Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for verification English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Reconstruction add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/Others add new request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other namespaces, such as appendices, templates and modules.	Language treatment requests add new request | history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, mergers and splits.
		Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new request | history | archives Discussion of proposed moves, mergers and splits of entries or other pages.	Category and label treatment requests add new request | history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's categories or labels, including additions, deletions, renames, mergers and splits.
		Requests for cleanup add new request | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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

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.

Overview: This page is for disputing the existence of terms or senses. It is for requests for attestation of a term or a sense, leading to deletion of the term or a sense unless an editor proves that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in Criteria for inclusion, usually by providing citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic or “sum of parts” should be posted to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. Requests to confirm that a certain etymology is correct should go in the Etymology scriptorium, and requests to confirm pronunciation is correct should go in the Tea Room.

Adding a request: To add a request for verification (attestation), add the template {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new section here. Those who would seek attestation after the term or sense is nominated will appreciate your doing at least a cursory check for such attestation before nominating it: Google Books is a good place to check, others are listed here (WT:SEA).

Answering a request by providing an attestation: To attest a disputed term, i.e. prove that the term is actually used and satisfies the requirement of attestation as specified in inclusion criteria, do one of the following:

• Assert that the term is in clearly widespread use. (If this assertion is not obviously correct, or is challenged by multiple editors, it will likely be ignored, necessitating the following step.)
• Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year. (Many languages are subject to other requirements; see WT:CFI.)

In any case, advise on this page that you have placed the citations on the entry page.

Recording negative findings: Editors who make a fair effort to find citations but fail to do so should state their negative result on this page (even if it only repeats another editor's negative result).

Closing a request: After a discussion has sat for more than a month without being “cited”, or after a discussion has been “cited” for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed. Closing a discussion normally consists of the following actions:

• Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
• Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFV-failed or RFV-passed (emboldened), indicating what action was taken. This makes automatic archiving possible. Some editors strike out the discussion header at this time.
  In some cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply “RFV-failed” or “RFV-passed”; for example, two senses may have been nominated, of which only one was cited (in which case indicate which one passed and which one failed), or the sense initially RFVed may have been replaced with something else (some editors use RFV-resolved for such situations).

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

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: "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. 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 --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

@Andrew Sheedy 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)Reply

@Geographyinitiative: 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)Reply

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)Reply

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 accidental. 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 @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.

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 general power of competence 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 Peace of Westphalia. E.g. of this legal literature calling it thus restricted: Johannes Hellermann (1994) “Multikulturalität und Grundrechte – am Beispiel der Religionsfreiheit”, in C. Grabenwarter, editor, Allgemeinheit der Grundrechte und Vielfalt der Gesellschaft: 34. Tagung der Wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter der Fachrichtung „Öffentliches Recht“‎, Stuttgart: Boorberg, pages 129–144; Gerhard Czermak, Eric Hilgendorf (2018) Religions- und Weltanschauungsrecht‎, Berlin: Springer, →DOI, margin numbers 131–134. 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)Reply

@Fay Freak 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)Reply

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)Reply

@Andrew Sheedy: 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 factual claims are treated the same in general language: Fact–value distinction. 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 A Bathing Ape 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 gottgläubig to be in the SS.

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)Reply

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)Reply

@Equinox: 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 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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

@Al-Muqanna 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)Reply

@Andrew Sheedy: 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 Buddhist deities—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)Reply

@Al-Muqanna: 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)Reply

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 antireligion" is an accurate statement 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)Reply

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)Reply

@-sche 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)Reply

Connected to the preceding:

1. I doubt that "(obsolete) Absence of belief in the One True God, defined by Moore as personal, immaterial and trinitarian (thus Islam, Judaism and unitarian Christianity), as opposed to monotheism." is distinct from the sense right before it, viz. "absence of belief in a particular deity, notwithstanding belief in other deities",
2. and the sense "(sometimes proscribed) A rejection of all religions, even non-theistic ones." 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)Reply

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)Reply

Comment: FWIW, I know an agnostic on the CBB (a conlanging forum I frequent) who has his religion on his Indian ID card listed as "atheist", because "agnostic" isn't one of the options India recognizes on its ID form. Khemehekis (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would say that censuses and ID cards worded with ‘religion’ on them with ‘atheist’ as an option are sloppily worded but nonetheless go to show that ‘atheism/atheist’ has long been contrasted in many people’s minds with religious belief, whether than involves a belief in a God or Gods or not. That fact and the great many quotes we already have on the citations pages mean that there should be absolutely no doubt that these senses exist. The only dodgy sense is the overly precise one talking about ‘trinitarianism’. Perhaps a more general sense of ‘the lack of belief in the existence of a particular God or Gods or the tenets of a particular religion’ could be supported, though such a sense would seem to me to be a pedantic way of saying that a lack of belief in a God or gods is impossible as God exists as a CONCEPT in the minds of the religious even if not in reality. I shall remove this overly pedantic and specific sense that no one likes for now but we really should’ve passed the other senses a very long time ago. Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• code black • code blue • code brown • code grey • code orange • code pink • code red • code silver • code white • code yellow

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, code blue 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)Reply

• More info at Hospital emergency codes, 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)Reply

  @John Cross looks like you made the template, do you have some expertise to share here? - TheDaveRoss 17:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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. "A hospital code, signalling any of various situations, varying from hospital to hospital"? 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)Reply

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)Reply

As it has had no cites for over a year, and I did not spot any (which looked to be using any of the medical senses we listed in a lexical and idiomatic way), I have deleted code black's four definitions; I have also deleted code pink's two definitions as uncited (when I searched, I could only find the capitalized organization name Code Pink); the other codes remain to be dealt with. Deleting any which still don't have cites would allow us to sidestep the issue, though it would not really solve the issue. - -sche (discuss) 15:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Code white exemplifies what OP (and I) said, that most of these have no set meaning, as these books use it for disparate things. And this defines code silver as an active shooter, not merely a weapon being seen. - -sche (discuss) 15:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I couldn't find any relevant uses of "code orange" in the sense we gave (and can find mentions of a variety of other definitions); it's been uncited for over a year, so: RFV-failed. It's the same with "code grey": of these four uses-and-mentions, one means fog, one means weather (such as a hurricane), one means "plane wreck, earthquake, bombing" and one is opaque. As OP said, most of these seem to have no set meaning. - -sche (discuss) 02:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

‘Code red’ can also refer to a woman’s period, as in this Jamaican song (‘And yuh never sex a gyal when she under code red’). Overlordnat1 (talk) 04:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

That doesn't surprise me. 'Lay' meanings seem easier to attest as idiomatic / lexical than the various meanings that hospitals have officially assigned to their 'code red', 'code pink', 'level 3', 'level 4', etc. Indeed, the cites of "code red" in reference to hospitals that I can find often highlight how many different definitions it has, e.g. among EMTs vs hospitals, or among different hospitals, since some seem to use it in the way that led to the usual lay meaning, of a critical emergency. BTW, is anyone familiar with sense 2, "(Canada, US) An extrajudicial punishment."? - -sche (discuss) 08:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

RFV-failed Jberkel 16:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

There’s a YouTube clip of ‘ponderosa’ being said in that dreadful Basketball Wives show here and searching for ’have a ponderosa with’ produces two Instagram hits and one comments section of a website (lipstickalley.com) that no longer seems to contain the comment in question. I could also find two hits on FB where people talk about BW using the word in that context but that’s it (though your link to ‘Jackie herself’ defining the term doesn’t work for me). Probably too rare and not durably archived enough to pass. Overlordnat1 (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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. PUC – 12:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

ignorance of the law is no excuse is arguably SOP, but ignorantia juris non excusat is not (in English). As ever, the question is whether terms are citable. Theknightwho (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

"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)Reply

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: French nul n'est censé ignorer la loi, German Unwissenheit schützt vor Strafe nicht, and probably others. PUC – 19:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Rfv-sense Synonym of annoyance. Really? Theknightwho (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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)Reply

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 Stow'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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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:

• https://podcasts.apple.com/no/podcast/podkast-mot-alle-odds/id939436054?i=1000391775882
• https://no.linkedin.com/posts/j%C3%B8rgen-m%C3%B8klebust-austvik_fndagene-fnsb%C3%A6rekraftsm%C3%A5l-activity-6991767768089903104-9BpD
• https://www.hunden.no/blogg/innlegg/50706/It-s-not-only-only/
• https://kartarkiv.nydalen.idrett.no/show_map.php?user=Halvoren&map=7151
• https://sykkelmagasinet.no/aktuelt/en-knust-drom-om-topp-30/
• https://www.instagram.com/p/CyG_dlZr4ZX/?img_index=1

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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:

1. (algebra) Of a substructure of finite index.

   virtually indicable

2. (topology) Of a covering space of finite index.

   virtually Haken

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

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

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)Reply

@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)Reply

DCDuring, I've added an {{lb|en|algebra}} sense to ] and adjusted these definitions of ] slightly. I think it's okay now. Please let me know if you disagree.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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)Reply

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 endenizen 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)Reply

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 " 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 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)Reply

@-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 (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 vagir (“to wail, as a baby”) has been translated as vagitate to maintain the resemblance to vagina. We are to link vagitate to vagitus and vagient, and ultimately to Latin vāgiō.

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)Reply

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)Reply

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 google:"agitated gears" or "variable gears"? On the other hand ... the text is odd — the next sentences are "Triptic may be an annex, albeit a distant one, of the Alamüte-Megalopolis, but I'm uncertain everywhere ... an empty vessel ... a king's ransom ... a three-legged bitch. The Telos-5200 cruises down the lining of my metal-trousers, conforming to the bent posture of my leg and fastening down its length. It sticks into my groin on recharge like I always imagined hot pokers might feel if carried on the wings of bluebottle flies that live in the folds of an octogenerian's crotch. As I droop in the setting sun, dreaming of the Big Dipper, the ovoid Pox Roman burns into my retina, a memory, recalled from glimpses of recalled posters. Aries is ascendant now, and like Moses, I feel horns mistranslated on my head. The dim, incommoded peacekeepers barter their way around the grafts and chasms that form the looped, meandering people-weave outside "The Tertiary Panel" maingates. In a sense they appear human, but then, in a sense, doesn't everyone ... " — 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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 bunting. This, that and the other (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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)Reply

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 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)Reply

I think sense 2 at sobby is actually a mistake for soggy. 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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 overlook). The other senses are very questionable. This, that and the other (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Failed Abraham suit. I can't find any uses, and mentions give varying definitions. - -sche (discuss) 03:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Failed do Abram. (Eventually probably need to RFV Abram, for its old criminal slang senses.) - -sche (discuss) 15:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I can't find uses of Abraham sham and can only find one use of Abram sham. - -sche (discuss) 15:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

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". PUC – 11:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

• BTW, Wiktionary's definitions for fee are featured at “fee”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., 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)Reply

"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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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:

1. An amount charged in return for permission to do something, especially something ancillary to the purchase of a product or service.

   late fee, booking fee, entry fee, membership fee, drivers' license fee, television license fee

2. A fixed rate or price charged for (chiefly white-collar) professional services.

   lawyers' fees, tuition fee, bank fees

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)Reply

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)Reply

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))Reply

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

OK, the homographic adjective makes searching tedious (e.g., both of these could be adjectival) but I have added two cites where methanolic (singular) is clearly a noun; this is a third if accurate, but I can't see the snippet to confirm that Google has OCRed it correctly. Nonetheless, the later two of the three plural cites (which confirm that this can be a noun) seem to be using a regular plural of which methanolic is the expected lemma form, so I'm inclined to hit this with a "chiefly in the plural" and pass it. - -sche (discuss) 04:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

@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)Reply

Hi This, that and the other, 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)Reply

@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)Reply

Hi This, that and the other, 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

• failed+deleted TypeO889 (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Not sure about this. The entry has been changed since last year, and ayy lmao has been created. This makes me think the entry is more more reasonable, and there is a reasonable amount of usage on Reddit, Twitter and such. Seems reasonable for it to be citable (durably, even). Polomo47 (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

  @Polomo47 well, WF was justified in closing this after more than a year with no action, but if there's new info, feel free to reopen (or even better, find and add the cites!) This, that and the other (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Yes, I will try to look myself. I made the request months before I started to actively edit the project, so I didn’t have the know-how then. Promptly forgot about it. Polomo47 (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I added another web cite, so it now has two, but it doesn't seem to be common. For example, "the ayys" seems to have been used just 5 times on Bluesky (plus once more in the other, aye, sense), and Google finds only 17 pages of results for "an ayy" of which most are other senses or other languages. - -sche (discuss) 04:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seems like we can't do "durable", then. And if it's not that common, then it seems "widespread usage" is also off the table. Just recalled that the cites on ayy lmao are all from 4chan, so maybe the common usage is restricted to that website. Polomo47 (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

@Ioaxxere 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)Reply

@Equinox: We do on a case by case basis. I would Support accepting the Reddit quotations as rejerk and its abbreviation /rj 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)Reply

@Ioaxxere: 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)Reply

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

Three comments to make here:

1. 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.
2. Surely these entries should be moved to Translingual. As I understand it, these are the official, worldwide names of these celestial bodies.
3. Do cites where the name is preceded by the systematic number count towards attestation of the name alone? To take one example, the entries 257261 Ovechkin and (257261) Ovechkin are not eligible for inclusion under our policy, but one could argue that any usages of these systematic names count as usages of Ovechkin, the number being a non-lexical element.

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

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

Rfv-sense "(temporal location) 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, "(duration) From sunrise to sunset." - -sche (discuss) 05:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

No objection from me to simply deleting it as SOP. Someone added "(idiomatic) All day." but AFAIK any phrase denoting this timeframe, like the others you mention, can have that meaning or implication: "They slaved away from sunup to sundown", etc. Perhaps there are interesting translations or some other reason to keep one or more of these phrases. - -sche (discuss) 23:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

There’s also the translation issue where ‘from dawn to dusk’ is (rightly) defined as ‘from sunrise to sunset’ but the translations table is headed ‘from sunset to sunrise’ Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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:

• 2001, Kriss Ravetto, The Unmaking of Fascist Aesthetics, U of Minnesota Press, →ISBN, page 220:

  While in Pasqualino's sexual imagination woman represents suprasensual sexuality, promising excessive pleasure, his actual sexual coupling with the commandant, this monumental image of woman, transforms into the opposite of sensuality, becoming what Deleuze calls supercarnal, that is, sadistic and cruel.

• 2020, Jonathan Faiers, Fur: A Sensitive History, Yale University Press, →ISBN, page 182:

  Severin, the European nobleman in Venus in Furs who desires to be enslaved to a woman, describes himself as a suprasensual person.

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

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)Reply

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 exponential function."

To give just one concrete example, in the study of Lie groups, there is a particular map called the "exponential map" (notated ${\displaystyle \operatorname {exp} }$); 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 ${\displaystyle \operatorname {exp} A=e^{A}}$. This, obviously, is the reason for the term exponential map.

Other examples include "exponential order" (in asymptotics; almost always defined in terms of a exponential ); "the exponential series" (the series expansion of the exponential function); "exponential window" (in statistics; almost always defined in terms of a exponential); etc. Of course we also have "the exponential" or "an exponential" for ${\displaystyle e^{x}}$ and ${\displaystyle e^{ax}}$ (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 ${\displaystyle a^{bx}}$ (which is rather often), it doesn't really matter what ${\displaystyle a}$ is--in fact, without any loss you can always force ${\displaystyle a}$ to be e just by scaling ${\displaystyle b}$ by ${\displaystyle \log _{a}(e)}$. Winthrop23 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

(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 ${\displaystyle e^{i\pi }+1=0}$, 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 "# (mathematics) 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 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)Reply

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

---

• 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)Reply

"(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)Reply

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

• Failed - refs are shitty. Lfellet (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
• Cited. TDHoward (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
• Passed. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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)Reply

Alternatively, we could consider that since the cites don't all support one clear meaning, it might not meaningfully meet CFI... - -sche (discuss) 22:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

OK, if we accept "Valla explains insisture and course for the planets thus" as a use (and as independent of the cite of Shakespeare himself), and if we accept that Shakespeare, Valla and The Photographic News can be grouped together to support one frankly lumpy definition ~"fixedness; insistence", this is cited; otherwise, this indeed fails. - -sche (discuss) 22:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

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? — This unsigned comment was added by Tollef Salemann (talk • contribs) at 16:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC).Reply

@Tollef Salemann: 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)Reply

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

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

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)Reply

@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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

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

It can easily be found in Google Books (google books:"seicont") but both uses there postdate our entry and the uses on Scots Wikipedia. I wonder if Embryomystic 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 saicont. This, that and the other (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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 @Donnanz who created the page and wrote this sense. — Alexis Jazz (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Alexis Jazz: 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 Zero-hour contract 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)Reply

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)Reply

Rfv-sense A knife blade shape/style comprising well-differentiated front and longitudinal edges, somewhat reminiscent of a chisel but with an angled front allowing for an acute-angle point.

I'm not really sure whether this is actually distinct from the primary definition (A traditional Japanese small sword or knife; often used as a secondary weapon to a katana.), if I'm honest. Of the dictionaries I've checked, only the OED has a relevant entry for tanto, and they only give the Japanese sense.

According to our entry, both senses can be pronounced /ˈtɑntoʊ/, but the sense I've RFV'd can also be pronounced /ˈtæntoʊ/, but I find this distinction dubious because /ɑ ~ æ/ 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

"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)Reply

@-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 keepe his Autem" means, but there's a load of other thieves' cant there (e.g. upright man, hooker etc.), and the same book glosses "Autem" as "the Church" later on, so I'm pretty sure it's something like "could not go to church ". The 1837 cite from Rookwood is clearly an intentional archaism/dialecticism, while the 1823 slang dictionary uses it in a usage example for a different term - go out (“to mug”). 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)Reply

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 autem mort (i.e. it's "could not keepe his Autem or doxie sole unto himself"). Theknightwho (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

@-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 ken just means "house". How about if we add the label "chiefly in compounds"?

I suspect we probably want to add "clipping of autem mort (“wife”)" 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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 Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

“(obsolete) 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)Reply

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: This, that and the other (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense 5 (Scotland, obsolete) A clan.

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.

