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

not worth salt

This doesn't seem right, I think it should have "one's" inserted, as in Template:M. I'm not sure whether it's worth keeping it. DonnanZ (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:Reply probably best to list this at RFD. I, too, think it should be deleted as redundant to worth one's salt. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:Reply Yes, I thought about that, it's a toss-up. If it can't be verified, it can be deleted here. DonnanZ (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:Reply ah. Does it ever occur in the positive form worth salt? If so, maybe move it to that form. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe but it's very scarce. DCDuring (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

greengate

(Scotland) A greenway. I cannot find it outside of place names. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:C9B5:DFF3:D287:C6E5 18:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that OED has an entry under green gate labelled "rare (now Scottish)" with only two quotations, one dated c. 1540 and the other a mention in a 1988 glossary called Orkney Wordbook. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

It's possibly from Template:Cog, the Concise Scots Dictionary doesn't help though. DonnanZ (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

supersalient

Meaning leaping upon. There's a missing meaning out there though Father of minus 2 (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

commonitive

"Nonce. Just Hall?" —What WF would have said if he remembered to list this page after tagging. Ultimateria (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

homiletical

Rfv-sense companionable --84.78.16.7 09:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

OED has three uses from the 1600s. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

time machine

Rfv-sense: a bed

Uh, what? I can find one possible usage, although in context it seems clearly like a joke, not a lexical term:

Template:Quote-book

Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

xenotransgraft

Cannot find 122.56.85.105 21:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

shonk

Sense 3: a shark. Maybe this is some Internet meme joke sense like "puppers" being dogs, but I dunno. Convince me. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:6439:7FE9:917C:AB93 00:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

hyrse

Old term for millet. Mentioned in old dictionaries --84.78.23.109 13:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

ichthyopterygium

Rfv-sense: The typical limb, or lateral fin, of fishes. The term was used, but is now archaic, and referred to a fin in the evolutionary stage. Besides, we don't have a fish definition for limb, and typical fin is a poor definition. --84.78.23.109 19:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Testwiki:Requests for verification/English

May 2023

June 2023

July 2023

Hospital Emergency Codes

August 2023

September 2023

October 2023

November 2023

December 2023

January 2024

peritonaeums

February 2024

methanolic (noun)

↑, ↓

March 2024

April 2024