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)Reply

The DSL has a bunch of "Scots" cites (mostly 1500s but with some from as late as the 1680s). Most of their cites are sco, 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 … 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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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:

1. "at the side of; near" (cf. our 1. "next to; at the side of")
2. "over and above; distinct from"
3. "apart from; not connected with; not according to"
4. "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)Reply

I've added some more cites, but this sense often bleeds into sense 3 and it's possible they should simply be combined, like: "Besides; in addition to, and (sometimes) not relevant to." - -sche (discuss) 00:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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? -- ୨୧ 13:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

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. ୨୧ 14:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Gluepix marked this as {{d|It is pluralized as aguas frescas in the vast majority of attestations; very rarely is the form agua frescas used in comparison.}}

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)Reply

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

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 Category:Jewish newspapers published in the United States on Wikipedia.Wikipedia . 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Struggling to find good cites, but this sense surely exists (I've heard it in reference to grandparents' speech), probably influenced by any number of foreign languages where "Jewish" and "Yiddish" are the same word. I don't have the patience to sort out literal English translations of foreign-language passages; for example, the passage "They speak Jewish and have created their own literature. A whole slew of Hebrew and Jewish papers and journals is being published." is a translation of a 1912 German essay; perhaps searching similar phraseology can help find viable attestations, like see (and many from around the first quarter of the 20th century, as since then the accepted glottonym has shifted):

1. "The Jews of London and of the United States, who, to escape the persecutions to which they are subjected in Poland and Russia, abandoned their native country, have formed associations among themselves in their new homes; they have organized societies calling themselves "Jewish-speaking groups," and as such have gained representation at the labor congresses. They speak a jargon which is a mixture of German and Hebrew, and not only employ it in their daily intercourse, but even publish their party organs in that vernacular and print them in Hebrew characters."
2. "Jewish-speaking Christian missionaries invaded a thickly Jewish section in Brooklyn for the purpose of winning souls to Jesus.… In the course of a heated argument one of the missionaries grabbed a Hebrew Text Book and turning to a chapter in Isaiah exclaimed "Read what your own history says!" And to interpret into English the particular passage which he translated from Hebrew into Jewish would read something like this…"
4. "Mr STARNES Do you speak Russian? Mr DAVID LIMONSKY No, sir; I do not speak Russian. Mr STARNES Do you speak Polish? Mr DAVID LIMONSKY Yes, sir; I speak Polish. Mr STARNES And you speak Jewish, do you? Mr DAVID LIMONSKY Yes, sir; I speak Jewish. Mr STARNES And you also speak German, do you? Mr DAVID LIMONSKY No, sir; I cannot speak German. Mr STARNES But this man spoke to you in Jewish? Mr DAVID LIMONSKY Yes, sir; he did. Mr STARNES What was his name? Mr DAVID LIMONSKY It was Heimie."
5. a bit prescriptive, a bit descriptive…
6. memoir

Hftf (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: A person, generally one with a background in construction or civil engineering that reviews properties to find issues, faults and fixes to be remedied by the construction company before the client buying the home moves in (Republic of Ireland). --Svartava (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

@Smurrayinchester We probably want a corresponding sense at snag. 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 snagger, 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)Reply

An argument could be made that the sense of "snag" is just a trivial specialization of a generic figurative sense of snag. What is different about snagger is that it is not a specialization of "one who snags", using the agent suffix -er, but "one who finds potential snags" (in closing the sale from the seller and realtor PoV OR in the buyer getting getting the sound property ostensibly being offered). It is possible to view the meaning of -er as similar to the Variety -er. DCDuring (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sense: “(Australia) A marker; a felt-tip pen.” Removed by @BenAveling: 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)Reply

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

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)Reply

Rfv-sense adverb (Southeast Asia, Hong Kong, nonstandard) Now.

The entry gives a reference for this:

Nury Vittachi (2002) “From Yinglish to sado-mastication”, in Kingsley Bolton, editor, Hong Kong English: Autonomy and Creativity, Hong Kong University Press, page 213: “Another word with what is apparently a direct translation is the word 'first', which is 'sin' in Cantonese. The two words do seem to have largely identical meanings, except 'sin' also carries the meaning 'now'.”

It's not totally clear from this passage, but I think it's saying that English first is used as a direct translation of Cantonese 先 (sin¹) 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)Reply

This entry used to simply be defined as Synonym of otherkin, but was expanded by new user Wanderingdrake. 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 otherkin is too vague. In any event, it would be good to see some citations (WT:") to assist in verifying alterhuman, especially the very specific sense 2. This, that and the other (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

I am confused as to what @Wanderingdrake 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, @Wanderingdrake. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

AFAICT, there is no consistent difference between the scopes of the two terms, at least as far as their use by the communities referred to above (and in the way WD defined), so I have simply undone WD's changes so that this entry is once again simply defined as another term for otherkin. It might be possible to cite and add an unrelated sci-fi use of alterhuman to mean ~"altered human" (like an augmented human or a cyborg), e.g. 2017, Nick Bentley, Contemporary British Fiction, in a variety of science fiction and cyberpunk novels that explore the marginalized position of cyborg, posthuman and alterhuman identities. - -sche (discuss) 04:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

RFV-resolved. - -sche (discuss) 06:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense as an adverb: By itself; of its own.

Given with the usage example It is nothing to worry about sui generis, but in context of the other factors it's alarming indeed., as a synonym of per se.

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)Reply

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

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

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)Reply

A few cites (of the noun) for you:

• 2013 June 29, Bimal K. Matilal, A. Chakrabarti, Knowing from Words: Western and Indian Philosophical Analysis of Understanding and Testimony, Springer Science & Business Media, →ISBN, page 100:

  It is word-generated knowledge or knowledge by testimony ( K. T. for short ) – a sui generis.

• 2020 May 21, Michael R Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, Inter-Varsity Press, →ISBN:

  Prior to the 1990s a large segment of New Testament scholarship maintained that the Gospels represent a sui generis, that is, a genre unique to them. This sui generis was viewed as a type of mythology.

• 2021 October 5, Sze Ping-fat, Carrier's Liability under the Hague, Hague-Visby and Hamburg Rules, BRILL, →ISBN, page 124:

  Insofar as none of these approaches has ever been formally overruled by the highest Court of the land, the law of deviation remains an area of controversy and is practically treated as a sui generis - that is, as a law quite distinct from the general law of contract.

These look like adverbial cites:

• 2003, Canada. Parliament. Senate. Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, Délibérations Du Comité Sénatorial Permanent Des Affaires Sociales, Des Sciences Et de la Technologie:

  They came up with a program that the federal Minister of Agriculture and his provincial colleagues agreed was a good and appropriate approach to handling that particular problem. They did it sui generis.

• 2014 August 7, Jonas Ebbesson, Marie Jacobsson, Mark Adam Klamberg, David Langlet, Pål Wrange, International Law and Changing Perceptions of Security: Liber Amicorum Said Mahmoudi, Hotei Publishing, →ISBN, page 5:

  Another possibility is that the council acted sui generis and expressed a one-off view on the facts with no precedential significance.

• 2015 December 31, Llewellyn Howes, Judging Q and saving Jesus - Q’s contribution to the wisdom-apocalypticism debate in historical Jesus studies., AOSIS, →ISBN, page 62:

  The refutation of Kleinliteratur conceptions enabled Kloppenborg to do away with the idea that Q was created sui generis, which, in turn, enabled him to compare Q with other ancient literature (Kirk 1998:35–36, 64).

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

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

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

@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)Reply

@Smurrayinchester There is also a plural form, sui genera (), though it mostly seems to see use as a declined adjective. Theknightwho (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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 Dymaxion, somewhat gauchely defined as "A structure or device that is dymaxion in nature" - a better def would be "(attributive) 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)Reply

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)Reply

The two problems with the dymaxion 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)Reply

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

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

Rfv-sense

This was added as a synonym of absence makes the heart grow fonder, 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)Reply

Seems unlikely. absence makes the heart grow fonder belongs in the etymology. Could this kind of rhyming derivation be worth an etymology category? DCDuring (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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? — This unsigned comment was added by Suryaratha03 (talk • contribs) at 15:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC).Reply

@Suryaratha03: 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)Reply

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 ( , 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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

@Cmbaugher: 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)Reply

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 Sgconlaw 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)Reply

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)Reply

‘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)Reply

I think that's a good idea. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Ping our taxoboffins @Chuck Entz, DCDuring This, that and the other (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

We might need help from the creator here, @Flame, not lame. 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

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 annoying 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)Reply

Rfv-sense. — This unsigned comment was added by Polomo47 (talk • contribs) at 19:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC).Reply

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ara-ara ScribeYearling (talk) 08:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Discussion moved from WT:RFDE.

---

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

---

"doesn't exist" → needs to be dealt with at RFVE. This, that and the other (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's actually easy to find this (in italics) in English texts . The Buryat word for the concept is аранга (aranga) according to https://buryat-lang.ru/. This, that and the other (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nice! I never knew that Buryats had this concept. Tollef Salemann (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:756A:CAA2:165E:E801 18:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

replying to IP, I added quotations from Twitter. Juwan (talk) 07:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

This is not English. Our sense line would hardly persuade you otherwise:

1. (Latin phrase) 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Rfv-sense: (African-American Vernacular) Of suspicious character, typically secretive or deceitful; shady.

No. I disagree. It generally means lazy / work averse. — This unsigned comment was added by 2607:FB90:8DA5:849E:AC39:C1B7:6911:ED6 (talk) at 00:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC).Reply

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)Reply

I first encountered this online in the delightful phrase "trifling niggah". I was interested to encounter it again recently in Julius Lester's (Afro-sympathetic) 1980s or '90s retellings of the Brer Rabbit stories. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:1DDE:A582:20BE:E3BB 00:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree the current definition is wrong. I am not sure whether the actual meaning of the term, as used in the way we are discussing, is distinguishable from the other two senses, "of little importance" and "idle, frivolous". - -sche (discuss) 14:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense A hobgoblin. Not in the OED.

I have a feeling this is intended to refer to hobgoblin (“a source of dread, fear or apprehension; a bugbear”), 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 hobgoblin (“small, ugly goblin that makes trouble for humans”) then it definitely needs some citations. Theknightwho (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Not in GBooks. A few joky Internet uses, nothing serious. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:49D0:1ABA:3934:4EBA 19:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

I've added one. TDHoward (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Rfv-sense: The amount paid by one road for the use of cars of another road. Kiwima (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Yeah, I read that and was like, WTF? Whalespotcha (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

  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)Reply

  Or both labels should be for rail transport. DCDuring (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mysteryroom strikes again... yes, they are clearly rail cars and rail roads. I've fixed the definition. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:F57D:AA4A:497:5681 15:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense synonym of "decline" (in the grammatical sense). Zacwill (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Euphemism for "dick", i.e. penis. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:1051:7725:5B14:15EF 21:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

• passed as a pronunciation Speaking, pretty widespread --90.174.2.65 06:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Nope, this needs cites. Also needs to be moved to its own etymology if kept. This, that and the other (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "(slang) walk the fuck out". — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense of go being Clipping of go to the in the UK. I've heard multiple British people say "go ". This is attested since 2018 and does not appear to be used by immigrants. I, a Canadian, always say "go to the "/"go to 's" except for "home". I've seen Americans teach "go " 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 "" a direct object or an adverb?

76.71.3.150 12:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

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 (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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

  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)Reply

  "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)Reply

  Yes I have. Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

  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)Reply

  Added a SEVENTH quote proving this usage very much exists, this time from a Dizzee Rascal song. Thanks to Raskit, this is now RFV passed. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved from WT:RFDE.

There's no point in having this page even with the {{no entry}} 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 kilometer and kilometre. —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)Reply

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)Reply

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 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 , in which no prolegalism is to be found. This, that and the other (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It looks like the busted cite was removed and some more added, so that there are now 4. The fourth one is clearly pro- +‎ legalism (sense 1) - it's even hyphenated in the source text. The capitalisation of cite 2 also suggests the same thing. Cites 1 and 3 need more context to be comprehensible. This, that and the other (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

"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)Reply

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)Reply

Added 5 years ago by @Tooironic, who is still with us. This, that and the other (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Found and added one. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:A9A6:8F1F:C512:66C7 13:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Saph668, Sundaydriver1 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)Reply

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)Reply

If it is only found once, we should delete this entry. This, that and the other (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

"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)Reply

Only Spenser — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.201.185 (talk) at 10:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

Alternative form of wally (“(of eyes) unusually pale, etc.”)? There are more quotes at that entry. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 03:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Compare Talk:whall.

OED only has whally; it somehow misses wally in this sense. Alongside Spenser there is a quote with "whalley eyes".

Hard to search for owing to the surname and place name. This, that and the other (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I tracked down two more cites, but someone ought to check the metadata: Google Books (in one case) and Archive.org (in the other) assert 1900s dates for books that look, just from the way the text is printed onto the page, centuries older. Is this term obsolete, in this spelling? - -sche (discuss) 05:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just Tasso, whose translator spelled it wrong...ſeruiceage P. Sovjunk (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

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 William Fulbecke, 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)Reply

• Failed Worm spail (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

All of this user's entries need urgent attention. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:4CA0:A52A:7027:A02D 17:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Added by @Duke of slang. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 20:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also see:

• e choke
• floptok
• game is game
• I got 2 phones
• silver tooth kid

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)Reply

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 @Ivan Štambuk a little up in arms. (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 22:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

All of this user's contributions are suspect, so I'm linking them to this discussion. See Duke of slang. Ultimateria (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I left a comment on the user's talk page (detailing other problems I noticed), deleted one malformed entry, and issued a short block. The user's other entries indeed need to be reviewed. - -sche (discuss) 00:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Rfv-nautical sense vb — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.159.127 (talk) at 13:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

One possible: "Stand by to in all studding-sails, and to ware to the eastward." Mihia (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Two more possibles on the same page at .

Mentions. — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.159.127 (talk) at 14:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

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)Reply

2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:4CA0:A52A:7027:A02D 15:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've heard in use before. CitationsFreak (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

1. (Stenoscript) Abbreviation of merchandise and related forms of that word (merchandising, merchandised, merchandiser, etc.)

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)Reply

@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)Reply

As you noted at the Grease pit, 'put 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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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. 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

1. An act of pretending; a false or simulated show or appearance; a false or hypocritical assertion or representation.

   He visited the king under the pretense of friendliness.

   "Lady Little", the title that she used, was just a pretense.

2. Affectation or ostentation of manner.

   She was a plain-speaking woman without a hint of pretense.

3. Intention or purpose not real but professed.

   with only a pretense of accuracy

4. An unsupported claim made or implied.
   • 1899 September – 1900 July, Joseph Conrad, chapter II, in Lord Jim: A Tale, Edinburgh, London: William Blackwood and Sons, published 1900, →OCLC, page 9:

     He was gentlemanly, steady, tractable, with a thorough knowledge of his duties; and in time, when yet very young, he became chief mate of a fine ship, without ever having been tested by those events of the sea that show in the light of day the inner worth of a man, the edge of his temper, and the fibre of his stuff; that reveal the quality of his resistance and the secret truth of his pretences, not only to others but also to himself.

5. 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)Reply

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)Reply

"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)Reply

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)Reply

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... ...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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

I would only exclude uses that mentioned Monty Python, the specific skit, or the actors therein. DCDuring (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I added a reference to the article since the article didn't have one. — This unsigned comment was added by 73.216.182.68 (talk) at 15:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

Delete I think it's arguable that the original Polish term biały węgorz 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)Reply

Rfv-sense throw of dice — This unsigned comment was added by 90.166.195.17 (talk) at 17:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC).Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

...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)Reply

@This, that and the other: Well, let's see first if any figurative uses can be located. I've also added Jeopardy to this nomination. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

• 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)Reply

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

  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)Reply

• I added a new sense at textbook:

• (figuratively) Learned from, or as if learned from, a textbook, as opposed to personal discovery or experience.

He has a textbook understanding of company law but no practical experience of litigation.

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)Reply

1. This place; this location.

   Here is where I met my spouse twelve years ago.

   An Alzheimer patient's here may in his mind be anywhere he called home in the time he presently re-lives.

2. (figuratively) This point or stage, visualised as a location.

   I'd like to continue my story, but here is where I must stop.

   I've done as much as I can; you'll have to take it from here.

3. (abstract) This time, the present situation. (Can we add an example for this sense?)

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)Reply

Perhaps the countable use seen at e.g. here? That may be what was meant by the (abstract) label. This, that and the other (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense To slide. Excrement Voider (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Cited. 166.181.86.165 00:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Dubious - one quote says "Shirling is neither sliding nor skating". One is used as noun "Ther's a grand shirl on t' pond.", final one "boddom o' t' stack wad be a lot o' smo 'at hed shirled doon" is from a shitty dialectal glossary. Vilipender (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

throw (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)Reply

Maybe cited. The concern would be the third cite, which is technically a mention:

• 1917 June 1, “Queries”, in English Mechanic and World of Science, number 2723, Throw Lathe, page 299, column 1:

  Throw Lathe—I am no longer able to use my lathe, which is worked by the feet. I am told I could get a small lathe, such as is used by watchmakers, and called a "throw lathe." I have never heard of such before, but would be very glad of a description, if possible with sketches. —D. B.

Just personally, I would consider this of a different character than a mention as in a dictionary entry, but that may not be consensus. 166.181.86.165 00:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've added an image, links to Commons and pedia, and another two citations, one of which seems possible satisfactory. DCDuring (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Passed (barely). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

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 Dvortygirl 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

There are also expressions relating to the time a throw takes and the quantity of stuff thrown rather than the speed or distance of the throw and I’m not sure how we should best cover these instances either. For example ‘one second throw’ ( and ), ‘one second throw’( and ) and ‘gram throw’ in relation to coffee machines and hot chocolate machines. Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

What sense is used when talking about the 'throw speed' (,,...) of a 'switch machine' used in model railways? --Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

@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 {{synonyms}} with a qualifier or {{near-synonyms}} on sense 1? This, that and the other (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

thank you for the cleanup! I've added grammar as a near-synonym to morphosyntax, with a qualifier directing the reader to the usage note there, and added a usage note for grammar. hopefully this is sufficient, and the sense in morpho-syntax can be removed ragweed theater _{talk, user} 16:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

only derived form given is ammophilous. (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)Reply

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)Reply

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 abc, for which we find three formations (say abc-ic, abc-phobic, and abc-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 abc 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)Reply

back to ammo- (“related to sand”): a search in OED does not turn up anything relevant other than ammophilous. ammodyte < ἄμμος (ámmos, “sand”) + δύτης (dútēs, “diver”) should be considered a wholesale loan from Ancient Greek ἀμμοδύτης (ammodútēs, “sand-burrower”) or Latin ammodytēs (“id.”). out of the wiktionary lemma list, ammotrechid (“solifuge of the amily Ammotrechidae”), although ultimately < ἄμμος (ámmos, “sand”) + τρέχ- (trékh-, “run”), should be regarded as a loan from (scientific) Latin Ammotrechidae and coined there. similarly goes ammoxenid (“spider of the family Ammoxenidae”), though i'm not entirely sure of the meaning of the name-- "sand-wanderer"? besides these, ammoidin points to Ammi, and almost everything else goes back to Ammon in one way or another (via ammonia or ammonite).

to sum up, there seems to be no intra-English use of the suffix ammo- (“related to sand”) besides ammophilous, or at least the OED and en-wikt data do not represent such use. ragweed theater _{talk, user} 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

4.2. I ask again, I say again; used in repeating a question or statement.

Again, I'm not criticizing, I just want to understand.

4.3. Here too, here also, in this case as well; used in applying a previously made point to a new instance; sometimes preceded by "here".

Approach B is better than approach A in many respects, but again, there are difficulties in implementing it.

9. Moreover; besides; further.

1835, John Herschel, A Treatise on Astronomy:

Again, it is of great consequence to avoid, etc.

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 ). Mihia (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

• (finance) Profit earned from an investment; return on investment.
• (law) The current return as a percentage of the price of a stock or bond.

2013 July 6, “The rise of smart beta”, in The Economist, volume 408, number 8843, page 68:

Investors face a quandary. Cash offers a return of virtually zero in many developed countries; government-bond yields may have risen in recent weeks but they are still unattractive. Equities have suffered two big bear markets since 2000 and are wobbling again. It is hardly surprising that pension funds, insurers and endowments are searching for new sources of return.

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Only one use available. This, that and the other (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

So I have. begins self-flagellation P Aculeius (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Just FYI, in some search engines double quotes around a single word will suppress matching of near homonyms. So it can make a difference, depending on the search. 166.181.86.165 01:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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:

• 2020 September 25, Kathy Merlock Jackson, Kathy Shepherd Stolley, Lisa Lyon Payne, Animals and Ourselves: Essays on Connections and Blurred Boundaries, McFarland, →ISBN, page 245:

  While members of the fandom seem to use " fandom " in a formal capacity explicitly to describe particular interest in forms of art, it is also used less formally to refer to all members of the furry community regardless of artistic involvement and commitment to a fursona.

• 2021 August 26, Jessica Ruth Austin, Fan Identities in the Furry Fandom, Bloomsbury Publishing USA, →ISBN, page 57:

  24 per cent of respondents of the 1,011 results did not have a fursona at all. This shows that having a fursona is still in the majority but it opens up questions as to why a significant minority do not have them but still consider themselves a Furry.

Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Let's go to good ol' Furscience:

"...one-third of furries say that sexual attraction to furry content is a motivator of their participation ... while certainly a motivator for some furries, it is not the primary motivating factor for most furries..."

I think the error made by the editor was that they defined "furry" as meaning "someone sexually attracted to ". That is just not what the word means, any more than "animal" means "something with fur, long ears, and retractable claws". Simply, a "furry" is as in senses 1, 2, and 3, and senses 2 and 3 include a whole host of interests.

I vote removal of sense 4 as incorrect and unsubstantiated.

Robert.Baruch (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

You make a good point about "animal". It seems reasonable that what is currently sense 2, "member of the furry fandom", could include someone who was a fan of (and particularly attracted to) furries, but it seems like the meaning of "furry" is still "member of the furry fandom (in any capacity, whether by having a fursona or being attracted to one)", rather than that "furry" ever specifically means only "someone attracted to...", i.e. that a speaker would use "furry" only for "someone attracted to..." and would not consider other members of the fandom to be "furries". (Like how some people use "animal" to mean "any non-human animal" and would not include humans, while other people use "animal" to mean "any animal (including a human)", but no one uses "animal" to mean "a human specifically (to the exclusion of non-human animals)", so defining animal as "human", a la our sense 4 of furry, would be a misunderstanding.) Smurrayinchester's cites seem to bear this out, remarking that a minority of furries don't have fursonas (but a majority do), including them all as "furries", rather than using "furry" to mean only the fursonaless minority.
I suggest reorganizing the entry either like this or like this (merging what are currently senses 2 and 4, and putting "someone who has a fursona" and "fursona" next to each other, rather than sticking another sense in between them like our entry currently does). - -sche (discuss) 16:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

How's this? - -sche (discuss) 01:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

i see now that its actually the came for his jigging, bluet-eyed, hands 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)Reply

Rfv-sense gallant. Used by Shakespeare. Instinct tells me this should be sexual. — This unsigned comment was added by 90.174.2.25 (talk) at 11:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC).Reply

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)Reply

There’s not much independent of the bard (‘quondam carpetbaggers’ appears in Much ado about nothing here) on Google Books. This book uses the phrase ‘carpet-monger, or Primrose Knight of Primero’ to refer to a libertine and it seems to be written by Thomas Nashe but others list the whole of that phrase as being from the Merry Wives of Windsor (I couldn’t find it here). There are also snippet views of other authors possibly using the word with this meaning here and here. Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Just Browne Father of minus 2 (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

• also spelled intermewer. Those together would get 3 solid quotations. --85.48.184.181 08:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Not mine. Father of minus 2 (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is also (already) clap cheeks, which is mine.... Leasnam (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

The definitions listed seem incorrect. I would simply redirect this to clap cheeks. - -sche (discuss) 01:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

"Benthose" also appears to be a surname in West Virginia >_<

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

"A kind of long covered carriage". Appears in some 19th-century dictionaries (e.g., , , ), some citing "Simmonds", but I see no actual use. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Old glossaries only Father of minus 2 (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

• Failed Worm spail (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Only one use found 85.48.186.106 19:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Three in EEBO: . Yes, they used -i- but they didn't always distinguish i and j then, so we should count these cites towards the -j- form. This, that and the other (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Two noun senses:

• (figurative) Assistance; help; encouragement.
• (figurative) Someone who is helpful, interesting, admirable, 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)Reply

Unlisted Father of minus 2 (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense binder of tress Father of minus 2 (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

? 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)Reply

I searched around but have not managed to find anything. The OED's only "cites" seem to be two mentions/definitions in other dictionaries or glossaries. - -sche (discuss) 17:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Failed + deleted TypeO889 (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Unlisted Father of minus 2 (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Unlisted Father of minus 2 (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

No quotes and seems like a shitpost. - saph ^_^^⠀talk⠀ 04:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Weirdly enough, rizzology proved attestible through print cites. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wow! Great work citing that. Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Another obscure salmon word Father of minus 2 (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

If verifiable, the definition might be (obsolete), 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)Reply

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? Francis Willughby (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 Ribble. 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)Reply

The NED has a single cite from John Ray, a correspondent of Willughby, which also seems mentiony. The English Dialect Dictionary has the same cite. DCDuring (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

I think the word only in the definition could cover that. DCDuring (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-pronunciation. --ChemPro (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I guess its verb is pronounced as /bɪŋ ˈt͡ʃɪlɪŋ/, whereas its noun is pronounced as /bɪŋ t͡ʃɪlˈɪŋ/ with the stress on the second syllabyle of chilling. --ChemPro (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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 paracrinally and autocrinally ragweed theater _{talk, user} 12:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Failed TypeO889 (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

"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)Reply

Rfv-sense:

1. (UK, formal, singular only) 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)Reply

Few hits on Google; the page itself also needs cleanup. - saph ^_^^⠀talk⠀ 16:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Rfv-sense "(computing theory) 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)Reply

See formal grammar for a more thorough definition. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:C45D:16B0:6A08:44BE 14:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Plenty of old French shit, little English Father of minus 2 (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Various implausible senses having no connection to clicking. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7554:3300:196:C6E0 19:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The first three senses seem synonymous to senses of tick off:

• click off 1 = tick off 1 literally
• click off 2 = tick off 2
• click off 3 = tick off 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)Reply

• 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)Reply

Rfv-sense: "A large fish of species Megalops atlanticus (Atlantic tarpon)." or an extended definition like "any of the genus Megalops 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 {{also}} 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)Reply

Discussion moved from WT:RFDE.

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)Reply

Move to RFV. Inqilābī 15:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Did the RfV move get lost in the mail? LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Failed Father of minus 2 (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
• Moved to RFV, of course. Ultimateria (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Indian political thing. Can't find much. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:D8D8:8AE7:2BDD:6149 10:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Unlike the same user's xesnart, this one gets a few (mention-y, nonce-y) web hits, but it's probably still too rare a nonce to meet CFI. - -sche (discuss) 18:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

• Failed+deleted Worm spail (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Possibly cited: one on the talk page, two on the citations page. Some other hits at google books:"infusibility into" may be this sense. - -sche (discuss) 20:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It would make sense to me that there would be two points of view about two materials that were being fused, say, one a porous solid, the other a liquid:

1. from the PoV of the porous solid: "capable of being infused (into)": A highly hygroscopic, microporous solid would have low infusibility.
2. from the PoV of the liquid: "capable of infusing". A highly viscose liquid would have low infusibility.

Whether it is actually used in both ways, I don't know. It would seem worthwhile to have distinct definitions if both can be supported. DCDuring (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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.orghttps://dictious.com/en/List_of_barefooters. Huh! Mihia (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-term "spatial computation". 67.209.130.155 13:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

I question the following sense, too, which has only one spectacularly unhelpful two-word cite. - -sche (discuss) 06:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, the OED has "fig. Applied to that which is like the tide of the sea in some way; as in ebbing or flowing, rising or falling, or 'turning' at a certain time. SHAKS. Jul. C. IV. iii. 218 There is a Tide in the affayres of men, Which taken at the Flood, leades on to Fortune. 1777 PRIESTLEY Matt. & Spir. (1782) I. Pref. 10 The tide of popular prejudice may rise still higher. 1849 MACAULAY Hist. Eng. vi. II. 54 From that moment the tide of battle turned. 1900 Daily News 7 Dec. 8/5 The dramatic tide has its ebb and flow like other tides. It is not obvious to me that this necessarily requires a sense, as opposed to being an instance of the general phenomenon of words being able to be used metaphorically. - -sche (discuss) 15:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Latin only? I'm seeing a lot of dictionaries. Ultimateria (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not a term in wide use- just sourced to some tweets and a Hacker News comment. ScienceFlyer (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Schwarzschild density:

1. at Google Scholar
2. at Google Books

Looks well attested to me. DCDuring (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

The current definition does not make sense; it has dimension ${\displaystyle {\mathsf {ML^{{-}1}}}}$ (mass/length), whereas a density should have dimension ${\displaystyle {\mathsf {ML^{{-}3}}}}$ (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.  ​‑‑Lambiam 13:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Sense pupil. Well, and sense arrow, for kicks. Wars at my door (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Failed + deleted TypeO889 (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Didn't survive into modern English Wars at my door (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Added 2 cites. Leasnam (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Rfv-sense verb --85.48.185.123 14:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

"Foggaging" is all over Google Books: did you try searching? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:381E:5671:C85F:C72 14:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I added various citations to the citations page, but changes to the definition may be needed: several dictionaries define foggage (like fog) not as dead grass but as new grass—a second growth of grass, grown for winter grazing—and the verb may be similarly polysemous, in which case we need to work out whether the cites are about growing new grass that's suited to growing in late-autumn / winter (as some seem like they might be), or about leaving spring/summer grass dead on the land. - -sche (discuss) 15:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

If one fancies, Google Books has more than enough quotes. Some might see better previews than I do on my German machine. Never heard of it 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)Reply

To adjudicate Scrabble games mainly. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:BD8F:976:A4DC:6C26 22:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

just making sure everyone sees the discussion from the previous RFV, at talk:number three, where it had been listed as just a synonym for number one. i think it's used often enough to mean masturbation, but it can also mean

• menstruation, particularly changing or disposing of an undergarment (because that's a bodily function too, and tampons are often dispensed in bathrooms). i once saw a Ren & Stimpy cartoon where one of the characters, i think Stimpy, said first he had to do number one, then number two, then number three, as he goes first into a men's room, then a boys' room, and then a girls' room. it could've been the artists' way of hinting at this meaning while staying kid-friendly, but it could also be completely meaningless. possibly proof of use here, though i understand TikToks are not CFI.

• washing one's hands.

♬ once you've done number one and number two ♬

♬ don't forget to do number three!♬

• possibly other things. one of the TikToks suggests it means #1 and #2 together. i think there was a different discussion somewhere but i can't find it now. it might have been on Reddit or some other site and not specific to Wiktionary. the Ren & Stimpy use may have just been absurdist humor, after all.

i lean towards not including this as currently defined, but i cant figure out how to express exactly why. it seems like we're missing the point if we insist on a precise definition, when the expression is almost always used in such a way that its meaning is derived from context. But, perhaps we could write a definition such as any third bodily function besides urination and defecation? —Soap— 13:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not "any third bodily function" (eg, not digestion, respiration, motion, perspiration). Perhaps "any of certain common (tabooed?) bodily functions, especially those producing liquids, such as ". Harder and probably not worthwhile to include hand-washing. DCDuring (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

yeah, i didnt make up the hand-washing song, but it must've stuck in my head out of proportion to its use, because i can't even find it now. and i don't think it was on a video, either, so I'm surprised i can't find it. oh well. i agree with you although i'd say the phrase bodily function itself is lexicalized enough to exclude those others .... in any case, i think the definition we use should make it clear that it relies on context. —Soap— 21:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Adjective. There seems to be another meaning related to Judaism--85.48.185.77 18:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I couldnt find any Judaism-related meanings, although kaddish is a noun, a type of prayer. —Soap— 14:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

The "other meaning" appears to be merely a scanno of qaddish from what I can determine. Hftf (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Failed Worm spail (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Fishing vessel. It probably has other spellings --90.174.3.25 09:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

might this be the same as #corocore below? the Wikipedia article suggests an Arabic cognate قرقور (qurqur), which at least has a /u/ in it, and is a dialectal realization of MSA /q/. —Soap— 14:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Failed TypeO889 (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

A glutton--85.48.185.67 18:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

(Added the only cite I've been able to find, but it occurs as a scanno of a lot of other things, so I may have missed something.) - -sche (discuss) 23:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Failed Worm spail (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ety 2, "skirmish". Usual tosh by this IP; all quotes given are mentions. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Cited. 2601:240:8002:E690:9995:D46C:8193:D473 02:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Carry-over from above, which failed verification. Leasnam (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense poster?? for a kerbstone --90.174.3.109 19:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Def. found in MW 1913. DCDuring (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Failed + deleted TypeO889 (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense loiter --90.174.3.109 09:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Failed + deleted TypeO889 (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hip of the dog rose. It is probably just an old spelling of hip. --85.48.185.87 09:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

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 (femcelcore 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)Reply

Rfv-sense To beat livid, or black and blue. Citeable, but probably meaning to bruise Ungreaaseddish (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

• 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)Reply

• Failed TypeO889 (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Nonce word? Ungreaaseddish (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Failed TypeO889 (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense young bib --90.174.3.169 08:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

The index to the 1884 Fisheries Exhibition says: "Henfish, name given to the female bib at Belfast". This might (?) be related to henfish as a general term for a game fish that lays eggs, especially a female salmon or trout. On the other hand, Yarrell (1886) says that Ray's bream "has been taken at Belfast, where it is called Henfish". Ray's bream is described as a marine bream, so it is probably unrelated to the bib (a type of cod). Cnilep (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I wasn't paying sufficient attention. I see that "sea bream" is the first definition given! Cnilep (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Temple --90.174.3.169 09:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

This doesn't seem right, I think it should have "one's" inserted, as in worth one's salt. I'm not sure whether it's worth keeping it. DonnanZ (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Donnanz: 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)Reply

@Sgconlaw: 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)Reply

It isn't hard to find not worth salt in 19th century and early 20th century works. It also occurs in not worth salt to one's|the|a porridge|poddish|black bread|broth|kail|meat|herring. DCDuring (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring: 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)Reply

Maybe but it's very scarce. DCDuring (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

(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)Reply

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)Reply

It's possibly from Old Norse gata (“street, road”), the Concise Scots Dictionary doesn't help though. DonnanZ (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

"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)Reply

• Failed TypeO889 (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense companionable --84.78.16.7 09:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

• OED has three uses from the 1600s. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

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:

• (Can we date this quote?), Jarod Kintz, There Are Two Typos Of People In This World: Those Who Can Edit And Those Who Can’t, Jarod Kintz:

  I want to go to sleep in my time machine and wake up eight hours in the future.

Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Anyway, not a bad joke. DCDuring (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Cannot find 122.56.85.105 21:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Failed TypeO889 (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

apparently used a lot on the internet to refer to the blåhaj shark plushie from IKEA? a google image search of "shonk" shows that posters in r/BLAHAJ use it routinely. probably influenced by stonk (etym 2) and thonk. might be difficult to cite with durable sources, but we kept car, sense 11, so there's probably no reason not to keep this as well.

in any case, this is a separate etymology from the other senses. ragweed theater _{talk, user} 12:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Old term for millet. Mentioned in old dictionaries --84.78.23.109 13:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Failed TypeO889 (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Definition was imported wholesale from Webster 1913. It seems to me after looking at some sources that it just referred to a fish fin, but usually in evolutionary/comparative contexts; i've changed the definition line to "(comparative anatomy, obsolete) A fish fin". the related terms cheiropterygium and archipterygium (and maybe more) we should probably also look into ragweed theater _{talk, user} 12:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Only seen one cite --85.48.189.147 10:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Failed TypeO889 (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Cloth. It appears to be a fencing term, imbroccata--85.48.189.147 12:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Attestable after 1500 in this spelling? If so, should probably be labeled either {{lb|en|obsolete}} or {{obsolete spelling of|en|hearsome}}. If not, should be relabeled Middle English. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Two senses, one cite, and that says "Say that the Fayrie left this Aulfe," and doesn't actually use auf (and aulfe doesn't have an entry). It's very hard to search for since auf is so common in German.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

With the help of Wright's English Dialect Dictionary, which has this under awf, I managed to find two cites of sense 2 spelled awf and one spelled aufe, and 1-3 cites (depending on whether or not we take "awf shot" to attest "awf" or only to be an alt form of elf-shot) of a sense, which we lack, "elf". It seems the lemma should be moved to awf (and the link at oaf updated). I don't know if sense 1 is attestable. - -sche (discuss) 04:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've set up awf, with cites. I didn't just move the entry, because I realized the senses were distinct (but the ones currently listed at auf, and that spelling, may not be attested). Oph may not be attested, either; I'm going to add it to the RFV. - -sche (discuss) 07:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

(See auf.) - -sche (discuss) 07:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Adjective and noun. I claim it is only found in the compound noun parson imparsonee, plural parsons imparsonees --85.48.56.96 07:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense disapprove of --84.78.23.109 15:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense to behave improperly --84.78.23.109 15:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense reticence --85.48.189.123 18:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seen in a 17th century dictionary, nothing since. --85.48.189.123 18:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense walking. It has another theological meaning, apparently. Also, insession is worth looking at, maybe for a future RFV --85.48.189.123 19:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

All other dictionaries agree that Bacon was the only user of this term --85.48.56.196 09:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense in botany --85.48.56.196 11:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

t͡ɕRfv-sense indexical. There may be an anatomy sense missing --85.48.56.196 11:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Computer GUI design? The context isn't clear. Might refer to the Microsoft Windows "Metro" design language, in which case probably a trademark/brand. Might not be in wide use at all. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:A8AA:76F3:798C:234F 16:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Cf #Meiteiologist, #Meiteilogist. - -sche (discuss) 20:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not sure, from a check Google Books check, that the definition is correct. Many of this user's entries have been unattested in the sense given, or have been deleted for other errors... - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

This seems like it may suffer from the same problem as #Ancient Meitei (above): it exists as a SOP phrase where uncapitalized "ancient" is adjacent to "Kangleipak", but whether it exists as a capitalized, unitary idiomatic phrase is unclear. - -sche (discuss) 21:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Unfound. The quote we have doesn't seem to match the definition --84.78.23.123 05:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just 2 hits available --84.78.23.123 07:22, 25 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Only used by Browning in English --84.78.23.123 08:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense smoke-drying --90.174.3.105 15:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in September 2023. Pious Eterino (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: satellite-fed foreign shows delayed by several minutes or hours in contrast to live television broadcasts Pious Eterino (talk) 08:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense not to stimulate. Quote appears as an adjective. instimulated also exists as an adjective, but the verb itself may not. --85.48.186.179 19:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I checked, not managing to really attest. One Usenet hit, a few on Twitter, that's about it. Appears more like an independently created nonce joke for those up on their Latin roots. Hftf (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I wonder whether mouso might be attestable. DCDuring (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps barely on the web, but not in durably attested media. Hard to find because of interference from a Japanese-derived game, a proper name, and a Windows background process, etc. Anyway it might be useful for us and for interface designers. DCDuring (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "A stretching or bending of the mind toward an object or a purpose (an intent); closeness of application; fixedness of attention; earnestness" These definitions are quite fuzzy, and probably just verbose ways of phrasing the main definitions. --90.174.3.94 21:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

the definition is imported from Webster 1913 and could be worded to sound less archaic, but this is a distinct (but obsolete; i've added the label) sense. OED gives "the action of straining or directing the mind or attention to something; mental application or effort; attention, intent observation or regard; endeavour." so, not just having a goal in mind in general, but actually putting attention and effort to it, which the modern use of the word wouldn't necessarily imply ragweed theater _{talk, user} 14:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "pleading" --90.174.3.94 21:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "thwart, obstruct". There are other meanings available, some of which I added or guessed at --85.48.184.135 09:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "above or in front of a leaf". This doesn't fit with the (thoroughly defined) prefix intra-. Probably a change of definiton is all that's needed --85.48.184.135 10:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

It does if you look at it the way a botanist does: things start out inside of a bud, and grow upward and outward from there. That means that anything on the stem above the point of attachment of the leaves can be viewed as being inside them. If you view the leaves as facing inward, anything between them and the stem is in front of them. See the explanation here] for instance.

The term seems to be applied mostly to intrafoliaceous stipules. For instance, plants in the rhubarb family, Polygonaceae, have these stipules forming a sheath around the stem called an ochrea. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "pouring into a vessel". There is a fantasy meaning missing too, the mutual fusion of magical powers or something. It was seen in at least 2 wizardry books --85.48.184.135 10:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2024 TypeO889 (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2024 TypeO889 (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Failed Worm spail (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2025 TypeO889 (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2024 TypeO889 (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2025 TypeO889 (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2025,unlisted TypeO889 (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

EEBO has lots of results for e.g. gesture, divesture where a letter was unreadable, and some placenames. This one looks like a false reading (compare "into dinately" just before). There's also Le morte darthur (Middle English) and a potential modern hit - but not sure of the sense. This, that and the other (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2025,unlisted TypeO889 (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2025,unlisted TypeO889 (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

• @Vilipender: This is found in use exactly once, probably in the whole surviving written corpus of the English language, 1585 as a glossing, not glossed, term, in John Higgins’ English bilingual edition of the Latin dictionary Nomenclator … of the Dutch humanist Hadrianus Junius, page 232.
• In Mackay, Charles (1877) The Gaelic Etymology of the Languages of Western Europe. And More Especially of the English and Lowland Scotch, and Their Slang, Cant, and Colloquial Dialects‎, London: N. Trübner & Co., page 121a the word is etymologized with cuach (“bowl, goblet”) +‎ uisge (“water”), literally “water-goblet”. So we know where that Oxford student hailed from: not England.
• We need to think out how to present the information. Fay Freak (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Failed Worm spail (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2025,unlisted TypeO889 (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2025,unlisted TypeO889 (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Failed TypeO889 (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2025,unlisted TypeO889 (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

OED lemmatises at co-mart, the reason for the hyphen not being explained. Here's NED's entry:

In the following passage, the Folios have 'cou'nant', a quarto of 1676 'compact', the Globe ed. 'covenant': the real word intended remains unsettled.

Johnson was just as confused:

This word, which I have only met with in one place, seems to signify; treaty; article from con and mart, or market.

I don't at all enjoy deleting Shakespearean hapaxes, but we have to in this instance, I think. This, that and the other (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Failed Worm spail (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2025,unlisted TypeO889 (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I added some cites to the citations page, but we need to decide which sense they're using. - -sche (discuss) 06:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2025,unlisted TypeO889 (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2025,unlisted TypeO889 (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Probably enough in GBooks. (Sorry for the lazy comment, but the RFVs are pretty lazy themselves. Will hopefully come back to it if someone doesn't get there first.) This, that and the other (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2025,unlisted TypeO889 (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2024,unlisted TypeO889 (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Failed after 6 months of inactivityWorm spail (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2025,unlisted TypeO889 (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

There seems to be a biological sense we are missing. I will {{rfdef}} it.

I wonder if the noun sense in the entry is referring to the Roman cornicularius or corniculary ( Corniculary on Wikipedia.Wikipedia ). This, that and the other (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2025,unlisted TypeO889 (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Nil in EEBO. There are uses in GBooks:

1531, Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa Von Nettesheim, translated by James Freake, edited by L. W. deLaurence, The Philosophy of Natural Magic, published 1913, page 202:

So Cyprus, after he was chosen king of Italy, did very much wonder at and meditate upon the fight and victory of bulls, and in the thought thereof did sleep a whole night, and in the morning he was found horned, no otherwise than by the vegetative power, being stirred up by a vehement imagination, elevating cornific humors into his head and producing horns.

This one could fit the definition even if the intended meaning is multi-layered (I wonder if it is referencing the idea of "horniness"):

1879, Henry Astbury Leveson, The Forest and the Field, page 61:

As we were supping in Fred's comfortable quarters, the doctor, looking significantly at our host, who had only just turned up from escorting some fair party home, remarked in his dry, quaint manner, that he imagined there was something peculiarly "cornific" in the atmosphere so near the mountains, the influence of which extended to other animals besides ibex and wild sheep, and he forthwith commenced spouting after Shakespeare:
To wed, or not to wed, that is the question:

Here's another which is even more obscure:

The cause is not far to seek; think of that stout cornific* doctor with leaden eyes, a confrère of Froissart, if you like, but how different! He holds in his hand his manual of canon-law, Peter the Lombard, a treatise on the syllogism.
* Cornificien, a name given by Jean of Sarisberg to those who disfigured dialectics by their extravagant, cornus arguments—Translator.

This, that and the other (talk) 02:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2025,unlisted TypeO889 (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be a rare form (seemingly the French rendition) of kora-kora, a historic Malay boat (compare Kora kora on Wikipedia.Wikipedia ). We give that as an alternative form of caracore, which we define as a historic Filipino boat, but Wikipedia has a separate article on the Filipino vessel ( Karakoa on Wikipedia.Wikipedia ). The two vessels look extremely similar and one would need to investigate whether we should treat them as synonymous. This, that and the other (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Surely. I have some doubt’s about Asiatic Colonial English of that time the kind which Hobson-Jobson collected being well digitized. This will be in some stupid naval registers. Fay Freak (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Cited and redefined as an alt form; I also centralized content on what seems (per Ngrams) to be the most common spelling in both the singular and plural, caracoa and pointed all the alt forms towards there. I did not get the sense, from cites, that Kora kora on Wikipedia.Wikipedia and Karakoa on Wikipedia.Wikipedia are consistently distinct in English. (They could be distinct in Malay and/or Tagalog.) - -sche (discuss) 07:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2025,unlisted: Rfv-sense Spars or timbers set up as a support against the side of a building. TypeO889 (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 05:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

These terms belong to an obscure "logo editing" YouTube subcommunity. Good luck trying to make sense of their Fandom wiki, or to cite these terms... This, that and the other (talk) 08:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

• RFV-failed. Ultimateria (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, weird case. I can cite عayn (these are arguably more mentions than uses, but letter names are surely a special case since they're almost never used in the strict grammatical sense):

• 1806, John Richardson, A Dictionary, Persian, Arabic and English, page 626:

  عayn, The eighteenth letter of the Arabic alphabet, and used as the twenty-first of the Persian; expressing 70 in arithmetic.

• 1997, Petra Bos, Development of Bilingualism: A Study of School-age Moroccan Children in the Netherlands:

  عayn: voiced pharyngeal fricative

• 2024 January 22, Jane Wightwick, Mahmoud Gaafar, Mastering Arabic 1, Bloomsbury Publishing, →ISBN, page 68:

  عayn does not have a near equivalent in English , so the Arabic letter itself is used in the transliteration.

and 3ayn

• 2008 November 19, Keith Massey, Intermediate Arabic For Dummies, John Wiley & Sons, →ISBN, page 63:

  The (3ayn) has no correspondence in English. It's produced by tightening the back of the throat and then speaking a vowel through it.

• 2011, Zouheir A. Maalej, Ning Yu, Embodiment Via Body Parts: Studies from Various Languages and Cultures, John Benjamins Publishing, →ISBN, page 214:

  The main objective is to ascertain embodiment through outer body parts, and the experience 3ayn profiles in one dialect of Arabic.

• 2014 November 4, Matthew Aldrich, Arabic Voices 2: Authentic Listening and Reading Practice in Modern Standard Arabic and Colloquial Dialects, Lingualism.com, page 13:

  It has sounds from many languages... for example it has the sound "kha", the pronunciation of "kha", the "ghayn", the ... uh ... the "3ayn", the "Ha", so there are a lot of things that don't exist in other languages 

But I can't find any evidence that ƹ is ever used. This may be an OCR thing, or it may be that no-one ever had a reason to use it when either they'd be using a typewriter or general printing press (where ƹ and ع would both be unavailable) or a specialist printing press (which would probably be more likely to have Arabic letters than an obscure IPA variant). Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Update: ʕayn is also citable (1, 2, 3), and 9ayn (1, 2, 3). Everything except ƹayn! Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I found this Omniglot page that uses it (I don't know if this is a reliable source or not): https://omniglot.com/charts/arabic_sudanese.xlsx

I have posted a similar message on the discussion page of the entry, because I didn't know this page existed.

Thanks.

Squidboy85 (talk) Squidboy85 (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Additional note: Omniglot has been cited before in Wikipedia entries such as this: Writing systems of Southeast Asia - Wikipedia Squidboy85 (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, it should be Writing systems of Southeast Asia - Wikipedia Squidboy85 (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I added a citation but the banner hasn’t gone away. Squidboy85 (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

There are now four citations on the page. I hope this is enough. Squidboy85 (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I spent an hour plus looking through the four references added to the page in an attempt to convert them into quoted attestations, and arguably only one is even marginally acceptable. So far I don't see this word meeting CFI, unfortunately. There is also confusion/conflation of whether this word is a name for an Arabic letter or for a Latin letter ƹ used in some romanizations, which I tried to fix, probably in vain but whatever. That said, a couple of the references are good evidence for expanding the ƹ entry, as it is used in some romanizations. Hftf (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense very lofty Lfellet (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense spotted/streaked TypeO889 (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is Wiktionary-only jargon. We can't cite ourselves. Compare Talk:usex. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:F5D8:C7C2:FAB5:4BC6 16:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I can’t find much, SOPish is used in the context of a computer language (and might be short for ‘sum-of-parts-ish’) in this book here and there’s a very unclear use where SOPish is used in a sexual context about BBBJs (bareback blowjobs) here. I do personally think that there are a handful of words that we should allow entries for that we currently don’t precisely because they’re Wiktionary jargon and thus would be useful to the reader but that would require a change of policy - among them are ‘SOPish’, ‘usex’ and ‘mentiony’. Overlordnat1 (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Your computing find relates to SOP in the sense "Service-Object Pair" (and "SOPish" there is a nonce). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:5CB5:B3CC:2D66:8AC5 10:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

We have Wiktionary:Glossary specifically for this kind of term. DCDuring (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yet another Webster 1913-imported dictionary, which will remain on this page until August 2025, with 2 comments saying "no quotes", Wonderfool marking it as Failed, and eventually archived by Overlord. Really, I should just {{speedy}} this, but process is process... TypeO889 (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is another use: This, that and the other (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

nonce word? TypeO889 (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Everyone else spelled it surcrease, which is probably citeable. This, that and the other (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Purring? I don't see any cats in the text. Or engines, for that matterTypeO889 (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

That should have been pruning – getting rid of the little suckers; compare surcle.  ​‑‑Lambiam 16:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Lots of tyops + scannops for survive TypeO889 (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

bullhide glue. Lots of italicised hits. Besides, I'd recommend bull semen if you want some seriously sticky, sweet-smelling stuff. TypeO889 (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don’t know, may be in lists from apothecary's Latin, as in the System of Rational and Practical Chirurgery ed. 1733 by Richard Boulton. But we should have bull glue, bull-glue, bull's glue, to complement flesh glue, fish glue, and others. Fay Freak (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense tippler? TypeO889 (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense admission. Father of minus 2 (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

3 birds. Etymology is suspect too: Greenlandic tattarock can't be thusly spelled. 20 points for anyone finding the Greenlandic term, 1 point for just removing this etymology Father of minus 2 (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I guess they mean taateraaq (“kittiwake”) (I think that was only worth about 5 points tbh). Presumably it was borrowed into Scots/English via some other language though.

OED doesn't buy this theory, just giving "origin uncertain" and taking -ock as a diminutive suffix. It also cops out somewhat on the definition, saying that it's a word applied to various seabirds in different parts of Scotland.

DSL has the "kittiwake" and "tern" senses, but not "guillemot". This, that and the other (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seeing how wray just faild RFV TypeO889 (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Deleted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I couldn't find anything relevant in Google Books, and not very much in the rest of the Internet either. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

This and Kings Solitude would appear to require an apostrophe to make sense. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:2581:80AA:C256:937C 17:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some figlike thing Vilipender (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

"fig-shaped stones or pebbles of flint", aka figstone/fig-stone, which are similarly hard to attest. Scores of English mentions, 2 or 3 uses(?) in tables of minerals, 1 use in running text. Possibly attestable in French and Italian. May be attestable as Sycite in German. DCDuring (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is mitatia even a real word? Khemehekis (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seems to appear only as a definition or mention, in the glossary of the Web site "The Skeptic's Dictionary", with no real-world usage. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:2924:B51C:343F:F9B1 10:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is used in The Skeptic's Dictionary's entry on crystal skulls, and at least one cite can be found if we cite the Usenet entries that reference Carroll's crystal skull article. Khemehekis (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

“(slang) good-looking, sexy”. Placed as the first sense in the entry but uncited. J3133 (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Added in diff. I'm not familiar with it, but google:"was very tea" finds various things like "I was very tea last night hun", "ginger was very tea", "A live music video that was very tea", "Morning workout was very tea", "Outcome was very TEA 💋 I’m proud of myself pics will be posted". I don't know if it's made it into magazines or books, because I have not figured out how to search Issuu for a specific phrase (if I search for "was very tea", it just returns books which have the words very, was, and tea in them in unconnected places). I agree it'd make sense to move it below the noun even if it can be cited. - -sche (discuss) 22:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Jackdaw --90.174.2.65 17:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Nautical term. Why would someone wind rope around a cable on a boat, anyway? --90.174.2.65 17:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

See the answer to your question at keckle. I do wonder whether this is just the gerund or present participle of that word. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Only appearance in Chaucer, and some lists of products from 14th century --90.174.2.217 07:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I could only find one use of this form. J3133 (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is SoP even if it's citable - hard redirect to teach grandma how to suck eggs. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "chronological arrangement side by side". What does this even mean? Vilipender (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

As a native English speaker, I'm unfamiliar with any kind of yelling at someone that doesn't essentially involve a raised voice. 2603:7080:A507:A8E1:C4F1:3E3A:F131:B58C 03:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

This seems SoP, even if it's citable. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

And the exact same sense is already present at yell. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

RFV failed as no quotes added in over a month (but this would just as easily have failed RFD).--Overlordnat1 (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Kind of hasty. It's not SoP. "Yell" on its own doesn't connote "rebuking", and "at" on its own doesn't mean "while rebuking", but "yell at" together does connote rebuking and can't connote anything else. Also see these results for the Google searches "in a whisper" AROUND(5) ("yelled at" OR "yelling at") and "yells at" AROUND(5) "without raising", although the first two aren't necessarily cinchers because there are also results for "yelled in a whisper" (even without "at").

• but she knows it more as the place where she gets yelled at — in a whisper — every week for an hour.
• ELIAS CRINGED AS HIS MOTHER STOOD, YELLING AT HIM in a whisper from the other side of the kitchen table. “You are grounded, do you hear me?”
• Sometimes a parent "yells" at their kids without raising his/her voice. Is there a better translation than crier or hurler?

Still, when you think about it (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

OK, I've changed my mind and 'unfailed' this. Possibly still SOP though, as I can also find 'yell without raising his/her voice', even without 'at'. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, my instinct is to move this to yell, and mention there that it often, but not always, takes at. - -sche (discuss) 17:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I never ended up going quote-hunting, but something else I was thinking of was phrases like "they sent us an email yelling at us". I can't personally extract a literal interpretation of "yell" from that (e.g. to me the email in that sentence could be a professional scolding with entirely reserved language), whereas if I saw someone write "stop yelling" w/o "at" I'd assume that they were responding to an impassioned message, e.g. one with expletives and/or all caps. If "yell at" in the literal sense is indistinguishable from SOP "yell + at", but the former has its own figurative extension that doesn't apply to the latter, it might support that the former is its own lemma. Worth digging for quotes to be sure. Still, when you think about it (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

AFAICT, any kind of language that "They sent another email yelling at us to to get our reports in on time." can denote, "They sent another email yelling about how we had to get our reports in on time." can also denote (i.e. the meaning resides in yell). - -sche (discuss) 01:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Unlisted since 2025 Vilipender (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Unlisted since 2025 Vilipender (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Unlisted since 2025 Vilipender (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense Unlisted since 2025 Vilipender (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense Unlisted since 2025 Vilipender (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Unlisted since 2024 Vilipender (talk) 10:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Unlisted since 2025 Vilipender (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Unlisted since 2024 Vilipender (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense Unlisted since 2025 Vilipender (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Unlisted since 2025 Vilipender (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

2 construction senses.Unlisted since 2025 Vilipender (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Unlisted since 2024 Vilipender (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Lips. See labra, plural of labrum, meaning lip. This is attestable as plural of labra, meaning labrador (dog) --85.48.184.225 02:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense slaughterhouse --85.48.184.147 14:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Even the books I can find which refer to laniaries as a place where animals are killed...still mean the teeth, and are discussing how well other animals like stoats kill with their teeth. - -sche (discuss) 20:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

So, failed. - -sche (discuss) 18:52, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-senses The act, or art, of causing animals to produce tallow./The property in animals of producing tallow. Vilipender (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

See tallow#Verb. Perhaps you should challenge the verb. (I've just put one cite there; more can be found.) 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:F050:4AD7:86D3:BA99 10:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense The act or practice of catching turtles by fliping them on their backs. Yep, there's an actual game called turning turtles. Perhaps this should be RFD-sense, meh Vilipender (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English.

Not sufficiently WT:ATTESTed. (Also centumduodetrigintanions.) 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

All of these go, thus, to WT:RFVE. Who's moving them? Polomo47 (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not sufficiently WT:ATTESTed. (Also ducentiquinquagintasexions.) 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not sufficiently WT:ATTESTed. (Also sexagintaquattuornions.) 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Only used in Milton's Lycidas, spelled as taint-worm? Vilipender (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Plural of propago. Seems that the actual plural (even in English) is propagines. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:6544:BFA6:97A9:4E0 20:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ostensible singular of greenmans, obsolete slang for the countryside. But compare darkmans (related slang for the night-time). I strongly doubt any singular exists. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:6544:BFA6:97A9:4E0 22:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

"The belief that everything is nonsense or untrue; the belief that attempting to be truthful is pointless." With a philosophy gloss, even! (Well, I did once meet a philosophy prof who taught a course called Truth and Bullshit.) But in Google Books there are only about five hits, and they just seem to mean "bullshitting, telling lies". I don't see this nihilist philosophy in evidence. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:6544:BFA6:97A9:4E0 23:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

A dog held on a leam (leash). Mentioned in edited versions of King Lear, but I couldn't find any use. --85.48.185.110 13:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just used in one old Bible verse? Vilipender (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "Expressing the same thing with different words." The term clearly exists, mostly refering to symbols, not words. So rfdef... Vilipender (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "An unlikely word that a crossword solver constructs from the wordplay and crossing letters only to discover that it actually exists in the dictionary." — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am the administrator for a crossword blogging site and the first use of this term was here: https://www.fifteensquared.net/2015/07/25/guardian-prize-26627-puck/ DoubtfulBadger (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I wanted to add this URL as a link but I couldn’t figure out how DoubtfulBadger (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I’ve certainly come across ‘jorum’ on your excellent site and I’d be surprised if it wasn’t used in the same way by at least some commenters on the Times blog too but that would require wading through hours and hours of comments (it’s not on the Glossary page). Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I’m trying to find out if TftT will consider adding it DoubtfulBadger (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

It has now been added to TfTT glossary DoubtfulBadger (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

What’s the latest on this. Can we get rid of the “citation needed” now? DoubtfulBadger (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think we still need this to be verified in the usual way. Inclusion in a glossary or dictionary is not sufficient verification. — Sgconlaw (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Only one quotation. No citations on the etymology. (Citations are needed here, right? I'm more active on Wikipedia.) — W.andrea (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

The term is trivially citable, though the etymology could use some sources, yeah. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:1DDE:A582:20BE:E3BB 22:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

As for the etymology the sense development is as obvious as that of red-winged blackbird. Are we just looking for early attestation? An American slang dictionary dates it at 1970, but the earliest of its three citations is dated 1981. DCDuring (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, the derivation is obvious; I meant to say the etymology section needs citations. Specific facts like "Los Angeles", "ashamed", and "mail" would need to be cited if this were Wikipedia. — W.andrea (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

You are right. Perhaps simply eliminating some of those words would help.

Relatedly, but not importantly, I wonder whether the existence of the Graybar Electric Company, a major distributor of electrical equipment throughout the US since 1920, made the name more prominent than similar alternatives. DCDuring (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

No citations. Saph (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please be a useful part of the community and add some citations, from the obvious rich fund available when you search Google Books 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:1DDE:A582:20BE:E3BB 03:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 04:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

• RFV-failed. Ultimateria (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

web-spinning. Only used in Browne? Vilipender (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

tenaciousness. All quotes were spellops for tenancy. Vilipender (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

(slang) Hilarious; very funny. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:A4DE:F687:9057:1F20 19:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

See WT:RFDE#Smarandache function → Talk:Smarandache function. The challenge here, apparently, is to find three independent uses. This, that and the other (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Noun. I originally put this as a form under the verb. J3133 (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "One who forms an opinion about a person, their habits and traits, based on his or her residential or work location". — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Too rare I think. Just a couple of examples in a Web search, which seem to refer specifically to an employer's prejudice against potential employees who don't live in the desired area: "Employers can be sexist, racist, ageist, locationist etc as well" (Quora), "Locationist, ageist, racist. What's fair and what isn't?" (Instagram). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E509:6B03:1FA8:8FA8 08:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense 1: "a backronym". See the usage notes, and Talk:anachronym (posted by another user just now: I'm RFVing on his/her behalf). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E509:6B03:1FA8:8FA8 09:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Adding tagged-but-not-listed RFV for our second adjectival sense of anachronistic (‘behind the times’ or ‘Conservative’). It is clearly meant to be the adjective corresponding to our second sense of anachronism when applied to a person rather than a place. Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense sheep-bell --85.48.185.116 13:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Found and added two. Anyone got a third? GBooks has a couple more promising results with the snippets forbidden. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E509:6B03:1FA8:8FA8 14:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense Having a colour tinged with purple, yellow, and grey. It seems very specific, but I acknowledge that verifying a quotation of a colour may be a tricky undertaking --90.174.2.53 07:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not in EEBO or the EDD, while the OED and MED have no attestations postdating the Early Middle English period. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 07:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Only in dictionaries, describing plants Vilipender (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Nothing on Google Scholar, nothing but mentions in dictionaries on Internet Archive. - -sche (discuss) 17:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Burton nonce Vilipender (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

redshank. Lots of hits for "teuk", being the cry of certain birds, to wade through. Vilipender (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you should invest in a subscription to the OED, which contains multiple attestations of this and several other words you have tagged. Zacwill (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I checked it - Quote page only has mentions, and this being a pron. spelling of took Vilipender (talk) 07:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

See here. Zacwill (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Both senses, unhyphenated (the hyphenated form would be SoP - sense one of de- plus the relevant sense of aggro). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, maybe, but la-de-da contains de- that isn't de-. (Entry seems to have had a lot of cites added now, by the way.) 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:4936:1531:AACE:AD57 19:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

In this specific case, unlike that one, "de-" has its usual meaning. And this is still missing a third unhyphenated cite for the transitive sense to be technically complete (but I wouldn't have RfVed in the current state) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I added what I could find on Usenet. While the entry is still missing a third transitive unhyphenated cite, both forms seem widespread online. Einstein2 (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Object show thing. Tiny handful of Web hits only. User is creating many probably unattestable entries of this type. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:4936:1531:AACE:AD57 19:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I can't find any use of any of these senses. Every single Google Books hit seems to be either Latin or a line-break "numisma-tic". Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Too rare, won't meet CFI. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:6C84:2E84:8629:57E6 22:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Too rare, won't meet CFI. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:6C84:2E84:8629:57E6 22:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Photography sense. It appears as a musical term, maybe defined as a "melody type"? Any photographic evidence only appears in glossaries and the like. --85.48.184.90 05:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I could only find one use of the photography sense. Curiously it is in a very recent text:

The music sense belongs to the field of ethnomusicology. I'm struggling to locate a freely available source that explains what exactly it means. This, that and the other (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense to be sprightly --85.48.184.90 07:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Compare the RFV of cibai above. - -sche (discuss) 14:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not seeing it in GBooks without a hyphen. 109.145.137.117 15:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tried to find quotes, only hits seem to be scannos for "here amongst". @Theknightwho Ioaxxere (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I added the only cite I could find where this is clearly printed as one word. This has a slimmer space between here and amongst than other words, but clearly more of a space than is present between other e+a pairs such as "repeating" further down the page, so it is arguable. - -sche (discuss) 23:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Adjective sense 4, which says "quaternary ammonium" (how is that an adjective?). Presumably it does have a meaning in that phrase, but what is it? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E065:9E45:D64C:F38E 20:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

simple maths term.... Vilipender (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

It exists (also quasi-tau) but only in papers with Manuel Mañas listed as an author, so fails the indepedence test. This, that and the other (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Nonce word? Compare mignardise --90.174.3.184 13:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

βRfv-sense printing type--90.174.3.184 19:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense little bagpipe. There may be other meanings --90.174.3.184 19:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "Violent confluence." (Currently has only one spectacularly unhelpful two-word cite.) - -sche (discuss) 15:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

The original quote in context is clearly just the usual "movement of water" sense (there's definitely no sense of confluence here - something flows to a place, but there's no combination of multiple flows): "Wherefore Nature, which many times is happily contayned, and refrained by some Bands of Fortune, beganne to take place in the King; carrying (as with a strong Tide) his Affections and Thoughts unto the gathering and heaping up of Treasure." That said, "tide + waterfall" pre-1850 did find a couple of useful looking hits:

• 1806, Gavriil Andreevich Sarychev, Account of a Voyage of Discovery to the North-east of Siberia, the Frozen Ocean, and the North-east Sea, page 49:

  On the 29th of August we were obliged to stem the tide below a waterfall, which extended two fathoms, and in which both banks were filled with pointed projecting stones. It cost us no small trouble to drag our canoes against the stream betwixt these stones.

• 1824, Amos LOVE, “Lines Written at a Waterfall”, in The Poetical Works of the Late Amos Love, Esq. , page 99:

  Trace we now the torrent tide/Tow'rd yon dark steep's craggy side ; At the dread verge one moment stays its flight , Then flashing headlong on the light

Not sure what these are saying exactly, but it's at least closer. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

sense: corn thing Vilipender (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "(linguistics) Grammatically ambiguous." how distinct is this from the first sense, and how securely citeable is it as specialized linguistics terminology? ragweed theater _{talk, user} 21:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Very rare. Appears as monarchiser in Heywood's work. --90.174.2.94 07:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Someone originally marked this as {{d}}, but I replaced the mark since this term does indeed exist Someone-123-321 (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I see a limited number of uses online, e.g. barely ~80 posts on Bluesky containing either the singular or plural, out of — for reference — 800+ million posts. And there seem to be multiple meanings and connotations: sometimes it's reportedly self-applied by people who identify as straight but experience queer attraction ('Spicy straight' is a label used by predominantly younger girls who feel attracted to other girls, but would not date them); other times it's applied to people who don't experience queer attraction ("Spicy straight usually means someone that's gay exclusively for the male gaze i.e. a woman who makes out with another woman not because she enjoys it, but because she thinks a man would enjoy watching it"); other times—e.g. most of the uses on Bluesky—it's applied by bigots to queer people (especially bisexuals) to invalidate them. - -sche (discuss) 09:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

"A man (in NNSE)." On the web, I only see he-man meaning "a virile/macho man", and she-man meaning some counterpart thereto (an effeminate man?), not this. This is as much an RFV of the singular as the plural, currently given as "he mans". - -sche (discuss) 20:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

"A woman (in NNSE)." As above; please also check what the plural is. - -sche (discuss) 20:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Only Tusser? Vilipender (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

SOP, with a dialectally then (in 1557) still current form of thrice. Fay Freak (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

OED has a quote in the 15th century and another in the 17th. depending on our delimitations of Middle English the first quote might be too early. note that if this failed it perhaps could be included as an alt form s.v. trifallow, which is much more securely attested ragweed theater _{talk, user} 15:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2024 Vilipender (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

In particular, the RFV comment was questioning the definition: “seems like an alt form of gonotrophic”—or, I would add, of trophogenic. I added some cites, but although some mention bloodmeal, they might also be consistent with meaning gonotrophic or trophogenic. The entry was created by SemperBlotto, who was perhaps just guessing. Figuring out the actual definition (gonotrophic? trophogenic?) might require specialized knowledge or resources. (@Chuck Entz, what do you make of it?) - -sche (discuss) 17:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2025 Vilipender (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2025 Vilipender (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2025 Vilipender (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I found and added one cite while citing the next word (#corrivate). It's hard to find more because there are so many instances of pan- creatic. - -sche (discuss) 23:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I see some mentions (not sure if any uses) of the alt form "kreatic" which the entry formerly mentioned; TTO deleted that form as having failed RFV but I can't find any actual discussion of it. - -sche (discuss) 03:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can't remember this, but it indeed doesn't seem to have been discussed. I've resurrected it so we can discuss it here. This, that and the other (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

There are many useless mentions, but the closest thing to uses I can find for kreatic are these two borderline cites. IMO 1840 is technically a use; 1889 I'm unsure about: my instinct is it's a mention, but if I imagine a longer string, like "what he termed 'plastic tubes of creatic mush from the guts factory'", I'd have no trouble accepting that as using creatic. It's moot since there's no third cite.
Along the way I found more books than I expected spelling pankreatic with a k. - -sche (discuss) 09:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I managed to find two more uses of creatic. - -sche (discuss) 09:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Creatic is exceedingly rare but just barely passes AFAICT. Kreatic, being slightly more exceedingly rare, fails...? - -sche (discuss) 20:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2025 Vilipender (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2025 Vilipender (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2024 Vilipender (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2025 Vilipender (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2024 Vilipender (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was unable to find any uses --90.174.2.14 14:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Added one from some kind of heterodox psychology book of the 1920s (William Moulton Marston, who talks about "psychons" on the same page). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:2CDE:4536:2194:2A09 05:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "(heraldry) Such a helm when placed above a shield on a coat of arms." I don't think that this exists separate from sense 1. In theory, if someone said "bishops bear mitres as helmets" that could be this, but in fact books say bishops don't use helmets (they use mitres instead). This may be a leftover from when we formerly had a bunch of "hawk: 1. a bird. 2. this same bird, when it appears on a coat of arms." senses. - -sche (discuss) 05:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Let me also RFV the corresponding sense of helm. I don't think these exist distinctly; I think they are the "hawk" phenomenon I mentioned. - -sche (discuss) 18:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

"(heraldry) Interlaced." The Thorpe quote is the only one I can find. - -sche (discuss) 05:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

retorted meaning "interlaced" is very odd-- i can't really read blazons, but is it possible that this actually means "bent backwards, recurved" s.v. retort? ragweed theater _{talk, user} 15:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, this defines it that way. But I can't find any uses of the word in any adjectival sense. RFV-failed, unless someone else can. - -sche (discuss) 18:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense accept a gift --85.48.186.217 07:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense adjective. I only find it in old dictionaries --85.48.186.217 07:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

"the mundatory erection" can be found (something to do with George Cruikshank). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:2CDE:4536:2194:2A09 10:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

The few uses I can find, in phrases like "mundatory and discretionary awards", seem to be typos for "mandatory". - -sche (discuss) 19:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Mimicking of Quran recitation. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:2CDE:4536:2194:2A09 10:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Slur for Apple users. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:2CDE:4536:2194:2A09 10:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

resembling a trumpet. Probs just used in ChapmanVilipender (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

soft,tender Vilipender (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wonderfolly Vilipender (talk) 06:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Probably 3 in GBooks, will look properly later. This, that and the other (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

A reworded copy from a UD definition, so probably tosh. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense one who keeps and shows church relics --90.174.2.245 15:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed; I can't find anything, even in books which call various "church fathers" mystagogues, which isn't better explained as sense 1. - -sche (discuss) 19:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I can only find this in reference to Belarus. J3133 (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Only in dictionaries. Some others in this list might have the same problem. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:F57D:AA4A:497:5681 06:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, I can't find any uses. - -sche (discuss) 17:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense yeast, barm --85.48.184.253 08:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wright's EDD has this but his only cite is Scottish (so we'd have to determine whether it's Scots or English, which might vary by edition of the text, since the EDD quotes it as "it is a fairy brewing that is na good in the newing", but some books report the line in more Scots-like forms like "it is a sairy brewing that is na gude in the newing" and other books quote it a fully English form as "...that is not good in the newing" or "...that's no good..."). Jamieson doesn't take that cite to mean "yeast, barm" in any case, glossing it as "i.e., when it is new". - -sche (discuss) 16:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense unsophisticated person --85.48.184.253 09:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Probably a nonce word --85.48.184.253 09:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I can't find other uses, but there is a place near Wolmet (Woolmet), Niddry / Niddries, which gets scannoed as this, and boundaries and secondaries get scannoed as this, and it exists as a name ("Project leader Rosemary Nidary"), all of which make it hard to search. Some editions of or books quoting Evelyn have this in the plural and others have it in the singular, but those are of course not independent uses. (Other rare words from Evelyn are rupellary, which I just barely cited, and volary.) - -sche (discuss) 16:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is NLP used as an initialism for “neuro-linguistic psychotherapy”?  ​‑‑Lambiam 15:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2025 Vilipender (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense Anglophone Vilipender (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The phrase "speaking dollar" seems way more common than this. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:F57D:AA4A:497:5681 22:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

RFV sexy term Vilipender (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense English Vilipender (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv astrology sense Vilipender (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2024 Vilipender (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Added 3 cites. One uses italics. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:9C29:7D73:BAF9:8617 13:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2025 Vilipender (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense pimp Vilipender (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense noun. I don't like to RFV Shakespeare's words, but methinks this be a nonce Vilipender (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

barely cited now ragweed theater _{talk, user} 18:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense a cormorant. All the sources I found, Scottish, classify it as a puffin, sometimes as Tommy-norie or Tammie-norie or various other spellings --85.48.184.114 19:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The Scottish National Dictionary indicates that this is a rare and obsolete alternative sense. Zacwill (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Meaning annotator. It has been used as a spelling variant of noticed, and as something in music, presumably one who plays notes, but not musically. --90.167.178.158 06:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The music sense is probably a literal rendering of German Notist (“music copyist”). May not be attestable in English. This, that and the other (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

J3133 (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Dubious sense is "(slang, by extension) To leave a romantic relationship." I am aware of Brexit as a humorous substitution for exit generally, a broader sense, but I have never encountered a specifically romantic meaning, nor can I turn up any such examples by searching the web, which is where I would most expect to see them. 166.181.80.135 08:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "To eat noisily, as with one's mouth open." Not in any dictionaries I have checked, even historical, nor can I find any supporting quotations. 166.181.80.135 21:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Foolish discourse. Difficult to find because of confusables like oncology, demonology, chronology etc. --85.48.57.65 13:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The OED claims that this is a hapax legomenon, and when I track it down, even its one appearance looks like a mention, not a use:

• 1670, Thomas Blount (lexicographer), Glossographia: or a Dictionary Interpreting the Hard Words of Whatſoever Language, now uſed In our refined Engliſh Tongue, With Etymologies, Definitions, and Hiſtorical Obſervations on the ſame, Alſo the terms of Divinity, Law, Phyſick, Mathematicks, War, Muſic, and other Arts and Sciences explicated‎, page 452:

  Onology (Gr.) vain babling, talking like an Aſs.

166.181.80.135 16:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The 17th-century lexicographers made up a lot of words like this. This, that and the other (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense

1. (rare, slang) guardian (A person legally responsible for a minor (in loco parentis))

Chuck Entz (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "embarrassed." Sounds plausible, but after hours of searching, I cannot find it in any modern or historical dictionary, nor can I locate any attestations. 166.181.80.135 15:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Zoology term. I can only find the term capitalized, suggesting it is a(n outdated) taxonomic name--90.167.189.218 18:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Cited, including from sources distinguishing the lower- and uppercase forms. The lowercase form seems to have died out before the 20th century. The uppercase form remains in currency as a genus.

I have also turned up two other attestable senses, but I do not have time just now to add them with proper citations. Look for them soon. 166.181.80.135 22:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, only one sense after more careful scrutiny. 166.181.86.165 01:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense tribal history of organs. Doesn't make sense to me. --90.167.189.204 20:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The word tribal here probably is in the historical sense of "phylogenic" (as opposed to "ontogenic"), a sense formerly used under the theory of recapitulation, but which we seem not to have at its entry. When I get a chance, I'll see if I can make a pass over that whole cluster of terms. 166.181.86.165 01:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, that was more tedious than expected. See revisions at biogeny, blastogeny, blastophyly, cormogeny, cormophyly, germ history, histogeny, histophyly, morphogeny, morphophyly, organogeny, organophyly, -phyly, physiogeny, physiophyly, tribal, tribal history, and tribehood. 166.181.86.165 00:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense kind of lighting. This is the Italian plural of padella, which should be the main entry for English, too. The plural padelles is very rare, too --90.167.189.204 20:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-This term was made up based on the fact that physical abusers never stop abusing their victims in a romantic relationship. The abuse never ends just the way the term 'infinity' means never ending. Chinwe911 (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Chinwe911 did you make it up? I'm struggling to find any evidence of the use of this term. This, that and the other (talk) 06:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Moved from RFD:

Rfd-sense: stem cell. Is this really such a stock metaphor that it needs its own sense? This, that and the other (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep or send to RFV. If the term really is used this way (outside of explanations of the metaphor), we should have a sense for it. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 01:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep/RFV - clearly idiomatic if real. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This, that and the other (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense take out (a sword) --90.167.190.9 11:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Picking at the bedclothes. Vilipender (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seems dictionary-only. Note that many dicts define it as "pulling out of hair"; one gives "picking at bedsores".

Outside dicts I found one uninspiring use ("tilmus or floccillation is..." in a commentary on some text that doesn't even use the word) but that was it. This, that and the other (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The only quote in the entry is from a dictionary of early Scots, and the Google Books hits seem to be all scannos except for text in languages like German, Dutch and Spanish (and one sci-fi book that uses its own made-up word for some kind of virtual reality display). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I found one clear use, "villages dotted here and there besprinkling the verded slopes like jewels" in Kentucky in the early 1910s. There is also a handwritten use here which could be verded (as Google OCRs it) or could be something else. - -sche (discuss) 16:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Dubious whether this is dictionary material to begin with. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Delete: I don't see why an internal company code (as this appears to be) would be useful as either an entry for Wiktionary, or Wikipedia for that matter. For example, if a supermarket had codes for various products, why would it be useful to have entries for, say, C109235 (Coca Cola) or O973218 (Oreo cookies)?. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Probably nonce word, only use in Jonson--85.48.185.28 07:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

rare name for a worm Vilipender (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense to drive on rashly. What does that actually mean? Drive a vehicle? --85.48.185.234 07:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

To go on a "spree" or "bender", I imagine. (Sense might come from the idea of driving an animal, like a carthorse.) 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7912:4B5A:B874:B88C 15:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Cited overlashingly. 166.181.86.165 13:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense cause to linger, detain for too long --85.48.185.234 07:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Word is more often hyphenated. A transitive form "over-linger one's welcome" can be found (not the challenged sense here). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7912:4B5A:B874:B88C 15:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't look promising to me. I can't find any use other than the one that Webster's cites:

• 1648, Thomas Fuller, “The Favourite” (chapter I), in The Holy State, The Second Edition enlarged, Book IV, page 234:

  Indeed, ſome difficulty of acceſſe and conference begets a reverence towards them in common people (who will ſuſpect the ware not good if cheap to come by) and therefore he values himſelf in making them to wait : Yet he loves not to over-linger any in an afflicting hope, but ſpeedily diſpatcheth the fears or deſires of his expecting Clients.

166.181.86.165 20:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sense 2: "An interaction that makes someone uncomfortable." 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7912:4B5A:B874:B88C 20:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps the sense of touch as seen in high touch? Depends what kind of interaction we're talking about. This, that and the other (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Okay, from the entry history they must mean an interpersonal interaction, as between a child and an adult. (I don't see how the entry creator can genuinely call themselves a native English speaker in their Babel box, by the way. The writing style is curiously reminiscent of our profanity-obsessed user with no concept of Standard English.) This, that and the other (talk) 06:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense 3oz cup --90.174.2.221 00:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Cited, though with a few concerns. First, it seems to be a Parisian measure almost never used in English except when translating French palette of the same sense. So one could maybe argue that it is just a foreign term expressed in then-current orthography rather than a proper learned borrowing. On the other hand, a number of old dictionaries count it as English. Second, as a broader concern, we have all of the senses imported from Webster lumped under a catch-all etymology with no details. I'm going to break this one out, but I don't know where the other senses belong. 166.181.86.165 06:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It might also be worth revisiting Talk:pallet#Blood. 166.181.86.165 07:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps getting off topic, but while I am here, do we know what sense of pallet accounts for this kind of usage?

• 1827 October 24, James Webster, Caleb B. Matthews, Isacc Remington, “Analecta”, in The Medical Recorder of Original Papers and Intelligence in Medicine and Surgery, volume XII, sourced from Johnson's Journal for April 1827, M. Piorry's Pleximetre, page 187:

  M. Piorry has announced that, by means of a small pallet of ivory placed on any part of the abdomen or thorax, he has been enable to turn percussion to a much better account than has yet been done; the sound emitted by the portions thus covered by the ivory pallet, being much clearer and more indicative of the actual state of the parts underneath, than when these parts are stricken by the fingers in the usual way.

166.181.86.165 07:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "A native or resident of the American state of Pennsylvania." I would expect uppercase like Jayhawk or Hoosier, but in fact a quick search didn't find me anything in either case, except references to literal keystone stones in buildings in the state (lowercase) and a state sports franchise (uppercase). - -sche (discuss) 04:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Cf. Keystoner. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:B9E2:37CF:57AE:AA62 05:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

With quotations but tagged yesterday by 92.184.102.122 with the edit summary “Appears to be just a submersible's brand name. It should thus be classified under proper names in my opinion. Antonomasia needs to be confirmed otherwise.”, not listed. J3133 (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Note that the TLFi has this sense (in French). J3133 (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

We claim this comes from soucoupe plongeante, which we say means diving saucer but we have no entries at soucoupe plongeante or diving saucer. If only Cousteau’s invention is ever referred to it would fail WT:BRAND but I did find one use of ‘diving saucer’ to refer to a Westinghouse diving saucer rather than Cousteau’s one on Google Books. I suspect this will pass with some further sleuthing. Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense relating to a marsh or fen --90.174.2.127 11:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seems quite popular around the 1880s. Cited. 166.181.86.165 13:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've combined this sense and "paludinal", which don't seem distinct, as paludinal seems to have the same range of meanings as this. I added several more cites. - -sche (discuss) 14:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sense 2: "Characterized by ostentatiousness; showy." 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:F466:18CA:8E32:5020 16:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

My gut thinks of "orchidaceous" as more like a particular flavor of "exotic," and the examples I found seem to agree better with that idea than with "ostentatious" or "showy". Therefore, I have proposed a revision to the contested definition. Assuming the revision is okay, cited. 166.181.86.165 07:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Spanglish internet slang. Any takers? Vilipender (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not attestable. Literal meaning of o algo ("or" "something"), very niche use in single multilingual community. Tracerneo (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense net, noose --85.48.185.78 07:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Cited for Middle English, but I'm rather doubtful that we'll find any uses post-Lydgate. I wonder if the entry at pantle should be enm too? I will wait for consensus before moving anything though. 166.181.86.165 13:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

English. not sure if older publications use Taiyal to mean Atayal. Chihunglu83 (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's the same group of people. Are you disputing that the form Taiyal exists? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7951:BADB:CD17:6366 14:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense

1. A canyon or gorge in South America, especially one cutting through a ridge or mountain range.
2. (British, slang) A lazy, good-for-nothing person.

As mentioned at the Tea room, both of these were added by an account blocked for making things up, who removed senses in order to add them. I have no problem restoring the removed stuff, but I would rather we go through the verification process for the added senses, just to be safe. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

For the first sense see Pongo (geography) on Wikipedia.Wikipedia . The question is whether it is attestable in English outside the proper names listed there. This, that and the other (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

No sources. Chuterix (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Abundantly citable from Google Books. DCDuring (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Nonce term by Fletcher Vilipender (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Dryden's nonce word Vilipender (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense barter. Obsolete slang, apparently, if that's anyone's fetish. Vilipender (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Did you see the usage note? "Often used adjectivally or in compounds: tommy master, tommy-store, tommy-shop, etc." You can search for those. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7951:BADB:CD17:6366 14:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense The arm, or level, of a gin, drawn around by a horse. Vilipender (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The EDD has this as "The lever or beam to which the horse is yoked in a threshing-machine or a colliery gin. Nhb. ‘Double start gin,’ one with two yokes or levers. ‘Single start gin,’ one with a single pole. When the beam is overhead the yokes which depend are called starts. When the horse is yoked in front (not under), then the beam itself is called the start. Nhb., Dur. Nicholson Coal Tr. Gl. (1888)."
google books:horse threshing OR colliery "the starts" finds me things like this, this and this, so it seems citeable. - -sche (discuss) 08:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Cited, I think. - -sche (discuss) 09:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-senses To go on trust, or credit. / To give tick; to trust. Imported from Webster 1913, probably obsolete. Vilipender (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

A time to go to the dentist. Yeh, this is the punchline of a joke - "what's the best time to go to the dentist?", and it should be tagged as such. Maybe this is a RFD discussion... Vilipender (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The "tooth hurtee" Chinese pidgin mockery is covered at -ee, by the way. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7951:BADB:CD17:6366 14:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

User:Theknightwho replaced the RFD tag with an RFV one, but then failed miserably when it came to finishing the job. DonnanZ (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged in 2025 Vilipender (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Delete I think, it's obvious crap. Anyway, we have no idea whether it's from giggle + shitter or giggles + hitter. DonnanZ (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not knowing that would be a reason to keep... 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:B9E2:37CF:57AE:AA62 05:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Keep. Cats can be real assholes. (jk) Delete. Polomo47 (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

People can be arseholes too. DonnanZ (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Send to RFV. — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Send to RfV as Sgconlaw suggests; if this is an actual nickname for a cat it may be entry-worthy, like how we have terms of endearment or Category:English dog names. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Speedy close - this is self-evidently a matter for RFV. Theknightwho (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

All talk and no action. It hasn't been moved to RFV. DonnanZ (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sense 2: "A home phone with integral picture frame." This isn't clear (the picture frame is obviously some kind of digital feature, not a traditional artist's frame), but anyway it seems to be a brand name, as in "NIB GE PhotoPhone Digital Picture Frame Dect 6.0 Cordless Phone 27956FE1". 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7951:BADB:CD17:6366 14:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

(slang) To leave. "He melted out of there." Well, I can't find any such use of "melted out of there" by searching Google Web or Books. Also this sounds like out of, so even if it exists, melt out may not be the appropriate lemma. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:7951:BADB:CD17:6366 17:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Move to RFD or delete: doesn't seem like a phrasal verb, more like melt + a preposition suitable to that context. Already covered at melt, sense 2: "To dissolve, disperse, vanish". — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Bacon's nonce? Vilipender (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense spinning wheel Vilipender (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

super-rare. There's possibly some spelling variants in here. Vilipender (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: Transferred from one to another; related to a process of transference. --Vilipender (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense A stump of a tree Vilipender (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• cf. French souche Lfellet (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Nonce term? Vilipender (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

OED has the much more specific definition "Designating a part of the body believed to be the source of harmful humours. Frequently used as postmodifier." and has three quotes all from the 17th century (one of them is the same one as the one we had). i've added two more quotes from OED's sources. this should be verified now ragweed theater _{talk, user} 16:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

rewrote the definition ragweed theater _{talk, user} 00:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Looking for verification that this means specifically "to make the sign of the cross; cross oneself" and not generally just "] ]" (which would of course be SOP). —Mahāgaja · talk 20:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Move to RFD (and delete), or just delete: this is already dealt with in sense 5 of bless: "(Christianity) To make the sign of the cross upon, so as to sanctify". One can bless not just oneself, but a priest can bless his parishioners, etc. That entry contains the quotation "he archbishop vsing certeine praiers, blessed the king". — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "Someone who fills all your food at your graduation party so you can socialize." - -sche (discuss) 06:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I doubt that the collocation has a definite slang sense; the term can refer to anyone who might be referred to with the slang term bitch and is in some way associated with a kitchen.  ​‑‑Lambiam 16:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

What does "fills all your food" mean? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:C99:18BB:2D31:EFA8 21:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Does not seem to be used (nothing on Google Books). The other autonomous oblasts might also not meet WT:ATTEST. J3133 (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The sole autonomous oblast in the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic mentioned on Wikipedia is the (ethnic Armenian) Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast.  ​‑‑Lambiam 15:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

super-rare maths term, probably meaning "divisible by 3", which, I assume, has another word. Like even is to 2 like ... is to 3. Vilipender (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

in New World of English Words glossed as "any Number that divides another into three equal Parts, without any Remainder", so not even "divisible by 3" but something like "4 is tripartient to 12"? in any case, this word might not be citable in this particular sense, but there are quite a number of hits on Google books (among the sea of dictionaries) of genuine use of this word, which all seem to use this word pretty much equivalently to tripartite. we can probably have this nonmath sense cited ragweed theater _{talk, user} 20:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The mathematical definition makes little sense. It implies that every natural number, 1, 2, 3, and so on, is tripartient. For example, 20250519 (today is 2015-05-19) divides 60451557 into three equal parts without leaving a remainder. It is like defining belettered as “said of any word that contains one or more letters”.  ​‑‑Lambiam 16:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It just means "divisible by 3". Dividing into three parts, because it divides into three parts (like a mechanism) neatly. The def is fine, just dated in style. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:C99:18BB:2D31:EFA8 21:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

J3133 (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Capitalised? Also, this reeks of slang. Vilipender (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

This would be citeable from the web (and should be lemmatized in lowercase). - -sche (discuss) 21:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Agree with -sche. I moved to lowercase. This, that and the other (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Incidentally, we don't really have a sense at institution that matches the way it's being used here and in words like institutionalization sense 2. The closest is sense 4, but it seems broader than that. This, that and the other (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Good catch. I have taken a stab at adding a sense. (I wonder of "ellipsis of mental institution" should be merged into the new broader sense.) - -sche (discuss) 04:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It should be merged as an inline etymology, we have discussed at other occasions, e.g. “originally ellipsis of mental institution.”

I still wonder whether there is any term in Central Europa endowed with the same connotations; the definitions of either burrito test and institution fail to handle transcultural matters: Why wouldn't you be allowed to microwave a burrito at 3 AM unless sentenced to prison or commitment due to committing a crime in a state of legal inculpability, or equivalently demonstrating your being a danger to society?

It probably translates with Anstalt, euphemistic since the nineteenth century, without the connotations only in respect to the burrito test. Burrito is an American dish, to be blunt, you forget the US label. Anyways the cross-language comparison supports your added sense, many people would not have caught that sense of Anstalt either. Fay Freak (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense instability. Just Sidney's nonce use? Vilipender (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense feeding on invertebrates. Probably just wrong POS? Vilipender (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just Wotton? Well, there's another quote there too. So that's 2. Third one escapes me Vilipender (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Where is "there"? All I could find in EEBO was Wotton and people quoting him.

Not to be confused with umbratilous. This, that and the other (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "Having no deductions; not curtailed or shortened." Just Swift? Vilipender (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

WT:FICTION. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 06:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Noun: "Something that is not a beast." Like what. A combine-harvester? A pot of mustard? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:74DB:73E4:8706:16F6 10:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's citeable; I added three, where it seems to refer to beings/things which might be mistaken for beasts but are not. - -sche (discuss) 16:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Adjective: "Related by blood or marriage, akin. Generally used in kin to." I don't think this passes the typical tests for adjectivity ("how kin is he?", "a kin woman", etc.). Saying "Bob is kin to me" is like saying "Bob is father to John", which is a noun. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:74DB:73E4:8706:16F6 10:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

P.S. I just created Citations:unkin. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:74DB:73E4:8706:16F6 11:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

(See Talk:kin for some prior discussion of this at RFD.) This reminds me of sib/Talk:sib, but whereas sibber was easy to attest, I've only managed to find one relevant cite of kinner so far, though it's hard to search because there's an unrelated noun kinner. I also found one "how kin is to ?" cite.
I can also find google books:"are more kin to", cites where someone is "as kin to X as" someone else is to X, and google books:"are very kin to": what do you make of the part of speech there?
Also, despite your comment above, you can readily say google books:"a kin woman", and though my instinct was to view that as an alt form of kinwoman, a noun + noun compound and thus irrelevant to determining whether kin can be adjectival, I see that kinwoman and kinman are rarer than the spaced forms and currently redlinks (the nouns are kinswoman, kinsman, with an s).
- -sche (discuss) 04:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

"(in Cinnabar Panacea) The Elixir of Life." So we need evidence that cinnabar is used on its own with this meaning, or else it shouldn't be here, but at its own separate entry. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:74DB:73E4:8706:16F6 18:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Since the weak plural of Middle English here (“haircloth”) was obsolescent by the time spellings in hair- begin to appear, I consider the existence of ME hairen (“haircloths”) dubious (The University of Michigan Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse records no attestations of hairen in any sense, though it is far from exhaustive). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis)

Slang for Roblox game currency. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:74DB:73E4:8706:16F6 22:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Added 4 quotations, though it might be a misspelling. J3133 (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

See the RfV above for hairen. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 23:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Though this is citeable as pegma. Also, the definition is unclear: a "moving machine" --90.160.106.8 00:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

here is a picture. My guess is that it refers generally to some kind of moveable set or prop used in parades, pageants, and other outdoor spectacles, though here it is said to refer specifically to an arch of triumph. Chuck Entz (talk)

OED states it is a misprint of pensile --90.160.106.86 13:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

1. Alternate spelling of "flerd" (a mixed group of ruminants, such as sheep and cattle).

The final consonant doesn't seem very likely, and all I found on a cursory search were scannos for other things and variations on flirt. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for providing an explanation for your revert. Now that I know what the problem is I took a look and, evidently, my initial impression was wrong. I've removed the entry. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense flowery; ornate.

I do not find any such uses that could not also be explained by the second, more clearly attested sense, colorful. 166.181.86.74 04:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

this sense in OED is marked as specifically "of language or literary style"; OED has five whole cites of it ragweed theater _{talk, user} 20:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

"Boss" in the humorous sense of "wife" seems to be quite far a reach from the connotations of "boss" as a demanding figure. I have never encountered such attestations at all, and the example sentence provided in that entry would make more sense to me if it said: "I'll have to run it by the wife."

The connotation is that of sense 2: "a person in charge" (e.g. of the household, or decision-making). Compare SWMBO (“she who must be obeyed”). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:A818:1F7A:7CB0:A6F9 12:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It’s a subsense of sense 2 that definitely exists IRL, I often hear customers say: “I’ll take a receipt, the boss might want to return it” and normally, when this happens, it’s a man talking about what might happen when he shows the item to his wife (rather than a woman referring to her husband or a person referring to their actual boss). Overlordnat1 (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Did this form actually survive into modern English? The OED implies that it was displaced by hight during the ME period. It does list one instance of hotten from 1651 ("Aldersgate is hotten so from one that Aldrich hight"), but this is likely to be an isolated use: it comes from a comic play and is uttered by a character who speaks entirely in Chaucerian English. Zacwill (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

"Will reply as soon as possible". This entry has been here since 2007 and I can't find one single shred of evidence for it. (It did look hauntingly familiar until I realised I was thinking of WASAPI audio programming.) 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:A818:1F7A:7CB0:A6F9 23:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

August 22, 2007: a Wikipedia account is registered and creates this page as its only edit. The same day that page gets transwikied here. August 28, 2007, it's deleted on WP. October 12, 2007, the Internet Archive captures its first view of a new website based on this acronym- an email-forwarding service for website owners. Coincidence? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Good job Chuck. I can slip a word in for you at GCHQ. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:A818:1F7A:7CB0:A6F9 03:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: Not deplored or bewailed; unlamented. Only Spenser, methinkes Father of minus 2 (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "To strike unseasonably; to affect disagreeably or unfavorably." - only Spenser? Father of minus 2 (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense trial, experiment --90.160.107.107 15:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Verb. OED doesn't help. unsheriffed adj. = sheriffless is possible Jin and Tonik (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense hide Jin and Tonik (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

this is a sense that afaik is obsolete: Spenser has in The Faerie Queen "both do strive their fearfulness to feign." the example sentence given at the moment parses to me as the exact opposite of what it seems to try to convey ragweed theater _{talk, user} 11:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Supposed plural of integer. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 04:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

the same person also added colores as a plural in the color entry, apparently under the assumption that this reflects the Latin plural colōrēs (since they also added omina for omens and *integri for integers). but of course this rather reflects a regular English plural before the deletion of the e in -es (unless there was any documentation of ME /ɛː/ in the final syllable), and if this is to be added as an archaic plural, then surely thousands of other entries must have the same, since just about every countable weak noun that existed back in ME will have had a plural form spelled with -es at some point ragweed theater _{talk, user} 12:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Searching mostly finds French, Spanish and old English. --90.160.107.71 09:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: Chenopodiastrum murale (nettle-leaved goosefoot).

Not in Books or Scholar. Maybe under some other form or of some other species. DCDuring (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't know about the lexical side of it, but the plant is edible and harmless (I've eaten it myself) and pigweed is a related species- so named because pigs eat it. About the only way it could cause harm to swine would be through obesity from eating too much... Chuck Entz (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Too many possible forms, each potentially used of a different species or group thereof: hogbane, hogsbane, hog's bane, hogs' bane, hog bane, hogs bane, hog-bane, hogs-bane, hog's-bane. It would be easier to manage these by some prescriptive principles. We have suppressed capitalized forms. DCDuring (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Appears only in Latin texts --85.48.186.30 18:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

This, although a dictionary, is technically a use (the dictionary is using pertransient in the course of defining another word; it's neither a mention nor is it a made-up usex). But that's all I've found so far. - -sche (discuss) 08:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

cited, although the meaning is slightly unclear for the two later quotes ragweed theater _{talk, user} 10:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Only in dictionaries --85.48.186.30 18:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Cited, but the definition might need tweaking. Several of the cites specify that it is the apex which is pertusate, so defining "pertusate" as "pierced at the apex" feels awkward; maybe "(especially of an apex) pierced" or something...? Else a "pertusate apex" is a "an apex which is pierced at the apex". - -sche (discuss) 20:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sense added today: “The period of darkness in each twenty-four hours; a night.” Also requesting verification of the plurals, noctes, noxes, and noces. J3133 (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Adjective: "like a paw". — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense whole, intact Vilipender (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv verb - any non-Middle English? Vilipender (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

A sitting up of a woman after her confinement, to receive and entertain her friends. Vilipender (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense An upstart. - just Shakespeare? Vilipender (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I created this a decade ago after encountering it somewhere, but upon searching now, I don't think it's used enough (even on the web) to meet CFI. - -sche (discuss) 01:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be encountered in catalogues of arms, not merely defined in heraldic treatises. The problem there is that very few of these are online, though I know of one that might be. It's like searching copyright and trademark files: they may use a term occasionally, even regularly, but only a tiny fraction of them are widely distributed. P Aculeius (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

While researching this, I noticed that the uses I found were all under the spelling "annuletty" (sometimes also mentioning "annulettée"), not "annulletty", which might be a variant spelling. In case that's not the issue here, this is what I found:

I thought Papworth's Ordinary might have some examples, but under "annulet" it just gives one instance "semy of annulets". This could be because, as the introduction explains, it rewords blazons to fit a set style. The arms, attributed to "Yvain", might refer to the Arthurian knight, rather than a historical family of that name, as I see his arms depicted with annulets.

This source, though a glossary, gives an example in use: "argent, a cross annuletty sable", attributed to Westley, and again on page 11 of the same book, "rings were attached to the cross annuletty ", also a usage example (in both cases, this seems to have to do with a play on the word "waist" for "Westley"). Here we have a similar figure described in a book on coinage, referring to "a cross pommée or annuletty". The term is then defined, but only after being used, so a usage example IMO. Here is another usage in the context of a coin, but without a definition. Other catalogues of coins are also coming up on Google Books.

I expect there are other heraldic examples; if I understand what the introduction to Papworth says, the scarcity of examples therein isn't necessarily due to the scarcity of arms with a field or part of a field annuletty, but because arms are organized according to the principal charge, and so a lion on a field annuletty might appear under "lion" but not "annulet". P Aculeius (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Now that ronto-second has failed RFV, we should probably also delete this prefix. Overlordnat1 (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Only appears in dictionaries and glossaries --90.174.2.133 07:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I added two cites, if anyone can find a third. - -sche (discuss) 21:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think we have more cites here, and though they are almost always definitions of the term, they're not all dictionaries. A lot of the cites use phrases like they were called phassacates by the ancient Greeks, often with a list of other archaic terms. I just wonder if these examples pass the use-mention distinction. —Soap— 14:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "To kill and dispossess, esp. to kill and dispossess a landlord." — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Console brand name. Mega Drive was deleted previously. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:34D8:C7FD:3F0A:473E 13:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

"British slang, dated, used to refer to giant buttocks" 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:34D8:C7FD:3F0A:473E 14:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, you might dislike me for this RFV. Father of minus 2 (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Pretty sure nonce by Hakluyt Father of minus 2 (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

RFV of the noun sense "A bad situation; a fiasco." (This sense might need to be moved to ety 1 if real.) I tried searching for phrases like "a real fugazi" and fugazi + fiasco, and didn't find anything. - -sche (discuss) 03:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree it fits better under the first etymology, but are we really asserting that these two homophones appeared in similar social circles in the same decade and aren't even related, let alone identical? It would help me believe this coincidence if the pronunciations didn't align .... one of our quotes for the second sense implies it rhymes with crazy .... I might bring this up at the Tea Room (or maybe RFV/E, but we've probably got all the info we'll ever get) since it goes outside the scope of this RFV. —Soap— 14:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I meant WT:ES, not RFV/E, but i might hold off for now. there's relevant discussion to all of this on talk:fugazi. —Soap— 14:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm slightly unsure if the definition as written is fully correct; otherwise this seems like a SOP of nonstandard + method. Svārtava (tɕ) 06:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

This term is used in nonstandard analysis. I added three cites for refeence. mysteryroom (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It still looks like nonstandard + method, except in a mathematical context. I will RfD it. DCDuring (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense (taxonomy) a tribe. This is a vast oversimplification. The term seems to be outdated, and never really gained much popularity or much clarity in its heyday. Possibly it is a quasi-synonym of phylum, too. Or just a Latin or Greek term. --85.48.184.104 19:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense magpie. It is trivially citeable as an alternative spelling of pianette, but may be a trademark --85.48.184.104 21:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: ulcera as the plural of ulcer (vs the plural of ulcus). While a lot of the plurals this user added have been wrong, this one is plausible enough that I feel it worth bringing here rather than reverting. So far, while I can find ulcera in medical texts, it seems to always be the plural of ulcus, or part of longer Latin phrases, or a scanno of ulcera-tion across a line break; I haven't managed to find a book that consistently uses ulcera in the plural and ulcer—rather than ulcus—in the singular. (The closest I've found are books that use all of ulcer, ulcers, ulcus and ulcera, like this.) - -sche (discuss) 15:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

That which is vapid, insipid, or lifeless; especially, the lifeless part of liquor or wine Lfellet (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

3 bird species Lfellet (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Two of the birds are grebes; there are enough cites to support a (combined) sense "grebe". I also found two cites for "stormy petrel", if someone can find a third. - -sche (discuss) 05:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

OK, I've cited "grebe", "the pied-bill grebe specifically", and "storm petrel", but more cites use the hyphenated spelling than the spaced spelling, so perhaps water-witch should be the lemma. - -sche (discuss) 19:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think "dabchick" fails (or will, in due time) but the rest pass. - -sche (discuss) 01:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

2 obsolete bird names. If you want extra glory, cite the 6 synonyms too! Lfellet (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

nonce word from De Quincey Lfellet (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I added a second cite from Johnstone, and what may or may not be a third cite, from Blackwood's magazine: "This scandal of Roman society was not, undoubtedly, a pure product, from the vernile scurrility of which we hear so much in Roman writers"; someone would need to check that this is not by De Quincey. The word also occurs here, although that text borders on gibberish. - -sche (discuss) 22:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

RFV of:

• "3. (slang, derogatory, Canada and US itinerant and street populations) A mentally ill homeless person."
• "4. (slang, derogatory) Someone who is odd, eccentric, or extreme.)

as distinct from sense 2, someone who is eccentric or extreme due to their (extreme and/or conspiracy-theorist) political views. (Small prior discussion: Wiktionary:Tea room/2025/May#wingnut.) - -sche (discuss) 21:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Old name for a duck. Good luck. Lfellet (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

No uses and few mentions found at Google Books using "whiteside duck|Bucephala|Anas" and "whiteside duck|goldeneye -illinois". Mentioned as a term used in Westmoreland and, possibly Ireland for certain ducks. Entries appear in Century 1911 and MW 1913. OED? DCDuring (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not in OED. It is in EDD, although tough to find - it's under white adj/sb³/v² sense 3 ("Comb. in the names of birds, fishes, &c.") as "(26) -side, (a) the golden-eye, Clangula glaucion, esp. the young bird; (b) see (7)" where (7) is "-eyed poker, the tufted duck, Fuligula cristata". (26) (a) lists 4 uses in Cumbria and 1 each in Northern Ireland and Westmoreland (but sadly, as is so often the case for EDD, no actual quotes are provided) and (26) (b) lists 1 use in Northern Ireland. (Curiously, EDD lists a contributor called J. Whiteside who was from Westmoreland.) This, that and the other (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not in DARE (which usually has cites, often reports of oral usage). DCDuring (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense Of or relating to an ensign or standard. - there's a noun sense out there Phacromallus (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Jonson nonce? Phacromallus (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: thrift shop

I'm not American, so I genuinely don't know: can "goodwill" in lower case be used generically to mean any thrift shop? I thought it was just a brand name. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

There are numerous instances of "goodwills/Goodwills and thrift stores" (usually capitalized), suggesting that many maintain a distinction. Goodwill Industries International ($6.1 billion in 2018 revenue) seems to control the use of the name as well as most for-profit entities control theirs. DCDuring (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged, not listed. @Inpacod2 You need to add to this page after you add the RFV tag. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:3859:2C55:4A14:111A 19:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Cited Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Passed. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

No quotes and I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. Saph (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "obscure," as opposed to "sketch." — This unsigned comment was added by Quuxplusone (talk • contribs) at 00:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC).Reply

Rfv-sense "a word used when the speaker knows they should say something but don't know what it should be". BGC hits are all for the village as far as I can see. BigDom 06:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Obviously a joke. The word appears in The Meaning of Liff, a book that gives new (invented) meanings to funny-sounding place names. But even there the meaning is different. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:A4BC:5EF6:B33D:51F6 18:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just in dictionaries? --90.174.2.171 05:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense term of abuse. Even the reference states the term hasn't been used before --90.160.106.52 18:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Virtually no Google hits for this. Seems to be mentioned on one page of a micronation wiki and nowhere else. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:A4BC:5EF6:B33D:51F6 18:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Decrepit and corroded. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:A4BC:5EF6:B33D:51F6 23:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

To become decrepit or corrode. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:A4BC:5EF6:B33D:51F6 23:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The friarbird. A few mentions is all I found --90.174.2.171 05:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

As we have had a slurry of recent obsolete bird name RFVs, here's one more. Chaucer nonce, methinkes Phacromallus (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Cited, and somewhat redefined. What an interesting word. - -sche (discuss) 16:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The wariangle is only remembered by a few Alzheimer-cels who have mixed up a lifetime of birding with the early instilling of trigonometry. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E554:283:652D:79BD 22:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

a binding Phacromallus (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Cited. - -sche (discuss) 16:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks -sche, I was looking at this one earlier and thinking "I could cite that, but I don't have time to cite every single thing WF brings up". (And I have a fuck of a lot of time, I am self-employed.) Let us not underestimate the damage of the over-RFVer when people don't bother to fulfil them. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E554:283:652D:79BD 22:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Passed. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yankee Town, Indiana, it is said that this never existed except as a name on USGS topo maps, unlike Yankeetown, Indiana. There's also apparently at least one other place in Indiana that was formerly called Yankee Town, but this one is apparently just a spot in the middle of a farm that got mistakenly labeled as a town on maps. As such, it would seem to fail CFI's requirements for inclusion of place names. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

no results on google. — BABR・talk 07:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

One quote from " Albany medical annals", little else, barring some 15th century shit Father of minus 2 (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Verb, Sense 2. "To trick someone into viewing a picture of a blue lobster accompanied by an excerpt of Toccata and Fugue in D minor." Seems like a flash-in-the-pan internet meme. -insert valid name here- (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv mining sense. The term, however, is citeable with a meaning connected to pitching a product, idea etc. --90.160.107.0 11:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "Relating to more than one ethnolect." — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 12:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

WT:BRAND. Needs generic usage with no reference to the game console... good luck with that... 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:AD47:1950:D409:79F3 17:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Almost all the thousand+ results on iWeb (including for spaced "joy con" "joy cons" and unspaced "joycon" "joycons") attest to widespread generic usage. Whether meet CFI idk Hftf (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

2 senses - A home; a dwelling / A temporary mark or boundary. This is citeable as a pronunciation spelling/obsolete spelling of various other terms, like week, wake, like (childish), wick... but that's not my interest... OED has lots of Old/Middle English quotes.Woopingkoff (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "alternative letter-case form of Chud". This is a proper noun, and as such is normally capitalized. Zacwill (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This entry was tagged with {{rfdef}}, so I looked through Google Books for idiomatic meanings. While there are lots of purple turtles mentioned, they were just turtles that were purple.

This phrase is phonologically very unusual for English: two syllables built on syllabic liquids, both with the same initial stop: "p" in the first word and "t" in the second. Aside from a couple of onomatopoetic words, burble and gurgle, the pattern just doesn't exist. It sounds kind of silly, and the concept is unexpected, too, since most turtles are rather drab shades of green and brown. That means that this is used a lot in anything aimed at children, from examples in educational exercises to characters in cartoons and in advertising. It also shows up as a celebration of oddity in the name of a club and a few other places.

For this to pass, we need to find something that has a meaning of its own that doesn't derive solely from its parts. Sorry for the long explanation, but I needed to explain the rather striking pattern behind all the false positives. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seemingly unattested in English usage aside from explanations of the original Ukrainian term жабогадюкінг (žabohadjukinh) (which isn't even mentioned in the Etymology section of the zhabohadyuking entry). Voltaigne (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I found posts on several social media sites (Tumblr, Instagram, Reddit, Facebook, Imgur) that all use the same image. A 6 June post on Tumblr is the earliest version of it I can find. It looks to me as though someone is "trying to make fetch happen" with a decent amount of success after just a few days. But the word does not seem to be attested in English aside from that attempt. Cnilep (talk) 05:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

To coo. Probs just alt-sp of chirr - pigeons, insects, same thing... Lfellet (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "a long, drawn-out exit" (the opposite of the attested sense). Zacwill (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Discussion moved from WT:RFDE.

The second definition of Black fatigue clearly fails WT:ATTEST and should be removed per WT:DEROGATORY. Jaydenwithay (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This request should have been posted at RFV. In any case, it seems (regrettably) that the sense has two quotations and only requires one additional qualifying quotation. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have moved the discussion. - -sche (discuss) 05:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The sense has no real cites. The two cites currently provided are to right-wing websites; per the vote on online cites we'd have to approve them in this discussion in order to use them (and at least for my part, I wouldn't).. - -sche (discuss) 05:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

For what reason? Just because the websites are biased is no lexicographic reason to reject them. We have all kinds of bigoted Usenet posts as evidence for various terms on here.

Still, from my part I'd want to see more than three online uses to approve the inclusion of this sense. What's more, the two cites in the entry were from the same day, so this would be a hot sense. This, that and the other (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

OK, let’s see if anyone comes up with three satisfactory quotations spanning at least a year. I didn’t notice the two existing quotations had the same date. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've added two more quotes (though at least one of them is from a "right-wing website", which -sche seems to think is disqualifying). Please note that hot words are exempt from the "spanning at least a year" criterion. Zacwill (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This "defintion" of the word is not a hot word because it is not "very popular". Jaydenwithay (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's popular enough that the author of the book Black Fatigue has addressed the recent "co-opting" (her words) of the term. Zacwill (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it’s a pair of words put together to express racial animus, I see why the author would mention it in relation to her book about a totally different, established definition of black fatigue that actually exists and has a physical and mental component. Still isn’t popular by any means. Jaydenwithay (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@This, that and the other: I thought that you had participated in the previous discussions, but you should know that Usenet has a special exemption in WT:ATTEST. That's why it's been included, although there have been several attempts to get it removed, but alas, there's always significant opposition. That's where the compromise came from to allow online websites pending a vote/discussion, as seen by votes like at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/September § Whether Reddit and Twitter are to be regarded as durably archived sources, hence why ex: Reddit is technically not a durably-archived source for the purposes of WT:CFI, though enforcement has been very low. AG202 (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@AG202 what is this in response to exactly? (As for my level of awareness, you might be interested to look at who drafted this vote.) This, that and the other (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Per WT:ATTEST it appears that the "definition" must have three quotations spanning at least one year. Jaydenwithay (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed to meet attestation requirements per Wiktionary:DEROGATORY. The contested sense has been speedily deleted. Jaydenwithay (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Jaydenwithay, -sche, This, that and the other, Zacwill: arguably this was not a "speedy deletion" but supposedly in line with WT:DEROGATORY. However, I'm not sure closing the discussion on that basis was correct as there were quotations in the entry supporting the derogatory sense. The issue was whether those quotations were sufficient to satisfy WT:CFI. A discussion on that issue had started above, and I don't think it had properly concluded before Jaydenwithay declared the request failed. Anyway, if editors want to continue the discussion about the sufficiency of the quotations, they are free to do so and request for recreation of the now-deleted sense. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I listed the RFV as failed because it has undoubtedly failed. WT:CFI clearly explained that the sense must have 3 sources spanning the last YEAR. It couldn’t pass muster within two weeks, so I deleted the sense. As I repeatedly explained to Zacwill, it must meet that requirement because it is NOT a hot sense - it is not “very popular” by any means (no matter how much you may be attached to the term). The fact that no one bothered to contest that over two weeks isn’t my problem. Jaydenwithay (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Jaydenwithay there is a specific definition of "hot word" (WT:CFI#Spanning at least a year) which doesn't say anything about how popular the term is. This, that and the other (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree that this has been prematurely failed and that the hot word policy has been misinterpreted. I have no great attachment to this unpleasant sense and can’t be bothered getting into an edit war but I’ve now created ʽCitationsːBlack fatigueʼ and added the challenged sense there. It can be readded to the main page when (not ‘if’) someone uses the phrase online in a year’s time, simply by adding a contemporary citation. Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why would it be appropriate to add a failed sense and its inadequate quotations to the Citations page of a term that has one (1) true sense? That's not what that page is for. Jaydenwithay (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Jaydenwithay: that's precisely what the Citations page is for: to hold citations that aren't used in the main page. It's not that uncommon for terms or senses that fail due to a lack of citations to be restored later when citations are found- at which time the citations on the Citation page come in handy. If you read through the deletion closings on the RFV pages, you will often find the phrase "citations moved to the Citations page", so this isn't anything new. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

That may well be the case. Is there a way to indicate that the failed sense is not on equal footing with the established, legitimate sense and is only on the Citiations page because some person, somewhere, might use it in a year's time? Jaydenwithay (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You’re incorrect. See here, here, and here. A hot word must be “very popular” / “widely used” AND “likely to remain in usage”. The failed sense fails on both counts. Again, you people had two weeks to come up with something, and obviously could not, which is why the sense is failed. Jaydenwithay (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Jaydenwithay: For the future, while I've been one of the most vocal editors against senses like these (one of the folks who pushed for WT:DEROGATORY), it is important to note that the only page that is binding policy is WT:CFI. The Appendix, category, and template pages are not policy pages and would not apply here. Per the hot word policy solely, this term would pass, BUT since the cites that it had are not from durably-archived pages, as stated in CFI, it would not pass. AG202 (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Only used by Thomas Browne --85.48.185.181 06:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sense: “(humorous) Used other than figuratively or idiomatically: see snow. Indicating reluctance to go out unless it is snowing.” J3133 (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

— Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 20:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

“(countable, rare) Wisdom and knowledge.” Sense added (and placed incorrectly) today by 112.198.207.116 (the second contribution is linking “wise”, “sage” and “shrewd” in the definition of Latin sophus). Wisdom and knowledge are usually uncountable; the OED does not have this sense. J3133 (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not easy to find. Maybe in one or two news articles. Maybe only in plural. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:817A:6836:1F94:BEBC 08:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Syn of bingo wings. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:817A:6836:1F94:BEBC 08:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Looked in a few places and found nothing, except that the first result in GBooks for me is Danny Katz: "... Sugarglider, the canteen lady with the sugarglider arm-fat." Just a one-off metaphorical use of the marsupial, I'd say. Katz's writing is filled with these sorts of inventive metaphors. This, that and the other (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

All the synonyms of bingo wings seem suspect to me, as well as other entries from the same contributor. DCDuring (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Appearing multiple times in dictionaries, I didn't find any actual use..

For what it's worth, this would probably be a synonym of inkball --213.143.49.129 13:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Another bingo wings synonym. I can only find mentions (or maybe one or two mention-y uses of the type "those bingo wings (or nan flaps, if you prefer) are..."). It's possible that these people have picked it up from us, since it's been listed as a synonym in the bingo wings entry for 20 years! This, that and the other (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

"(slang) Intrusive; airing out another's personal affairs." I've never heard of this. Might potentially be a reference to federal agents who spy on people, like glowie. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:DA1:7B6C:C597:1E84 15:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Could be related to federal case. No relevant results, even on the web, for "go all federal" (on someone). - -sche (discuss) 01:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: (Florida, slang, derogatory) A police officer.

Can we find instances that distinguish this from the generic reference to a (racist or poor) person from the (deep) South? Eg, use in reference to a black or hispanic police officer in Florida, an urban police officer in Florida. Is it used of police officers outside of Florida? DCDuring (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "a black South African". As I understand it, the term Bantu has never been used for black South Africans generally, but only for those who actually belong to Bantu-speaking groups (making this sense identical to sense #1). Zacwill (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is either a newly emerging hot word, or someone on TikTok trying to make fetch happen. I will leave the determination to others more adept with social media attestation to determine which. Also, I think there may be a couple of other completely unrelated senses out there, but I'm not sure they meet CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

RFV sense of the use of gender as a euphemism for sex—in the sense "sexual intercourse" I assume, since euphemistic use of gender to mean the "category" sense of sex would be hard and/or silly to distinguish from non-euphemistic use of that sense. (The sense had been entered as a "filter avoidance spelling", but that's clearly wrong, since it's a whole different word with its own pronunciation.)
It's very plausible (there is a joke "Sex and gender are the same thing? That's funny, I don't recall having gender with your mom last night."), but the only 'relevant' book hit for having gender with that I see is a made-up example of something the speaker is saying people don't say, so I'm inclined to think that cite is not usable as a citation of the use of this sense. - -sche (discuss) 17:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

There are three hits when I did an advanced Google search for ‘I wanna gender you up’, one of them said ‘gender bomb’ for ‘sex bomb’ too but I doubt that any such jocular sex/gender references will be properly attestable. Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I can't find any actual words that use 'macr-' instead of 'macro-' when starting with a vowel. There are tons of false positives, so I might have missed one, but I don't see it. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seems like one of those words that is "defined" to make a joke, but never actually used. twotwos (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Only modern English use by Dryden? --213.143.61.6 09:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Single use by Henry More --90.174.2.147 11:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-senses meteor/vein of the neck --90.174.2.147 11:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sole use is by Milton --90.167.177.172 14:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Limited English usage — This unsigned comment was added by 90.167.177.172 (talk) at 14:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC).Reply

Approved, probable --90.167.163.194 05:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Only use by Chaucer? That would make it Middle English --90.167.163.194 05:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Any use outside dictionaries? --90.167.178.48 08:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is cited from a secondary source. The original Jacobite's Journal article has "emvowel"; a few 19thC texts made this mistake: 1855 Frederick Lawrence The life of Henry Fielding; 1858 Alexander Andrews The History of British Journalism; 1887 H.R. Bourne English newspapers. But it is merely the same mistake repeated.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just Milton Lfellet (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "an English person born within ten miles of the sea". Zacwill (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Arcane stuff Worm spail (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Irregular adverb (which I fixed from adjective); is it used independently of the 2025 article and related works? J3133 (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

When searching for quotations of VTubing, these forms were used in one Vice article, hence I did not create them, but Netizen3102 did last month without verifying, using this one article. They do not seem in general use (excluding textspeak capitalization), also taking into account that another quoted Vice article uses VTuber and VTubing. J3133 (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

J3133 (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is obv stupid (is "fuck" capitalised because it/he/she is an ancient Greek god... ahem...) I think this actually opens more of a question, like (top of my head) somebody might create "oreo" because it's Oreo uncapitalised. I had the pleasure of commenting on this nonsense in my dissertation ("Capitalisation on the Internet is often absent or arbitrary, with a 'lower-case default mentality' "). We can always say "sometimes people don't cap!". So what. That's not really an alt form, that's just laziness. God bless, eqqy. But this one is really interesting because I don't think I was ever aware of the ancient Romans or Greeks capitalising "Fuck" as the name of a god. Ha ha. Perhaps this will be the stupid RFV/RFD where we finally make a rule. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:1D1B:AB3B:282E:BA18 08:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

So, pseudo-Equinox, would that mean your real identity is David Crystal of OP Shakespeare fame? I was under the impression you were around 10 years older than me rather than 40 years older but perhaps I misremembered? 🧐 Overlordnat1 (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Overlordnat1: I assumed it meant a reference to Crystal, rather than being Crystal; the text itself links on Google Scholar to the disseration “Code, mixing”, which does not seem to appear in Crystal’s work. J3133 (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "Any online document created by a word processor software." Einstein2 (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

lmao kill with fire. As somebody who is old enough to have coded a spell-check for Tasword Two (look it up) 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:1D1B:AB3B:282E:BA18 08:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm pretty sure I've used this before, if not I've heard it IRL at least. BirchTainer (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just in dictionaries? A name by Couerbe (Jean-Pierre Couerbe?) to "The substance of the cells that enclose the white of birds' eggs." Apparently later called oonin. There is, I assume, a 21st century term for this. shell membrane? inner membrane? Worm spail (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It looks like a misspelling of albumin that crawled into a dictionary. The definition does not make sense.  ​‑‑Lambiam 17:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Nonce by Cooke, selon OED. There's probably another term for this Worm spail (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense of the adjective sense: "(journalism, of a publisher) A member of the mass media, especially one with corporate sponsors and owners." Given how many of the user's other edits have been disimprovements (and edit-warring, both here and on WP), I was tempted to just undo the addition. Format the label properly and define it in a way that suits the part of speech if kept. - -sche (discuss) 20:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This has citations, but there's no indication that they're referring to the same thing as the paragraph-long mass of doubletalk posing as a definition (whatever that may be). Chuck Entz (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

They were not even citations, more like a bibliography for this term the creator is trying to promote and 'background information' on it. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "leaping forth". There is probably just a figurative meaning, the state of being prosilient, I.e. prominence. In none of the uses of presilience I'm seeing is there any actual jumping involved 90.174.2.255 07:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense the first bit - respect of persons --90.160.106.63 10:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Specific computer art package. Needs generic use I suppose? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:207D:EC02:C47E:6554 19:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Another art package with probably no generic use. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:207D:EC02:C47E:6554 19:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense deprivation of possession Worm spail (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Obsolete cemistry term apparently just used by Berzelius Worm spail (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense A line or cord; a string. - unlisted Worm spail (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

tagged in 2024 Worm spail (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense The International Phonetic Alphabet /ɾ/ character LATIN SMALL LETTER R WITH FISHHOOK, used to represent an alveolar tap. Worm spail (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense Capable of flight Worm spail (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Very first result on iweb: "They share this feature with flighted birds". Easily citable. Hftf (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

(idiomatic, slang, stative) To have large, callipygian buttocks; to be caked up Worm spail (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Weird shitWorm spail (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hard to preisely define I suppose, but very easy to find attestations. Are you rfving only the spaced form? Most other people posting to rfd are able to at least provide a more meaningful starting point for our understanding than just "weird shit". Hftf (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I assume WF was referring to the phrase senses, since there's nothing particularly weird about the adjective alt form sense. Can we find attestations of "hippity hoppity" used alone to mean "hippity hoppity get off my property" or "hippity hoppity X is property"? This, that and the other (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "A remedy which promotes such granulation (Filling up; promoting granulation of wounds or ulcers.)" Only in wordbooks? Father of minus 2 (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Only Shakespeare? Father of minus 2 (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

A total of one Google hit. The Wikipedia article linked uses the wording "shorter than Mal Meninga's political career", which gets a total of five. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Weak delete: this feels like a nonce simile rather than a set term. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Keep: mentioned on Wikipedia.

110.150.39.94 03:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This isn't RFD; keep and delete votes are not going to help. What is being "requested" here is evidence of use (WT:ATTEST). But I agree with Sgconlaw and would vote delete at RFD if this miraculously passed RFV. This is a cultural reference, not a set simile. This, that and the other (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Adverb is defined as "neither here nor there", which means "irrelevant, immaterial", not "neither one thing nor the other". This seems to be somebody#s misunderstanding. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:9116:E99E:727F:35C7 12:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is this used with non-copulative verbs, ie, delete PoS? DCDuring (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Relatedly, I think it should have a Preposition section, which it currently does not. ("X happens betwixt and between Y and Z.") 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:9178:5BE6:BDEA:EDD5 17:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tagged by @Woo19921206woo19921206 but not listed. Binarystep (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Lazy tagging by someone who didn't check at all. "Intership frequency", "intership channel" etc. are common in naval communications. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:173:E662:8997:244E 18:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Noun: "(music) An electronic music track without an official title." How would this be used? What does it stand for? Any connection with ID3 tagging? 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:5C9:9C1E:C592:E6BA 15:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Uncapitalized proper noun added yesterday. J3133 (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

RFV-senses related to its derogatory usages in internet slang. I'm suspicious of if this term is A. cited as such and B. if it should actually be a separate sense. I suspect that there may be usages related to "any Israeli" (but there's an argument that there's significant overlap with sense 1), but the expanded definition is questionable. The only quote provided is actually a mention and not a use, and it was created by a user with few edits and then further expanded upon by an IP. I'd be hard-pressed to find credible usages that can't be hand-waved away by people stating that they believe that the addressee is a Zionist (sense 1). If it does exist, I also don't believe that it would've started in 2023, but that's a separate issue. CC: @-sche AG202 (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

See also: Talk:groomer § RFD discussion: December 2024–February 2025. AG202 (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Maybe used once in the 1870s --185.104.136.132 18:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense false writing, forgery --185.104.136.132 18:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Found and added 1 citation. Most uses are for the other sense (misspelling). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:99CF:F100:308A:414D 10:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Gender-neutral parent (like papa/mama). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:99CF:F100:308A:414D 10:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Gender-neutral parent. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:99CF:F100:308A:414D 10:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense overseer/superintendent TypeO889 (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

We have the Scott quote, there's one from The Life of Mansie Wauch, +no more TypeO889 (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

lantern/moon? OED only has Scott TypeO889 (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Middle English; in the etymology of comrade since it was added by Dan Polansky in 2008 (< late {{ME.}} {{term|comered}}), with the edit summary “+etymology from Century 1911; +RT”. The OED, Etymonline, and Merriam-Webster all state it was first attested in the 16th century; the MED does not have an entry. The referenced Century Dictionary states, “Early mod. E. comerade, camarade (also camarado, camrado, after Sp. Pg.), < late ME. comered ”, but I am requesting verification as it might in fact not be attested in Middle English. J3133 (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Nonce word, only in Dostoevsky's The Gambler. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:5D6:19D8:A6C5:35CB 15:47, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

In Google only as names, including a company. Telegu-English dictionary is used as a reference. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

As above Chuck Entz (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

As above. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sense 2: "software that disrupts the activity of viruses etc. that try to block the activity of a computer". In my experience there are not many viruses that try to block activity: more often they cause damage by deleting files. I can't seem to find this word used in a software context (except possibly in relation to ad blockers, quite a different thing). 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:5D6:19D8:A6C5:35CB 20:03, 5 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Definition of cetenization and page created are based on the usage and spelling of the term on page 21 of the academic journal article at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2023.11.107, feel free to verify. Definition is highly specific as I am not aware of it being used outside of specific context described, or prior to 2023, please add or expand as merited, especially if aware of other context(s) in which the word is in use.

Regards,

alexbarbershop Alexbarbershop (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Alexbarbershop: It’s misspelt from catenarization. The paper else uses catenary.

In mathematics one author used it, Compositio Mathematica 36(1) (1978), p. 84, in addition to catenaricity. Which is another sense, not maintained by a language community—but by a single author as his private language—, so we cannot include it either. Fay Freak (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply