Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/March 2007

"An historical B-movie genre set in ancient Rome or Greece. " Kappa 09:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That sense seems fine, but it also needs the clothing sense (from which the movie sense) Robert Ullmann 12:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. (Please feel free to undelete the entry and add CFI-qualifying cites, though.) —Ruakh_TALK 04:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Difficult to find support other than urban dictionaries.--Dmol 16:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• The OED has it both as a verb and a noun. SemperBlotto 16:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Resaca. -- Beobach972 02:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The following references were added to the entry:

• Resaca de la Palma, valley, an abandoned bed of the Rio Grande, N of Brownsville, Tex., where the second battle of the Mexican War was fought, May 9, 1846. Mexican troops under Gen. Mariano Arista, retreating south after the battle of Palo Alto , were defeated by American forces led by Gen. Zachary Taylor. — http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Resacade.html
• Resaca de la Palma State Park, located on the outskirts of Brownsville, Texas. — //http://www.worldbirdingcenter.org/sites/brownsville/
• Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site describes the battle which took place at the Resaca de la Palma site. — http://www.nps.gov/archive/paal/resacadelapalma.htm
• Texas Parks & Wildlife Department description of Freshwater and Coastal Water Boundaries: "The following public waters are not considered coastal waters: *** Fort Brown Resaca, Resaca de la Guerra, Resaca de la Palma, Resaca de los Cuates, Resaca de los Fresnos, Resaca Rancho Viejo, and Town Resaca in Cameron County" — http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/annual/fish/coastal_boundary/
• See examples of usage of resaca in Do You Speak American - Track that Word. — http://www.pbs.org/speak/words/trackthatword/ttw/?i=1267
• The City of San Benito, Texas, has adopted the slogan, "The Resaca City." — http://www.cityofsanbenito.com/index.htm

It seems to me that all of the citations of Resaca de la Palma (and Resaca de la Guerra, Resaca de los Cuates, Resaca de los Fresnos, etc) are (a) a proper noun, and not an example of the usage of the generic noun resaca, and (b) in Spanish, not English, and thus totally irrelevant. Am I mistaken? The only one of the references cited that verifies that this is an English word is the pbs.org one (the San Benito one is iffy), and it gives a somewhat different definition from what we have! -- Beobach972 04:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to track down three of the works cited in the PBS page (or can we use secondary citations like that?), we could probably make this work with the modifed definition. -- Beobach972 04:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

RFVfailed — no citations of usage as a noun or in English were placed in the entry, only citations of parts of Spanish-language proper nouns. English sense removed. — Beobach972 15:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the contributor was too stupid to realize it should be mouth breather. --Connel MacKenzie 16:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? I would say it should be "mouth-breather", from which "mouthbreather" naturally follows in US English, which often closes up hyphenated compounds. The point is though, which form or forms exist?

Google Books has:

• mouth breather/mouth-breather: 260 hits (Google does not distinguish these two forms)
• mouthbreather: 26 hits

So "mouthbreather" would seem to be fine. — Paul G 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Now, let's not insult our contributors, remember that a language is what is spoken/written by the masses. Personally I delight in the eccentric imaginations of English speakers at large :-) Now as for mouthbreather, as Paul G points out it has adequate citations on books.google.com. I'll add to that by saying that it's used frequently on internet forums, especially in flame wars. We might consider copying the entry to mouth breather, and changing mouthbreather to an alternative spelling entry, assuming the "mouth breather" hits are indeed synonymous with mouthbreather (as opposed to their sum-of-parts, lit. one who breaths through the mouth (which I suspect might be used a lot by biologists and such)). What I will say though (and thanks Connel MacKenzie for RFVing this since this needed to be said) is that I wrote the current definition to replace a poorer definition, but I'm not certain my definition perfectly captures the meaning of the word. Like retard, fag, etc., it's used as a somewhat general pejorative whose precise meaning is rather hard to nail down. So it would be super cool to the nth if someone could improve on the definition :-D — This comment was unsigned.

It wasn't so much an attack on the contributor, as a play on the ridiculous definition given by the vandal, that you replaced. Interesting that you edited, then pointedly mischaracterized the joke. I still assert that this doesn't pass the guidelines that DAVilla (or someone?) was forming for alternate spellings - this version is just a mistake, so it should be indicated as such. --Connel MacKenzie 16:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Valid or not (and I really have no idea), no one bothered to cite it. Entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 04:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Marked as uncountable, and that is true of the first sense, but the second sense is countable, surely, by analogy with its synonyms? If you can say "What a beautiful sunup!" then you can say "We've seen some beautiful sunups recently." This is a US term so I can't be sure, but that would seem to make sense to me. — Paul G 17:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The first sense is countable too. See, eg, “Two sunups, and we break camp.” --Enginear 17:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. —Ruakh_TALK 04:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to verify that this is actually German, and that the definition is correct. Perhaps someone could also add an etymology and a better pronunciation? Atelaes 07:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Seems to be correct. Added link to -pedia and some wikification. Might even be English by now. (Needs German gender and plural) SemperBlotto 08:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Added IPA and gender stuff. H. (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

First instinct was to delete as nonsense... but some book hits seem to come through. bd2412 T 21:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, this is fine. Expanded and moved to uncapitalised. SemperBlotto 11:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Typo for hear, hear? --Connel MacKenzie 02:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I would have thought it was an alternative spelling. The OED has hear! hear!, hear, hear and hear-hear, the last also as a verb. SemperBlotto 11:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a merge of one into the other. --Dmol 19:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Even that entry itself didn't punctuate it that way. Made a redirect to hear, hear. —Ruakh_TALK 04:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I know that Tagalog is a different language to Spanish so this sense is a bit odd:

(Tagalog, slang) upper-class, affluent

Can anyone confirm if it is Spanish used colloquially in the Filiopines or if it is a Tagalog borrowing from Spanish?--Williamsayers79 16:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It probably wouldn't be Spanish if it's used contemporarily in the w:Philippines. Tagalog and Spanish are of course very similar, what with Spanish rule and all, so in that case a borrowing makes a lot of sense. DAVilla 19:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

w:Konyo English offers some clues: "The word konyo itself came from the Spanish coño ". A Google search on "konyo" shows that this may be the preferred Tagalog (or Tagalog-English blend) spelling, and not the original Spanish spelling. See . But it does appear to be a Tagalog word in use, borrowed from Spanish. Dmcdevit 00:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Have created a Tagalog language section to this page now and moved the content from the Spanish def to there.--Williamsayers79 16:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Section deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 04:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"extracts of music or scores that are between 25 and 35 seconds long". Should probably be merged to 30s, if verified. Dmcdevit 22:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 04:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Any zoologists out there know whether "matamata turtle" or "mata mata turtle" is the more usual spelling? Currently, I have the former redirecting to the latter, as Wikipedia has "mata mata turtle" as the title of its article. However, the OED has only "matamata" (without "turtle"). — Paul G 07:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a professional zoologist, but FWIW, I have only ever heard it called a "matamata." RobbieG 19:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The version without the space gets significantly more hits on both Google Books and Google Scholar, and "matamata" turtle gets more than twice the hits that "matamata turtle" does, so I've made matamata the main entry. I've adjusted the entries accordingly, and am marking this fixed. —Ruakh_TALK 04:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This already has a rfv-sense, but there is another: the Australian sense. Is this slang? Presumably. Is it derogatory or offensive? I would imagine so. Could someone familiar with Australianisms add appropriate labels, please? — Paul G 20:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Sense removed pending a knowledgeable person handling it. (You don't seem to have been challenging the sense's validity, but I think we're better off omitting unverified, potentially-offensive regionalisms than including them without a helpful context label.) —Ruakh_TALK 04:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

In the sense of a cake; it looks like this is a brand name, and so should be at Ding Dong, and even then might not pass CFI. — Paul G 15:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Sense removed. —Ruakh_TALK 04:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This term is neither used attributively nor as a generic term (like "to google"). WT:CFI#Names of actual people, places, and things. I don't find an use of the term outside of it's proper noun sense, referring only to the specific w:Wikispecies itself. Can it be attested (and if so, the definition needs to change, or a new one added.) Dmcdevit 23:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Moved to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion so we can figure out what exactly to do about this, since that entry is no ordinary entry; it's linked to by the widely transcluded {{wikispecies}}. —Ruakh_TALK 04:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Claims to be common, but zero Google hits, zero Google Books hits. bd2412 T 15:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 04:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Any takers? sewnmouthsecret 16:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• What do you require? I looked at the article on protologisms, and it's more than that, but I doubt it's found in print as it's an internet-based neologism. I'm sure I can reel off a list of blogs (mostly notable only amongst blogs, though some writers have been hired by presidential campaigns as official bloggers) that use the word (see examples in article). 129.67.62.85 15:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. (FWIW, already on Appendix:List of protologisms.) —Ruakh_TALK 04:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 18:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Plus, it had a bogus etymology, which scores no points with me. Entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 04:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

English? Very doubtful. --Connel MacKenzie 08:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

b.g.c. shows that it's used primarily in English contexts (668 hits at http://books.google.com/books?q=lapsus+linguae), but obviously no one would use it without knowing what language it's coming from; is this enough to make something English? The CFI don't seem to give specific criteria for loanwords, beyond implying that spaghetti is one while ricordati is not. —Ruakh_TALK 16:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The google books hits indicate that it's a term frequently used to convey meaning in English-language discussions, I think that should be enough. Kappa 17:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Every use I've seen on b.g.c. show it in italics (or don't have image preview.) All "uses" then go on to translate the Latin as "slip of the tongue." This is not English. Quick reminder:

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

--Connel MacKenzie 18:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, please calm down; no one said otherwise. The b.g.c. hits do include dictionaries, but also include plenty of non-dictionary uses. Note that we do allow use+mention contexts, where the word is simultaneously used and defined (à la "He asked me to pass the vegemite (an Australian food paste made from brewer's yeast)."). —Ruakh_TALK 23:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is not calm? Or are you referring to the wording of {{nosecondary}}? (The original contributor was busy adding dict-refs when I last looked.)

Please allow me to clarify: Yes, we should have a Latin entry for lapsus linguae, but it seems pretty clear that there should not be an ==English== section on that page. --Connel MacKenzie 23:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see, sorry; I didn't catch that was a template, and it looked like you typed a long, strenuous comment rather than just 15 characters. Nonetheless, I'd note that the original contributor was not adding them as references, but rather as external links, which IMHO is pointless but relatively harmless.

As for its being Latin — well, is it a Latin idiom? Obviously it's a Latin phrase, but it's not obvious to me that its current idiomatic sense is ancient.

—Ruakh_TALK 01:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It should have an English entry, just like faux pas or persona non grata or any one of dozens of others. It's used in English all the time. Widsith 12:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Now cited. (Sorry for the delay.) It turns out that Connel is mistaken: I had no difficulty whatsoever finding cites where the term was used without explanation.

I also added a French cite and a Spanish cite for good measure. (I also found a number of German cites and one Italian cite in the range 1897–1898, but I don't speak those languagues. I considered adding cites without translation, but realized that without understanding the context, I couldn't distinguish uses from mentions, so it was a lost cause; but if someone who speaks one of those languages would like to, I'd appreciate it. http://books.google.com/books?q=%22lapsus+linguae%22+date%3A1897-1898&num=20 is a good starting-point.)

—Ruakh_TALK 17:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added German. — Beobach972 22:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

RFVpassed. — Beobach972 22:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In marketing sense. --Connel MacKenzie 09:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The definition seems right, but it is not a noun. More like an adjective as in viral marketing, which I have just created a page for.--Dmol 09:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Google pulls up 933,000 hits for "virals", and of the first ten hits, nine are in this sense, so I'd say it's pretty prevalent as a noun. Also, a b.g.c. search for "virals" -"anti-virals" -"antiretro-virals" -"anti-retro-virals" pulls up 65 results (http://books.google.com/books?q=%22virals%22+-%22anti-virals%22+-%22antiretro-virals%22+-%22anti-retro-virals%22), and while I'm not sure this sense is the one used in the majority of them, it's certainly used in enough to pass CFI with room to spare. —Ruakh_TALK 16:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this really a noun, though, or an adjective being used as shorthand for an unstated noun? (e.g. "I can't decide whether I want skinny noodles or a thick noodles, so I'll take half a pound of skinnies and half a pound of thicks.") bd2412 T 07:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you really say it that way? I'd say, " half a pound of the skinny and half a pound of the thick." BTW, if substantive adjectives actually have plural forms for some speakers, then we need to add plural-form support to {{en-adj}}. —Ruakh_TALK 23:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it that way, but not everyone follows my lead! ;-) In any event, saying "half a pound of the skinny and half a pound of the thick" is still using the adjective in place of the unstated noun. I'll have half a pound of the viral, please. bd2412 T 18:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I made a point of searching for the plural form. Substantive adjectives, like attributive adjectives, are invariable in English; when you elide the noun, its plural marker goes with it (hence "half a pound of the skinny", not ?"half a pound of the skinnies"). When you see what looks like the plural of an English adjective, it's because the adjective has actually developed a noun sense. —Ruakh_TALK 19:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 09:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's attested in graduate student handbooks from all over the place. I'll go find mine and cite it later, if you guys want :). In any case, the word is used quite often, I would even challenge your classification of it as slang. Maybe it should be classified as "US", if it's regional? I don't know whether or not that's the case. The word is everyday lexicon right up there with "cat" and "dog" for every math/comp sci grad student/prof at every university I've been to.

From bgc:

Steven Krantz, 2003, "A Mathematician's Survival Guide: graduate school and early career development" - Page 34.

It is essential, as you study for your real analysis qual, that you do a great many exercises that will drill you in the use of these “big three” theorems. (emph mine)

Emanuel Derman, 2004, "My Life as a Quant: Reflections on Physics and Finance", p. 30.

To be a theorist, you also had to pass a special theory section on the quals (emph mine)

Glenn Adams, 2001, fiction, "A Likely Story: The Unlikely Adventures of a Boy and a Man", p.336.

"All of us in the program in Psychology must take and pass the quals before we can be legitimately admitted to the Rehab Program" (emph mine) I emphasize the fact this is a fiction book, meaning the word has transcended academia

Stephen Cannell, 2000, "The Devil's Workshop", p. 12.

He'd refused to say anything more, because he didn't want to distract her with his problems on the eve of the Quals. (emph mine)

Harold O'Neil, 1994, "Motivation: Theory and Research", p. 208

All crews are allowed so many Non-Qual exercises before they are scheduled for the Qual exercises. (emph mine)

Ralph Morelli, 1992, "Minds, Brains, and Computers: Perspectives in Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence", p. 144

Well, that reminds me of the QUAL . (emph his)

And so on. I took special care to include non-pluralized use, even though that's much rarer than pluralized use. I realize the bgc search for "quals" is diluted with lots of noise, but just search for "the quals" to fix that, and you'll see this has tons of cites. This illustrates it will make an excellent addition to Wiktionary :-) Signed, Language Lover

RFV passed. Thanks, Language Lover! —Ruakh_TALK 17:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been here for a while, but unlike its brother (dickwad), it has no Google book hits. Jonathan Webley 13:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Not surprising. They are fairly well known, however. They seem to be related to sorry wad (U.S. Civil War through the mid 1900’s), which was popularly held to refer to genetically low-grade semen delivered by Civil-War soldiers to the helpless farmgirls they encountered, and hence to their illegitimate children. By the 1900’s, sorry wad had become a term of endearment for small children. —Stephen 03:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Civil war! No more "age" jokes for me - they're all yours now!

In all seriousness though, did it have the South Park meaning back then? --Connel MacKenzie 01:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. DAVilla 20:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to pee on your parade, but the cites don't verify the meaning. Any pejorative could be substituted and the citations would make sense. Proper cites please. Moving to March Andrew massyn 08:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The cites verify that it is a pejorative. The rest of the definition I don't care enough about to try to prove. Just a bunch of silliness, or maybe a legitimate etymology but still not something I'm interested in. DAVilla 18:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed-ish. I removed the part of the definition that wasn't verified. —Ruakh_TALK 17:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Not in other on-line dictionaries, not too many b.g.c. hits - the preponderance of them seem to be specific to psychiatry? Is the definition given wrong, (even after my edit) or too narrow? Or is it not a word? --Connel MacKenzie 04:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• It does seem to have some specialized use. I have changed the definition from that of a verb to that of a noun. SemperBlotto 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations please. I have moved the discussion to March. Andrew massyn 12:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 17:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Any takers? (Capitalization is wrong anyway) SemperBlotto 16:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems okay to me. Randy6767 20:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Various Web hits attribute the phrase to the movie Minority Report. —Ruakh_TALK 15:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

But surly the term's use is not limited to this movie. Randy6767 17:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I inderstand it is a term used by detectives which was popularized by Minority Report but not invented by it: Either way it's often now used without mentioning the film, especially on conspiracy websites: Quadzilla99 12:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the capitalization by the way. Quadzilla99 13:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

O.K., but can you provide durably archived uses? (See Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion for information on what kinds of citations we use, and Wiktionary:Quotations for information on how we format those citations.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 17:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Widsith 18:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly "overworld" is standard in games (of that ilk), it is fine. But I see no way in which "overworld map" is not overworld + map. Robert Ullmann 18:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Only one hit on b.g.c, but 401 good hits on g.g.c., apparently mostly independent.

From b.g.c.: Andy Slaven, 2002, "Video Game Bible, 1985 - 2002", p. 155.

Featuring an enormous overworld map and expansive dun-geons, this game was large to begin with, but the inclusion of the Dark World makes the game twice as ...

From g.g.c.: Many attests for both senses, I will focus on the sense which is not sum-of-parts (the 2nd sense).

Kevin Sullivan, 2001, "Re: Final Fantasy X - No Overworld Map?", rec.games.video.sony

I remember before FFVII came out I had never seen any pics of an overworld map and I thought that it had been removed completely.

Zach Levy, 2002, "Re: Insane instakill overworld ambush", rec.games.roguelike.angband

There is a certain quest that you take, that even if you don't walk the overworld map, you will get ambushed.

BuffGuy, 1999, "Shadow Madness Demo thoughts", rec.games.video.sony

The overworld map is kinda confusing to walk through, i had know idea where i was going.

Michael McIntyre, 2001, "Re: Game design theology... aka NEENER NEENER", rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons

By the way, the games FF2 and FF3 (both for NES, never released in the US) allowed you to save on the overworld map.

Yes, sure, used a lot, perfectly valid. But absolutely, totally sum of parts! Should we allow game character? 669,000 hits ;-) Robert Ullmann 14:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I am wrong, hmm, but I really think the 2nd sense is not sum of parts. "Map of Africa" is sum of parts, but it is very strange to say, "The map of Africa is kinda confusing to walk through", unless the person talking is an ant!  :-) Sum of parts only gives the first sense, lit. a map of the overworld, and by itself does not adequately capture the fact (seen above) that people speak about the map as BEING the world itself. One pulls up the overworld map (1) to better navigate the overworld map (2).

I wish I knew more about video games (granted, I play a lot of FreeCell, but AFAIK it doesn't come with an overworld map) so I could be sure, but it does seem that there's a pervasive metonymic use of "overworld map" to mean something like "overworld, as navigated via the overworld map", and this use is definitely not strictly sum-of-parts (though it is a rather trivial jump), so I'm marking this RFV passed pending further objections. —Ruakh_TALK 17:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There is one hit on Google Books, but it can't agree on the number of 'na's, periodically adding two extra ones beyond the eight given... -- Beobach972 21:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be six, and it should be punctuated as they are delivered in groups: na na, na na na na, hey hey, goodbye. This one cries out for a sound file. bd2412 T 21:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If you listen to the song, it is 8 "Na's" and 3 "Hey's". Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye. Do with is as you wish; just wanted all to be aware of this fact. sewnmouthsecret 17:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the hits i see read "na na hey hey kiss him good bye". Randy6767 17:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Does it have "hey" three times? I thought the second one was just kind of extended, like he-ey. My sense is that the first two na's are generally omitted during the ritualized stadium chanting, but maybe they just tend to bleed together. bd2412 T 18:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In the song, it's definitely as sewnmouthsecret says, with two sets of four nas, one set of three heys, and a lone goodbye (granted, at a few points in the song there's a version with only one set of four nas, but it's always immediately followed by the full version). But at least in my experience, the game chant is as bd2412 says — the first two nas are dropped, and instead of three heys, there's one hey and one hey-ey (with a glide). I'm not sure which of these versions warrants inclusion, but certainly at least one of them does. (BTW, the version that Randy6767 gives is the name of the song, but doesn't actually appear anywhere in the song, and isn't what people are chanting at games.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For younger contributors: Bananarama. --Connel MacKenzie 16:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Side note: should the entry, if kept, be at the minuscule na na na (however many more 'na's and 'hey's) goodbye? -- Beobach972 20:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we should be keeping such things.--Williamsayers79 13:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand, why not, it's definitely idiomatic... but on the other hand, the words are kind of meaningless outside the context of the music. We'll need Dvortygirl to make a soundfile. bd2412 T 02:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I'm in two minds... are we to have football chants like "who ate all the pies"? Maybe, maybe not. If this is kept, then yes, it should have an initial lower-case letter. — Paul G 11:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally that's the exact wording from the song, I'm in favor of keeping it the way it is if it stays. Quadzilla99 07:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is this even debated. This should be deleted Wikitionary is not a collection of Songs. XGustaX 02:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. I do think this merits inclusion in some form or another, but it's not been cited, so — entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 18:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Chandler used this phrase. But it doesn't look like anybody else has... Widsith 12:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added two cites, both from semi-published novels (one found on b.g.c. but lacking a date, one found on Google Groups's Usenet archive). If someone can add the Chandler cite, then I think this technically just-barely passes CFI. —Ruakh_TALK 22:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We now have four cites, but I'm not 100% satisfied with the entry; it looks as though the first two cites are using it in a slightly different sense from the last two. The last two are using it in the sense given by various online noir glossaries; I wonder if said noir glossaries misinterpreted the Chandler cite, and the authors of the last two were thereby led astray? —Ruakh_TALK 22:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. As I've said, I'm not 100% satisfied with the entry, but it definitely does meet CFI, if just barely. —Ruakh_TALK 18:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Any takers? Is it a US-only thing? SemperBlotto 19:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

family office def... googling "family office" returns 382,000,000 hits. It is one of the fastest growing areas of finance and philanthropy on Wall Street.

http://www.wallstreetandtech.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=159904336

http://www.umass.edu/fambiz

Handbook of Family Business and Family Business Consultation, Florence W. Kaslow Ed., The Hayworth Press, Inc.,2006 p.367

The Handbook of Estate Planning, Robert A. Esperti and Renno L. Peterson, Mcgraw, Hill, Inc., 1991

Family Wealth: Keeping it in the Family, James E. Hughs, Hughs & Whitaker, 1997

Family Foundations Now and Forever: The Question of Inter-Generational Succession, Paul N. Ylvisaker, The Council on Foundations, 1991

Philanthropy, Heirs & Values. How Successful Families are Using Philanthropy to Prepare Heirs for Post-Transition Responsibilities, Roy Williams & Vic Preisser, Robert. D. Read Publ., 2005

http://www.foxexchange.com

"Tailor-made office to suit all generations of the affluent: More families are putting their assets in the hands of a dedicated advisory team," Chris Davis, September 25, 2005, South China Morning Post

"Investment Services," Standard & Poor's Industry Survey, November 23, 2006

"Family Matters," Worth, December 2002

— This comment was unsigned.

Does anyone care to actually cite this? The anon obviously put a lot of effort into it, I'd rather not delete it just because (s)he didn't know how we cite things. —Ruakh_TALK 18:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 17:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As above for family office. --Dmol 20:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Bloomberg Wealth Manager, September, 2005, pp.63-79 "Special Report: Multi-Family Offices" — This comment was unsigned.

RFV failed. Entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 18:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Three senses added by Khalsayogi, one of which seems redundant (or at least ambiguous) and the other two describing the term as, alternately, a "badge of honor" and a "very positive thing". bd2412 T 13:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• More tosh - removed. SemperBlotto 08:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. bd2412 T 20:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

6th sense (from Khalsayogi), someone who uses sacred drugs carefully concocted by a conscientious chemist? bd2412 T 13:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• I was unable to verify this, and it seems to be an invention. Deleted sense. SemperBlotto 08:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks! bd2412 T 05:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Second sense from Khalsayogi, does "long-haired" have a specific religious connotation? bd2412 T 13:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• No. Sense deleted. SemperBlotto 08:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. bd2412 T 20:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Atelaes 03:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Seems OK to me. It is a term that I had heard before. SemperBlotto 08:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Now fully cited. Sorry for the delay. —Ruakh_TALK 18:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

RFVpassed. — Beobach972 01:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Along with aberrantest. Tim Q. Wells 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Google and Google Books turn up numerous references to a German meaning for this word. bd2412 T 22:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's definitely German, but not English. Who's the resident German expert here? Atelaes 23:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I got Thogo to add the German sense. The English sense has been removed. Atelaes 23:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done - Team Wiktionary wins again! bd2412 T 01:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Second sense. Is the second sense a UKism or something? Also: highly dubious folk etymology from same contributor. --Connel MacKenzie 05:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Didn't seem at all out of the ordinary to me - men euphemistically rephrase lots of slang terms for certain female parts as the utilization of those parts (i.e. to get some ). My sense is that the word was brought back by soldiers from Vietnam, but maybe that's just from watching too many 'Nam era war movies. bd2412 T 05:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

OED agrees more or less with both the second definition and the etymology. My experience is that the genital sense and the getting some sense are nearly indistinguishable in common speech. Atelaes 05:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The OED actually lists the second sense as the primary meaning.

1927 J. O'HARA Sel. Lett. (1978) 25 Just between us I haven't had any poon-tang since I was in Germany.

--Ptcamn 07:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to be pedantic, um, no. #1) Thank God we are not the OED, #2) that is the 1st meaning use figuratively, not the second nonsense definition. That is, J. O'HARA's selected letter is talking about getting some pussy not something obtuse like building a relationship, nor gay sex, nor getting a blow job... --Connel MacKenzie 14:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The second sense isn't about a relationship, but about sexual relations, which in the U.S. is a formal/euphemistic way of saying "sex". As it turns out, different people feel differently about what constitutes sex; after the Clinton scandals, some polling organization found that older people tended to consider oral sex a kind of sex, while younger people did not. —Ruakh_TALK 15:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

See also Ted Nugent:

Wang Dang Sweet Poontang

Wang dang, what a sweet poontang

a shakin' my thang as a rang-a-dang-dang in the bell

Appears to me that ol' Ted is using the term to refer to the woman herself. bd2412 T 15:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We're well out of my area of having-a-clue here, but a Web search gives the second line of that song as "She lookin' so clean, especi'lly down in between; what I like", which makes it sound like he is indeed referring to her nether region. BTW, if it's particularly common for poontang to be used metaphorically in reference to sex, then I think that bears some kind of note, even if it's not a fully separate sense. —Ruakh_TALK 16:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This entry has the word disputed' in bold in the etymology section. Is there a template (and category) for disputed etymologies that should be used instead? RJFJR 15:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If you could fix that error for me, I'd appreciate it. However, my dipute question is perhaps the wrong label for the entry, anyway. --Connel MacKenzie 17:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've heard this word used in the sense in question in everyday conversations. I'd point out there is a similar phenomenon with pussy: people say "I'm going to get some pussy" to mean "I'm going to have sex with a woman", and this is probably related to the sense in question of poontang. *Signed Language Lover*

RFV passed. (Not cited, but it seems like everyone agrees that this use exists and is clearly widespread. I've rewritten the sense a bit in a way that hopefully Connel will be O.K. with.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The language is listed only as "Apache", but that is a group of seven languages. --EncycloPetey 06:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally tracked it down as Western Apache. --EncycloPetey 16:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Any takers? SemperBlotto 18:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned in this entry for grip Tim Q. Wells 19:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely keep because books.google.com has 72 hits for it and based on the first page thereof, they seem legitimate and independent. However, I think the definition we currently give, is incomplete or inaccurate. SemperBlotto, since you are the undisputed master of elucidating meanings of obscure words off bgc (like treebound), I hereby nominate you for the honorable task of rewriting this entry and making it one of the greatest entries in the whole Wiktionary!!! :D *Signed Language Lover*

I don't get the impression that the various hits are all using the same sense; rather, it seems to be a freely derivable nonce with the sense "not having a grip" (for any sense of the noun "grip"). That said, one b.g.c. hit does seem to be using the relevant sense, from a1913 no less; see http://books.google.com/books?q=gripless+nerved. Unfortunately, b.g.c. isn't giving enough information for me to identify the author of that sentence. :-/ —Ruakh_TALK 19:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that is why I think whoever makes an entry which captures the various senses appropriately, is an outstandingly great Wiktionary contributer :-) Even if every single use were a different sense, that doesn't stop the fact that maybe an ESL person will encounter the word and wrestle with it (especially if its sense is not the natural one, "which lacks grip"). Thanks for your tireless efforts to check b.g.c., keep up the Ruakhage! —This unsigned comment was added by Language Lover (talk • contribs) 19:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

RFV failed. (Likely real, but not adequately cited.) Entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 18:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A night when you make your own meal (e.g. "you're on your own")? No Google Book hits; some Google hits, but meanings vary. bd2412 T 00:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason this was created, was that it was on the list of English requested words for months and months (for most of that time, it was the lone y entry there). This is just a relevant observation, not a keep/kill vote. *Signed Language Lover*

Indeed, added there by 68.205.152.194 last July (only contribution from that IP as well). Carries no weight with me. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 18:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Any citations? Should this be capitalized? I wouldn't think so. --EncycloPetey 02:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This site lists a trench cleaner as a small dagger, not a shotgun.--Dmol 16:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. (Please feel free to re-create at the correct title, with the correct definition, and with verifying cites.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Any takers? (no formatting) SemperBlotto 08:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

We have a somewhat prettier article on this at oofta. Which spelling is correct (or if they're both acceptable), I don't know. Google's giving me mixed signals. I'll try and look into it further within the next couple of days. This could be difficult to verify. While I know it's most definitely in use, I don't know how widespread it is, and it seems like a word that isn't often put into print. Atelaes 09:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I worked for several years in a company with a large ND office, and several of their staff came over to us. I never heard that word used.--Dmol 11:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about ND, but my wife lived in Minnesota and says they used it a lot there.  It's even written on souvenirs and stuff like that. — V-ball 15:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you be able to upload a photo to Commons of such an item? I think that would be a nice way to "illustrate" this word. --EncycloPetey 16:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of google hits, wikipedia even seems to have an article on it (but on wikipedia it is spelled 'Uff Da"). As Atelaes said this is going to be hard to verify.

I lived in Minnesota for 5 years and sure heard it used. Even saw it once in a newspaper cartoon. I think it's a natural interjection for people who shovel a lot of snow. (PS - Never heard it once, though, when I lived for 3 years in Wisconsin, the adjoining state to the east.) -- WikiPedant 20:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that, although this word may be from similar origins as oofta, that it may be its own word? I asked the North Dakotan couple (I was the one who submitted the word, BTW) if it had alternate spellings, and they were pretty adamant about the spelling (Uffda). — This unsigned comment was added by 66.91.69.242 (talk).

RFV passed, I guess, but cites would still be nice. —Ruakh_TALK 18:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm marking this RFV passed, even though it's not cited and I'd never heard of it

Is this really more than sum of parts? Is the second definition encyclopedic? SemperBlotto 19:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If the term "government spending" really does imply "meant to increase the money flow in an economy", then I think that's more than sum-of-parts. So, does it? And yes, the second "definition" is definitely encyclopedic. —Ruakh_TALK 23:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if government spending is intended to, it doesn't succeed. I can not see how anyone would assert that as an understood meaning, with a straight face. --Connel MacKenzie 03:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "meant" means "intended". Indeed, the use of "meant" rather than, say, "serving" rather suggests that it doesn't succeed. (BTW, it occurs to me that even if "government spending" does mean simply "spending by the government", it could be considered not-just-sum-of-parts in that noun+gerund compounds have a lot of possible parses, and the phrase "government spending" never means, say, "spending on the government".) —Ruakh_TALK 05:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 18:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Cute. But real? bd2412 T 20:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

All b.g.c. hits at http://books.google.com/books?q=boviate are proper nouns (2, =Boyate, from references to the Domesday Book), typos (1, for "obviate"), or scannos (3, for "Houlate", "beviste", and "Soviets"), except possibly for one that b.g.c. won't give a preview of, but that's probably also the proper noun in the Domesday Book. —Ruakh_TALK 22:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The one Google Scholar hit at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=boviate seems to be some sort of weird glitch rather than anything meaningful. (Is there a Chinese-speaker here who can make sense of it?) —Ruakh_TALK 22:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There are two Google Groups hits at http://groups.google.com/groups?q=boviate, both from Usenet. One seems most likely to me to be a typo/mondegreen/something for bloviate, but the other one does seem to be using the intended sense. (2003, "It's a bit different when you actually have to design lighting for a living rather than boviate 'theory.'") —Ruakh_TALK 22:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There are about 140 normal Google hits starting at http://www.google.com/search?q=boviate; fairly few seem to be in this sense, but there are enough that do, or that at least are ambiguous, to suggest that the term might well be in current use. I doubt any of these are "durably archived" in a CFI-satisfying way, but since uses seem to be spread over several years, in a variety of unrelated Web forums, without so much as scare quotes or explanatory links or notes, I think it might be worth some extra effort to find CFI-satisfying uses. —Ruakh_TALK 22:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly (having done the derived and related terms for "bovine" yesterday) it's in the OED (second edition) as an obsolete form of "bovate". It might well have citations for that spelling. — Paul G 11:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the OED gives as alternate spellings of bovate: "Also 7 bovatt, 8 boviat." (For those unfamiliar with the OED's style, "7" means "17th Century" and "8" means "18th Century".) No "boviate". —Ruakh_TALK 16:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. —Ruakh_TALK 19:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The senses are marked as obsolete. I'm pretty sure at least one of these senses is extant. — Paul G 10:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my mum often used general factotum in a sense somewhere between a personal assistant and a gofer. So, archaic but not obsolete. --Enginear 20:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Or is that {{cattag|UK|archaic}}? --Connel MacKenzie 03:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It can't be too obsolete since it's used in two of the last three novels I've read: Factotum by Charles Bukowski and Life: A User's Manual by Georges Perec, both written in the 1970s. — Hippietrail 19:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait! Within only 4 days I've come across this word in a 3rd novel, A Void, also by Georges Perec. Can we consider this verified yet? — Hippietrail 18:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not obsolete - probably not archaic - just dated ? —Saltmarsh 13:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Claim of obsolescence removed, replaced with claim of datedness. —Ruakh_TALK 19:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A child with a beautiful, refined face. Really? bd2412 T 23:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It really would help to simply delete obvious nonsense and nonces; an additional vandal indication is the incorrect capitalization. --Connel MacKenzie 03:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me - could just be a different language (and capitalization could just signal unfamiliarity with our naming conventions). The citation to Night by Elie Wiesel gave me pause as well - it has a ring of the familiar. bd2412 T 03:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

...in fact: Heidi L. Nordberg et al, Religion and Literature: A Reader (2000) p. 144 (quoting Night by Elie Wiesel):

He had a young boy under him, a pipel, as they were called--a child with a refined and beautiful face, unheard of in this camp.

bd2412 T 03:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that any of the (very few) I skimmed support the sense in question, but the word has 642 b.g.c. hits. That's quite a lot!! *Language Lover faints* Looks like we'd better get a b.g.c. expert on this case :-) We appreciate your vigilance Connel MacKenzie, I'm sure you are very great at checking books.google.com for all these beautiful words our contributors gift us with! :D

Changing the subject, upon close inspection of the Nordberg et al cite, I think it's ambiguous there. It could be saying that "pipel" means "young boy", and then the clause about the refined and beautiful face just elaborates further on the child, not on the word "pipel". Signed, Language Lover

I agree, the meaning is ambiguous if derived only from this source, it also could be a very localized use, perhaps only in that one concentration camp, in which case this would be... Yiddish? German? bd2412 T 12:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here are a few Google Books hits that came up which use the term:

Laurence Rees, Auschwitz: a new history (2005) p. 98:

The young boy was a “pipel”—camp slang for the young servant of a Kapo (and someone with whom the Kapo often had a homosexual relationship).

Hermann Langbein, People in Auschwitz (2004) p. 405.

A remedy for sexual distress that was customary in other concentration camps, in which no women were interned next to men, was frequently used in Auschwitz as well. Capos kept Pipel, young fellows who in return for personal services were exempted from hard labor and enjoyed other privileges. Quite a number of capos abused their boys sexually.

Frank Stiffel, The Oxymoron Factor 2 (2001) p. 240:

He had a Polish Schreiber, a homosexual who was attended to by a Pipel, a German Gypsy who was the Schreibers valet, his cook, his shoe shine boy, his lover, and his alternate, in which capacity he proved to be as much of a trouble to us as his boss.

...

Page 266:

None of Kapo Rudi's three Pipels was German, but, knowing what was good for them, they learned all the songs by rote.

...

The third Pipel was Raoul, a sixteen-year-old French Jew with a pair of sweet eyes of a doe and seductive plump lips.

Meaning seems consistent, although capitalization/pluralization are not. bd2412 T 13:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So could someone undelete this entry so we can cite it and whatnot? —Ruakh_TALK 22:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, wait a moment - the definition in the original entry was wrong (and possibly a copyvio, as it was just a quote from the Wiesel book), and we still don't know what language this should be in or what the proper capitalization should be. bd2412 T 22:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've re-written the definition to accord with the facts. bd2412 T 13:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this a common name for the practice of arranging work schedules to have 24 hour operations? Capitalized? bd2412 T 00:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

4.94 Continental Shift

The quote that follows is taken from a British Help Wanted advertisement:

http://www.encorepersonnel.co.uk/jobzone/technicalvacancies.php

Encore Superior Staffing Solutions

Technical & Engineering Job Vacancies

Encore have vacancies available all over the Midlands. Whether you require an industrial, driving or technical position we hope you will be able to find something suitable in the relevant section of this website.

Look through our listings below to see what is available at the moment, if you see a job you like click on the link to register your interest or alternatively just give us a call.

And remember to come back again in the future as our jobs are updated weekly.

Extrusion Machine Operator

To be successful in this role it is essential that you have previous experience of operating a machine and be able to demonstrate commitment and flexibility to work the continentals which involves working 12 hour shift including days and nights and weekends. A valid Fork Lift Licence is also essential for this role. Personal attributes

My client is looking for an experienced Machine Operator to work on a continental shift pattern. You will be responsible for operating a number of Extrusion Machines at one time you will be required to be able to manage yourself and your workload effectively. Applicants must have mechanical aptitude with previous experience of Machine Operating. Salary

The following quote is taken from a promotional website that encourages businesses to locate in North Ayrshire, Scotland.

http://www.northayrshire.com/stats.htm

North Ayrshire Economic Statistics

North Ayrshire's economic performance has proved an attractive option for inward investment - as a business location it provides quality infrastructure access to the European market and a highly educated and skilled workforce.

Continental Shift Working

• North Ayrshire has a tradition of companies utilising continental shift patterns eg. Nobel Explosives (ICI), Glaxo SmithKline, Caledonian Paper, Rockware. • Local workforce and families are therefore used to and willing to work shift patterns.

THe following link is to Thompson's Labour and International Law review. Unfortunately, I cannot copy from this articly, but a word search will show it:

http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/dload/lelr0017.pdf

The following entry is from a Canadian Study:

http://www.canadianstudy.ca/ON/Aug06/August-Part2-p18.pdf — This unsigned comment was added by Robert D. KATZ (talk • contribs) at 03:02, 26 March 2007.

So, anyone want to sift through the above and cite this? —Ruakh_TALK 20:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Easier to find citations here: http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=%22continental+shift+system%22&btnG=Search+Books . Mostly not capitalized, especially "shift". Kappa 21:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. (But as usual, please feel free to restore the entry and cite it properly.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A pejorative term for someone with a beard? bd2412 T 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen this used almost as everyday lexicon on some webforums, but never literally: it's used as a more pejorative version of nerd. (Signed Language Lover)

In the uses I've seen of it, it has nothing to do with having a beard, but nevertheless it has spawned some very interesting language. For example. "Forgive me for talking about Star Wars, my beard is strong today." (Signed, Language Lover)

Ok, I researched this and it looks like the sense I mentioned above might be a peculiar locality at poe-news.com. Another thing I learned is "beard" has an archaic spelling with a weird "e" at the end which google often misscans as an "o". Here are some cites for the "has a beard" sense of beardo.

Salman Rushdie - 2000 - "The Ground Beneath Her Feet: A Novel", p 331

...or a voodoo cab driver with zombies on the brain or a bomber from Montana or an Islamist beardo from Queens, then whatever's going through your...

Suzi Rose - 2003 - "Accidental Heroine: Diary of an Attention Seeker", p 146

Mr Bore is in his garden again. I went to say Hello and he gave me a really stony look so I went back in. I really don't know what his problem is. Anti-social beardo (that's a weirdo with a beard).

Joshua Wright - 2004 - "Plotless Pointless Pathetic", p 119

He can't control the weather. It's controlled by the atmosphere, with respect to variables such as temperature, moisture, wind velocity, and barometric pressure. It's not run by just some mouldy old beardo wearing a bed sheet and throwing thunderbolts about.

Patrick D Gaffney, 1994, "The Prophet's Pulpit: Islamic Preaching in Contemporary Egypt", p 90

Moreover, in the regional patois one common expression used by outsiders, including unsympathetic shaykhs, to refer to the group was birubū dign, which can be glossed as the "bearded ones" or more colloquially as "beardo's."

There are many cites which are ambiguous, mostly because b.g.c. only gives limited or snippet preview. For example:

Ed Lark, 2005, "Grief", p 146

The giant turned to him, "Worried you there you whining beardo. Did I ever tell you about the time..."

Hope this helps :-) Ahh, another beautiful word worthy of our fine Wiktionary!!! :D Language Lover 15:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes but can you tell what it means? Only one of those cites clearly references the proffered definition (weirdo with a beard); the rest could simply be a colloquial term for anyone (weird or not) with a beard (or any group wherein beardsmanship is a characteristic common to those in the group). bd2412 T 15:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the fact that they dont "clearly reference the proffered definition" makes them stronger cites. If every time the word was used, the author gave a definition, that would clearly make it a neologism of santorum calibre! :) Now as for the specific cites above. Rushdie is almost certainly using the given sense, because of the stereotype "Muslims have beards". Rose and Gaffney both unambiguously say what they mean. And Wright seems to be making a reference to the stereotype of God as a bearded old man. :) Hope this clears things up a bit :-D Language Lover 15:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of cites is to show usage of the word as we have defined it. While the cite itself may not do so, and indeed, as you say, is often stronger if it doesn't, the extended context should make the usage clear. That is why we prefer cites to include a link to an online source (see Wiktionary:Quotations#Between_the_definitions) and, for CFI purposes at least, prefer to see them interspersed between the definitions of a word with more than one suggested meaning. I agree with your reasoning that the Rushdie, R&G, and Wright cites show this (and are enough to pass CFI) but others might like links so they can check for themselves. And if you are unsure of the usage given in the others, perhaps they should not have been used to suggest that CFI were met. --Enginear 20:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. —Ruakh_TALK 23:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Move to WT:-) perhaps? --Connel MacKenzie 03:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems common on Usenet, but I would doubt independence. Are there any other potential sources for us? DAVilla 19:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is a project on Sourceforge that is further evidence to the independence of this former hacker-slang.—This unsigned comment was added by 69.170.199.205 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

RFV failed. Entry deleted. (Please feel free to undelete the entry, or ask me to undelete it, if you can add three independent durably archived uses.) —Ruakh_TALK 23:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Any evidence of independent use, as required by WT:CFI. My search turns up only Harry Potter references. Dmcdevit 09:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 23:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A character in Harry Potter. This appears to be a concept better fir for an encyclopedia than a dictionary. I don't see evidence of independent use or attributive use. Dmcdevit 09:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Not linguistic. Deleted. DAVilla 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Added with no formatting; I cleaned it... but is the term really used? -- Beobach972 21:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It’s very common in the U.S., but I wasn’t sure of the meaning. I always thought it means "$10 worth" of marijuana, but the article claims it means one gram. I’m sure the contributor knows much more about it than I do. —Stephen 21:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Stephen; firstly, I've encountered the term before, which means it must be pretty common (given my cluelessness about pop culture), and secondly, the term gets plenty of b.g.c. hits, but those that define it define it as "$10 worth of any drug" or the like. —Ruakh_TALK 22:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

While I admittedly never got into any harder drugs myself, I was always under the impression that dime bag specifically referred to marijuana alone, and to $10 worth, not a gram. Atelaes 22:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the term is clearly in widespread use, but I agree with the previous definition clarifications. (Odd that Google suggest, suggests the rare spelling dimebag. I've only ever seen it as two words.) --Connel MacKenzie 02:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I clarified the definition to reflect that. I left the RFV tag in case anybody wants to give examples of use in support of a specific meaning one way or the other.-- Beobach972 02:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the RFV tag now, since it doesn't look like anybody did. —Ruakh_TALK 23:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this seems ridiculous, but I've been wrong before, so I'm rfv'ing this re-created entry for a verb which purpotedly means putting cheese curds and gravy on top of french fries. bd2412 T 01:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(Note - zero Google Books hits, 11 regular Google hits, in contrast to the roughly two-million hits for poutine, the dish from which this is reportedly derived). bd2412 T 01:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 23:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

To stammer during an IM? bd2412 T 13:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 23:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Third sense. --Connel MacKenzie 13:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, no but:

Ryan A Nerz, Eat This Book: a year of gorging and glory on the competitive eating circuit (2006) p. 67:

There is a Mozart of competitive eating who is yet to reveal himself.

Victor H. Mair, The Columbia History of Chinese Literature (2001) p. 296:

Li Po is the most musical, most versatile, and most engaging of Chinese poets, a Mozart of words.

Lawrence Grobel, Endangered Species: Writers Talk about Their Craft, Their Visions, Their Lives (2001}:

Joyce Carol Oates has said, "If there is a Mozart of interviewers, Larry Grobel is that individual."

Kathryn Ann Lindskoog, Surprised by C.S. Lewis, George MacDonald, and Dante: An Array of Original Discoveries (2001) p. 116:

In contrast, MacDonald's Gibbie is not only a moral prodigy, but also a Mozart of religious sensibility.

Noel Bertram Gerson, Harriet Beecher Stowe: a biography (1976) p. 86:

By the same token, Rembrandt resembled Hawthorne, and the architect who had designed Melrose Abbey was a Mozart among architects.

Sir William Mitchell, The Place of Minds in the World (1933) p. 142:

One child is a Mozart with a flying start, while another foots it, and makes little way; but the course is the same, being set by the object.

Joseph Lane Hancock, Nature Sketches in Temperate America: A Series of Sketches and Popular Account of Insects, Birds,... (1911) p. 103:

He is a Mozart in the insect world, sending out his strain upon the evening air.

Henry Ward Beecher, Plymouth Pulpit: Sermons Preached in Plymouth Church, Brooklyn (1875) p. 446:

e can understand how a father who is a good musician may have a son who is a Mozart—a genius in music...

From the above, it appears that "Mozart" is synonymous with "virtuoso" in any field. bd2412 T 14:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as you would expect from someone using Mozart metaphorically. Not sure if it's necessary or desired to elucidate metaphors. Maybe we need to ask the Mozart among wiktionarians?--Halliburton Shill 04:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If I were to point to a child and say, "that child is a Mozart!", I think the typical response would be, "at what?" If I were to say someone is an Einstein or a Napoleon or an Attila the Hun, I wouldn't have to specify, but I think with a Mozart I would. bd2412 T 04:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed in given sense. Thank you for those cites, bd2412; it was really quite news to me that there are "Mozarts" at things besides music, and I've edited/restructured the article accordingly. —Ruakh_TALK 23:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No Google Books hits, does not appear to meet CFI. bd2412 T 14:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted; appears to be spam. --EncycloPetey 00:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to WT:LOP. --Connel MacKenzie 06:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Only 4 blog hits, a dozen unique Google hits overall. Nothing in books or even Usenet. DAVilla 19:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Moved to WT:LOP. —Ruakh_TALK 23:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? bd2412 T 13:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a euphemistic form of "piss off", in the sense of "to annoy". — Paul G 09:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Usually considered a more polite way of saying piss off.--Dmol 10:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Cites would be nice. bd2412 T 13:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes -- surprisingly difficult to find cites, considering that it is verbally very common, considered informally acceptable in almost any company. However, here are three: . I assume that, as with piss off, the usage is (mainly UK). --Enginear 14:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Piss off in that sense is quite common in the U.S.; it's only the "leave" sense that's (mainly UK). That said, I've never heard pee off in any sense, so it might be U.K.-specific even though what it's a euphemism for is not. —Ruakh_TALK 15:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

KEEP Yes, I believe it is mainly a British term, not really euphemistic, more a lightweight piss off, just like twit is a mild way of calling someone an idiot!--Williamsayers79 14:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Can't recall when or where, but I think I've heard this used by Brits. Not so sure if I've ever heard it in Canada or the U.S. In any case, the entry now includes sourced quotations. -- WikiPedant 15:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The entry currently only has one cite, but if we add Enginear's first two cites (with are both in the sense given in the article), we'll have three. —Ruakh_TALK 16:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Question, though: Enginear's third cite suggests that pee off might be euphemistic for piss off in any sense — in which case this seems like sum-of-parts (with pee being the catch-all euphemism for piss)? —Ruakh_TALK 16:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. Thanks, Enginear. —Ruakh_TALK 23:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

But, def modified to accommodate all our cites. —Ruakh_TALK 23:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 15:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 23:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel sort of bad with this one, because I know it's a word, and it's an exceptionally well formatted entry. It's just that I really don't want to see this turn into a gaming jargon site. Google is certainly supporting this, as expected, but google books is not. I just don't think it's really become standard vocabulary for anyone except RPG'ers. Atelaes 19:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, if this is used in RPGs, then the article should say so; it currently speaks only of certain video games. Secondly, as annoying as gaming jargon is (at least to those of us who never play RPGs/video games/whatnot), I don't think we should away legitimately widespread gaming jargon, if only because I think that's one area in which a wiki can really excel compared to other dictionaries and other online sources. Why throw away free excellence? —Ruakh_TALK 20:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

SemperBlotto has now deleted this with the deletion summary "tosh". I disagree, but not strongly enough to argue the point, so I guess that's that. —Ruakh_TALK 15:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could say I was sorry, but I'm not. I guess I just have a personal philosophy of erring on the side of respectable in these cases. However, if you feel like taking the time to find some good cites on this one, I'd be more than happy to undelete it. Atelaes 16:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, don't worry about it; I hate gaming jargon as much as the next guy, and while I do think we should keep legitimately widespread gaming jargon, it's in a vague "I think this would probably be good" way, not in a true "this is something I care about" way. —Ruakh_TALK 19:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This may have been deleted in haste - feel free to request an undelete if you really think it deserves a place here. SemperBlotto 19:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't "gaming jargon". This is a neologism only used in Final Fantasy. It would be different if it was a generic term, but this is practically a trademark. --Ptcamn 05:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The definitions were

1. (Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VIII) An ultimate attack, possible when the anger meter is at its peak.

and

1. Any super-attack.

— Beobach972 01:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I could not find it in any dictionary or Google Books (besides names). (Also, the author moved ccdc to zune calling it a typo.) Timw. 03:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made the assumption that this is simply a cheap stab at the Microsoft zune, based on some of the conributor's past contributions (i.e. Microsoftian). If I am in error on this, please accept my apologies and ask me to reinstate it (or do it yourself if you have the capability). Atelaes 03:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No disputing the existence of this term, but is it really obsolete, or just archaic, or dated, or even extant? I read a reference to it in a novel today that suggested it the term is historical (which would make it extant, not obsolete).

Is it really countable? The definition suggests that it can be used as "arsenic and thallium were used as inheritance powders", but I would think it's more likely that it is/was uncountable, as in "arsenic and thallium were used as inheritance powder". Any evidence either way? — Paul G 09:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me...and google. http://books.google.com/books?q=%22inheritance+powders%22&btnG=Search+Books. --Connel MacKenzie 20:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Marked "historical"; left countable. Is that O.K. by everyone? —Ruakh_TALK 01:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

LOP? bd2412 T 13:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

see Bloomberg Wealth Magaizine "Special Report on Multi-Family Offices" September, 2005. —This unsigned comment was added by Rmmoseley (talk • contribs) 13:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Ok, find two more cites and you'll meet the CFI. bd2412 T 17:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

See The Grocer (UK) "A Friendlier Face" 16 November, 2006

See The Guardian (UK) "Moving Business into the 21st Century" 12 January, 2007

There are now three citings of this word.

Does this word now meet the criteria? —This unsigned comment was added by Mark.Crosby (talk • contribs) 13:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Please add your citations to the entry, using the format prescribed in WT:CITE. —Ruakh_TALK 15:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 01:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sense #6, "indicating obligation": really? The contributor who added this also added an example with "taxable", which I removed as clearly exemplifying the previous senses; but I'm not so sure about his/her "payable" example. My interpretation is that "is payable", i.e. "may be paid", is simply a more polite way of saying "must be paid", but I thought I'd bring it here and see if anyone can pull up a more unambiguous example of this sense. —Ruakh_TALK 16:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Sense removed. —Ruakh_TALK 01:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this any more than the sum of its parts? (Needs formatting and trimming) SemperBlotto 17:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 01:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Any takers? Nothing very obvious on Google. SemperBlotto 22:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 01:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There are now several links referencing this term:

http://www.verasage.com/index.php/community/pkf_defined/

http://blog.rebarbusinessbuilders.com/rebar/2007/02/professional_kn.html

http://neilmcintyre.ca/index.php?p=230

— This comment was unsigned.

I'm sorry, but we require durably archived cites. Please see Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion for more information, and feel free to leave a note at this page once you have acceptable cites. —Ruakh_TALK 01:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

RFV failure let stand. —Ruakh_TALK 01:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"A device used to unravel mechanical liquidation wire."? And what is liquidation wire anyway? Gaston 12:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You added it, you tell us. I've rolled back your deletion of the interwiki and audio links, feel free to add this sense when you have 3 or more print citations of its use. Cynewulf 13:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't! It was added by user:TheMustardOfLice on 25 December 2006. I also didn't delete the interwiki or the audio pronunciation! I have no idea what happened there, but something is wrong with the page's history. Gaston 23:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone support this definition:

1. (nautical, idiomatic, vulgar) A game used at sea, when near the line, or in a hot latitude. It is performed thus: A man who is to represent king Arthur, ridiculously dressed, having a large wig made out of oakum, or some old swabs, is seated on the side, or over a large vessel of water. Every person in his turn is to be ceremoniously introduced to him, and to pour a bucket of water over him, crying, hail, king Arthur! if during this ceremony the person introduced laughs or smiles (to which his majesty endeavours to excite him, by all sorts of ridiculous gesticulations), he changes place with, and then becomes, king Arthur, till relieved by some brother tar, who has as little command over his muscles as himself.

I think it needs trimming at least. Cites would be nice!--Williamsayers79 14:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems 82.96.100.100 (talk) was fond of copying things in from the 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue. Cynewulf 14:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert on mythology, but w:King Arthur seems an unlikely name for such a game. I could imagine such a ritual being named after King Canute, and I know there is a superstition that an item must be thrown overboard when crossing the equator, as an offering to Neptune. But I don't know of any connection with King Arthur. --Enginear 17:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Sense removed. —Ruakh_TALK 01:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't find examples in dictionaries at hand, but there are significant Google hits. The root shows up in my botanical Latin dictionary, so it's certainly plausible as a word. --EncycloPetey 21:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It's in the Dictionary of Difficult Words, but that isn't an example of usage, it's a secondary source. -- Beobach972 23:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It gets a Google-Books hit (from the Indian Police Journal, no less): a progressive reduction in the expanded area of tip noticeable, tip more or less rhipidate, no appreciable change in the number of inner air bubbles observable. -- Beobach972 23:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It was included in the word list for the 2007 Scripps National Spelling Bee as well. — This comment was unsigned.

That belongs in a ===Triva=== section, then.

There seem to be ample hits on b.g.c., and numerous corroborating reference works as well. --Connel MacKenzie 20:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 01:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The amazing one b.g.c. hit. --Connel MacKenzie 22:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved. I was able to find 5 in print, all good cites. Absolutely none on Usenet or even in blogs, save one in French. I guess this is a print type of word. DAVilla 19:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh! (slaps forehead) Misspelling of the hyphenated form. Thanks! --Connel MacKenzie 06:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, apart from just writing '''RFV passed''' the template to use is {{process|rfv-passed}} although there still isn't any bot around that catches it. DAVilla 07:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

With about 1000 Google hits, it's feasible as an entry, but the top hits are Urban Dictionary and blogs. Neologism? --EncycloPetey 03:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This word is described in and it seems that Orson Scott Card is using this along with a few other words, like varelse and framling in his series of Sci-Fi novels, according to the links. The words seem pretty un-english to me, as they are taken from the Swedish language straight off, removing the dots of two of the words: främling (a person you don't know) and utlänning (a person from another country). Varelse means a living being, such as an animal or a human being, even fantasy beings. I have a hard time to believe this would be anything else than a protologism at most. Of the 1000 matches on Google I would believe atleast 95% comes from swedish words that also match the search. ~ Dodde 00:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. I've also taken the liberty of removing the analogous sense of varelse. —Ruakh_TALK 01:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The page lists an alternative spelling "pot", but that's Tatar according to the pot page. Can someone provide usage of this spelling in English? -PierreAbbat 14:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

After more than a month has passed with no verification, I have removed it from pood. PierreAbbat 02:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Any takers? SemperBlotto 18:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry re-deleted (third time's the charm?). —Ruakh_TALK 01:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

0 hits on books.google.com. Protologism? Dmcdevit 23:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Proper term would be Dawkinsian (which gets 45 Google Books hits). Speedy moving and closing. bd2412 T 03:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Dawkinite seems to be linked from a few places. Labeled the residual redirect as misconstruction to let RFV run its course. DAVilla 17:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 01:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like nonsense. I'm not finding widespread use. Dmcdevit 23:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

SemperBlotto kindly made this excellent entry in response to my putting it at English requests.. the place I saw it was in Fromkin et al's "Introduction to Language" (1st edition, if there are more than 1), which doesn't seem to be at bgc. No ggc hits, one bgc hit, 30 google hits. Of the google hits, this looks like it's durably archives- and, moreover, it appears to be a review of a book which is not on bgc and which would probably give an additional cite. I can request Fromkin again from the library to do a manual paper cite if you guys want :) Language Lover 23:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how much one could consider a parenthetical list to be "running text". If it really exists, as we would be led to believe from that source, then there must certainly be better cites than that. DAVilla 17:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. (Feel free to re-add it if/when you find enough qualifying cites, Language Lover.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this any more than the sum of its parts? SemperBlotto 07:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem any different from most of our {{law}} terms. There is a sense missing, in the context of group benefits meaning groups of groups. I'd say yes, this is a technical definition...just jargon specific to both the legal and health insurance industries. --Connel MacKenzie 03:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean to RFD? Keep per Connel. DAVilla 17:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved to RFC. —Ruakh_TALK 01:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The marking scheme sense. It is not used in Belgium, Germany, France, ... so I think this is regional usage, should be marked as such, under the appropriate language header. H. (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The "names in other languages" section does not belong either - these are translations that should be at alpha if they are not already there. — Paul G 15:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Sense removed. —Ruakh_TALK 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Any takers? Caps looks wrong. Encyclopedic. SemperBlotto 14:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it’s right, but both words should be capitalized (w:Meitei people). I don’t like to accept entries such as this unless the contributor can also supply the name in the original language and script. —Stephen 16:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 02:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating etymology of a living person. But does this nonce meet our CFI? --Connel MacKenzie 23:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The Word Map book is a fairly serious source. Apparently they did a certain amount of verification on the more bizarre bits while compiling. (Dunno how much if at all Bill was checked though.) I hadn't heard of the use before seeing it in the book. The pun on opener might be well known – an old cricketer opener went through ebay a couple of weeks ago (and there were new ones for sale somewhere I've lost). I added Bill because I could google him at the drinking shop web site shown, and though I don't actually know if that's an independent use (maybe that could be found out), two occurrances seemed enough to start an entry. My best guess is it's from the 1960s and a bit dated, but in principle reasonable slang. — Kevin Ryde 00:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. —Ruakh_TALK 02:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Any takers? SemperBlotto 07:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 02:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Quantum mechanics sense. Not in any of my physics sources. SemperBlotto 07:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably a mistake for Artesian well or Artesian spring --EncycloPetey 08:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Sense deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 02:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Questioned whether β is used in chemical nomenclature. The answer is yes, it is quite common. See, for example, β-galactoside, w:Schizophyllan, w:Ocimene. —Stephen 16:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Struck, though some clarification of meaning could still be useful. DAVilla 17:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Any takers? Supposed to be Greek, but is in wrong script. SemperBlotto 07:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved to proper script (σχίσις), given Ancient Greek treatment, but could still use Greek, if it exists. Atelaes 07:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A Wonderfool creation. It gets one Google Books hit. If verified, it should be moved to the right name. Dmcdevit 07:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 20:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Independent use? Dmcdevit 07:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 20:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonce for Lord of the Rings? --Connel MacKenzie 15:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite a nonce word, but I've not heard it attested outside of the Lord of the Rings cinematography. --EncycloPetey 08:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 20:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 17:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Creative nonce - but has anyone ever used it? --Connel MacKenzie 18:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

To quote someone (maybe Oscar Wilde) in answer to the comment "I wish I'd said that": "You will, you will." ;-) Yes, it's very common in UK, but surprisingly rare in print ... though still about 100 independent b.g.c cites of use when combining all the various personal pronouns and tenses, eg most of . --Enginear 19:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I heard it this morning at work. Common enough in speech, but as noted, not common in print.--Dmol 21:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is real. Παρατηρητής

RFV passed. (Placing this in the "clearly widespread use" column, but I've also just now cited it, lest anyone doubt.) —Ruakh_TALK 21:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Listed as a natural part of the English language, yet is obviously restricted to a very narrow use. As a nonce, does this pass WT:CFI? What is the best way to tag it? Note: rather than removing an overlooked RFV tag, particularly as the original submitter, it is better to correct the error and list it here. --Connel MacKenzie 18:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The use to which this is restricted is no narrower than usurpers: it's just as unusual to have a plurality of usurpers as it is to have a single female one. But we certainly wouldn't delete usurpers unless we decided to delete usurper altogether. Forgive me the fact that nonce is not an everyday element of my lexicon, so I had to look it up. It seems like any plural, past tense, or other regular construction, is nonce, by the way we define nonce word. After all, the first person to use the word usurpers, made it up on the spot for their occasion (albeit using regular pluralization rules which noone would ever contest, but they made it up nonetheless). The b.g.c. results for usurpress seem quite independent :-) It's an interesting word and I think it will make our readers happy :-) If you think our definition is not good, I encourage you to rewrite it, and hopefully we can all thereby learn from you :D But there's no doubt this is a word. Language Lover 18:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I most certainly was looking at b.g.c. The archaic Russian and British texts listed there, suggest the term is obscure, limited to Russian History, no? Why are you asserting that this is a core element of the English language? 16 hits? Perhaps we simply need better methods of tagging obscurities as obscure, or nonces limited to very narrow contexts. But then, WT:CFI used to (unless there has been recent changes there) specifically call out such terms as not appropriate here. --Connel MacKenzie 19:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A word used in the early 1800s, if not earlier, in the 20th Century through to the present day you'd consider a nonce!? DAVilla 19:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• 2004, Keith Smith, Re: A Jacobite Stamp, alt.talk.royalty Usenet

  I have a number of these. They were issued in March 1893 and advertised the journal "The Jacobite", organ of the Legitimist Jacobite League. They are listed in "Scottish Stamp and Label Catalogue 1970" and subsequently illustrated in "Scottish Stamp News" and "Cinderella Philatelist" There are used covers in existence which show the usurpress stamp upside down with the 'stamp' of Queen Mary IV and III alongside.

• 2001, Paul Steinberg, Speak You Also: A survivor's Reckoning, p40

  I would "attend" Auschwitz with invisible resources that vastly increased the chances of survival, resources that included even my linguistic abilities, since German was my mother tongue, so to speak, and French my vernacular, while English was the language I had spoken with my brother and studied successfully in school. Finally, Russian was the rule with my father, sister, and the usurpress, and I was literally at home in it.

• 1963, Victor Alexandrov, The Kremlin: Nerve-centre of Russian History, p147

  Sophia, who was anxious not to be reckoned a usurpress and who wished to keep up appearances, held two thrones and two crowns on behalf of Ivan and Peter.

• 1868, Anonymous, Pandora (poem), The Atlantic Monthly, Vol 22, Issue 132, archived here

  Thou, that assumest to lead,

  Holding the truth and the keys of the skies,

  Art the usurpress indeed,

  And rulest thy sons with a sceptre of lies.

• 1863, Emma Robinson, Mauleverer's divorce: A Story of Woman's Wrongs, p59

  Madame Le Crampon was the absolute ruler of this machine;--her mother had ceased to hold almost any relation to it! She had abdicated in favour of that hard and implacable usurpress.

• 16??, William Cartwright, reproduced in 1951 in The Plays and Poems of William Cartwright, p421

  This yet may dash the Marriage; and Leucasia That bold Usurpress of my Bed shall miss Of being saluted Queen to night howe'r.

(Signed Language Lover)

So, omitting the humorous use, it seems Russian-history specific. So back to the original question, before some of you got bent out of shape, how should this be tagged? It is not normal/standard/regular/whatever English. --Connel MacKenzie 23:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm a little slow, but only one of the above cites has anything to do with Russian history, and I don't see how any of them are "humorous" use :). It's good though, that you have a good sense of humour, laughing is a great part of life and I'm glad my cites made you laugh :-D Now, even if there WERE some Russian history bias, that would just suggest that Russia has suffered more usurpresses. We could put a "rare" tag on this if you think it's rare (what exactly are the "rare" criteria, anyway?) But it seems to me that we ought to judge a word's rarity based on the rarity of the lemma, not the derived form. As an example, retransliterating appears to be of about the same order of rarity as usurpress, but I don't think it would be proper to mark that as rare. usurpress is basically just a conjugated form of usurper, following rules which are somewhat regular. Hmm, I think we might better understand eachother if you come out and openly say what you have against this word, I promise that as a descriptivist, I'll respect your reason no matter what, since afterall you are an English speaker and thus are a fellow steward of the language. Language Lover 00:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fellow steward? What are you going on about? No. The forms of a term do not get automatic approval on en.wiktionary, for as long as I've been here. Each spelling is subject to a separate RFV. --Connel MacKenzie 01:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for not being clearer. I didn't say forms should be immune to separate RFV (you'll note I myself did an RFV on sandmans), I said I thought it might be inappropriate to give a derived form a special tag like "rare" or "Russian history", unless there was really good reason to do so. Anyway, let's please not fight or anything. If we honestly can't find a compromise, let's put it at Wiktionary:Votes, with options "delete word", "keep word as it is", "tag word as Russian history", or "tag word as rare". In any case thanks for your unsleeping vigilance as always :-) Language Lover 01:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are forgiven that. Forgive me for being grouchy earlier. Reading "usurpress" I naturally read the humorous connotation of the term; gender is rarely applied to English words, particularly when a gender neutral term (usurper) exists in common use. That is, in normal situations, a woman who usurps is called a "usurper" not a "usurpress." So yes, this form is inherently "humorous." Why it seems to have a Russian flavor is not clear (to me.)

No, I don't think a "vote" is appropriate...that has enough traffic right now. Please, do go back to the start here - at what point did I ever suggest deletion? The initial implication/request was for an appropriate tag! Which, by the way, was why I tagged it, way back when. --Connel MacKenzie 05:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's one of the problems of taking a descriptive approach, when inflections that are formed quite naturally can't be attested, or sometimes even the base form/root is difficult to cite. For a long time we had necroposting without necropost, and we might end up with ferroequinologist but no ferroequinology. I would propose that there are certian universal and uncontentious forms that should in fact be lumped together. This would only apply to words where there are no attested irregulars (plural/singular of be and have for instance) and excusing the exceptions for patterns (such as -s or -es after long o). In this case however I'm not entirely sure that -ress could be considered "universal and uncontentious". It may be, and the proof is in the ability to define where regular application can take place. Otherwise it has to be cited. DAVilla 07:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed (thanks to Language Lover's cites), but I've been bold and marked it (rare), with the usage note "This term is exceedingly rare, its counterpart usurper being used by most English speakers regardless of the sex of the referent." —Ruakh_TALK 21:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 23:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

RFVpassed. — Beobach972 01:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I only cited this today, and before I had the chance to comment, it's already RFV passed! :-)   Anyway, I just wanted to comment to say that some sort of context label might be appropriate; it seems that the word is still around, but not nearly as common now as formerly; b.g.c. has tons of hits from the time of Shakespeare, but later hits are mostly reprints of works from that time. That said, it doesn't seem at any point to have fallen completely out of use; maybe a (somewhat archaic) tag or something? —Ruakh_TALK 03:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 00:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a real word. I shall see whether I can find some quotations or not. — Beobach972 01:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it's much older than I thought... 1830s... — Beobach972 02:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed, thanks. —Ruakh_TALK 17:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason I'm RFVing this sense is that it seems to me it includes most derived forms. For example, once cat entered the language, the first person to say cats probably made it up on the spot for a specific occasion. Granted, they did so using very regular pluralization rules, but still, they made it up. The definition we currently have is also ambiguous: it could theoretically be read as, "a word invented as a synonym of 'the occasion'". Of course I doubt many people would misread it that way, but we must always strive to give our readers the best possible dictionary in the world :-) Language Lover 00:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind an ambiguous definition if it has to cover several meanings anyway. But if you want to define it the way we should use it here then I would suggest a second definition tagged Wiktionary jargon. DAVilla 06:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think if we're going to speak of a Wiktionary-specific sense, then it's probably more appropriate for Wiktionary:Glossary, where I've put a first attempt at a definition; help wanted! —Ruakh_TALK 21:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite see what you want verified. This page is where you come when you're looking for verification (in the form of citations) that a word is actually used, or is actually used in one if its listed senses. Are you asking us to look for citations where regularly inflected and productively derived forms are described as nonce-words? If so, we needn't bother: that's not how the word is used, and whoever wrote that definition didn't intend for the definition to be interpreted that way. If you're saying that that definition is poorly worded in that it doesn't accurately reflect how the word is actually used, then appropriate places to discuss it would include Talk:nonce word and Wiktionary:Tea room. If you're saying that you don't like the word because you think it's not a meaningful way to characterize a word, then I don't think there's any place on Wiktionary to discuss that, because Wiktionary is a dictionary project, not a word discussion forum. If you're saying that you don't think Wiktionary project pages should use the term because it's not a meaningful way to characterize a word, then the appropriate place to discuss that would probably be Wiktionary:Beer parlour. —Ruakh_TALK 21:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently withdrawn. DAVilla 12:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Every google book hit I can find simply has this as part of "pro-civil rights" or "pro-civil liberties" or "pro-civil defense", etc. Can someone please demonstrate that this adjective does in fact exist in its own right. Atelaes 01:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it does. It is just a case of pro- added to the front of a two word non-hyphenated phrase. I suspect that the "proper" way to deal with such words is to hyphenate the whole lot, eg pro-civil-rights. If pro-civil had a meaning, I suggest it would describe someone who approved of towns, or perhaps was anti-military, rather than the meanings stated. --Enginear 12:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul G had a reference somewhere describing the rule; the first hyphen is the only one kept for normal construction of hyphenated compounds like "pro-civil rights." I agree that describing it as an adjective seems wrong. --15:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The three adjectives "civic", "pro-civic" and "pro-civil" are nearly synonymous, with the exception that "pro-civic" and "pro-civil" are more active and more extreme. Concerning the word's etymology, Latin pro- means "for", "supporting" or "favoring" and Latin civilis means "citizens", "community" or "society", thus the entire word means "for citizens" (supporting and upholding the best interests of citizens). I will attempt to provide some forms of documented proof of this adjective and its antonym "anti-civil" (meaning against the best interests of citizens) do exist in their own right; both words of course are rarely used and difficult to find, but they do exist. I stumbled across the words, unexpectedly in six articles written by two CNN journalists, namely Nic Robertson and Rym Brahimi, back in December 2002. Its been five years since I read the two articles on CNN's website, and if CNN hasn't deleted them, I will show provide other webpages where I found the adjectives "pro-civil" ("pro-civic") and "anti-civil".

Please bear in mind that we require three independent cites spanning a year. But a link to that CNN article would most certainly count as one of the three. Atelaes 18:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. (There were actually three cites, but they weren't all durably archived, and they weren't all in the same sense — e.g., one said "pro-nice and pro-civil".) —Ruakh_TALK 03:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This seems like corporate jargon. Atelaes 02:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Also several more from the same user. SemperBlotto 07:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • We carry corporate jargon. bd2412 T 13:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If attested and labelled correctly. --Connel MacKenzie 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

RFVfailed, as far as I can tell. Deleted. — Beobach972 01:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? Note: hundreds of Google Books hits for the word, but I found none that came through with the sense. bd2412 T 04:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Joke entry - deleted. It does seem to have some sort of meaning - so may reappear correctly. SemperBlotto 07:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't the guidelines here prescribe that the entry be copied to its talk page? This has not been done in this case. __meco 06:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the guidelines do say that. They are out of date. Thanks for pointing it out. We changed the routine for deleted entries for the very good reason that the Talk pages are deleted along with the entry pages. Therefore the information would become available only to admins (and not necessarily kept for ever anyway). The present policy is that entries which pass RFV have the discussion moved to their talk pages, while those that fail have their discussion kept forever, visible to all, in the RFV Archive. There is a proposed change in how that is referenced, which I will need to reread to understand. Perhaps someone who does understand can rewrite the guidelines. --Enginear 21:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a term used exclusively in Harry Potter, which I don't think can be attested as independent. It does not appear to have entered use as a generic word. Dmcdevit 08:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Also RFVfailed. — Beobach972 01:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As above. Dmcdevit 08:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Also RFVfailed. — Beobach972 01:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As above. Dmcdevit 08:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Also RFVfailed. — Beobach972 01:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Previously failed. Someone insisting it is a genuine component of standard English. So, to give every possible benefit of a doubt, re-nominating RFV instead of deleting immediately. --Connel MacKenzie 15:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Zero Google Books hits. Amazon.com has books containing similar phrases ("continuous consumer tracking", continuous brand tracking", etc.) but not this exact phrase. bd2412 T 21:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry re-deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 16:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be nuncupative. Also, it is an adjective but defined as if it were a noun. SemperBlotto 19:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed. Entry deleted, with a deletion summary explaining that it's an error for nuncupative. —Ruakh_TALK 16:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie 05:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• 1990, Jon Stratton, Writing Sites: A Genealogy of the Postmodern World, p15

  Derrida remarks that Heidegger, in Zur Seinsfrage only allows the word 'being' to be read if it is crossed out. Derrida argues that this moment, the moment of the writing of 'being' under erasure:

  is the final writing of an epoch. Under its strokes the presence of a transcendental signified is effaced while still remaining legible. Is effaced while still remaining legible, is destroyed while making visible the very idea of the sign. In as much as it delimits onto-theology, the metaphysics of presence and logocentrism, this last writing is also the first writing.

  Heidegger, Derrida is arguing, is using phonetic alphabet writing to mark the productive moment of fracture. By writing under erasure Heidegger is signalling the fracture which calls the possibility of articulating being (it is being which is under erasure) into presence.

• 1998, Geoffrey Shacklock, Being Reflexive in Critical Educational and Social Research, p173

  Sous rature, 'writing under erasure', is first illustrated weakly via a concrete metaphor (pool) but then stepped up twice to arrive at the stronger example of putting identity itself under erasure: 'movement is shape'.

• 1995, Graham Priest, Beyond the Limits of Thought: beyond Limits Thought, p245

  Consider writing under erasure. Whether one likes it or not, even 'being' appears to refer to being - or how are we to understand what Heidegger is on about?

It looks legit, but I think the artical could use significant reworking. For one thing, it's a noun/present participle, not a verb. And might deserve a context tag. Language Lover 16:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You are suggesting this is a valid idiom? Recognizable outside of an astronomically tiny context? --Connel MacKenzie 06:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Valid idiom? Sure. Recognisable outside of a tiny context? Probably not (but, then, it seems we ought to define the word, for that baffled majority of mankind). — Beobach972 02:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Now moved to under erasure and well cited. —Ruakh_TALK 17:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If this really is a word in common use, it should be on WT:FWC. --Connel MacKenzie 06:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• 2006, Ayun Halliday, Dirty Sugar Cookies: Culinary Observations, Questionable Taste, p151

  "Why don't you just tell people you're a pescetarian?" a vegetarian I met recently asked, cutting me off midapologia for my beat-up leather jacket and my callow habit of behaving as if fish are neurologically no more complex than eggplants.

• 2005, Kirsten Hartvig, Pierre Jean Cousin, The Complete Guide to Nutritional Health: More Than 600 Foods and Recipes for Overcoming Illness and Boosting your Immunity, p149

  Immunity follows a plant-based approach to improving immunity that is relevant to every style of eating—carnivore, pescetarian, vegetarian and vegan.

• 1999, Jessica R. Shawl, "Vegetarians"???, rec.food.veg Usenet

  I'm curious what you do when you encounter a friend, family member, whoever who claims to be a "vegetarian who eats fish". It *really* bothers me when this happens because it contributes to the assumption that I eat fish and I don't, because I am a vegetarian. I feel like it gives all vegetarians a bad name.

  Do you correct them? Do you not bother? And how do you correct them? I was thinking that saying something like "oh, you mean your a pescetarian" would be ok and give them the appropriate term. Speaking of which, how is "pescetarian" pronounced?

I've heard this before, but I am one, so might have a skewed perception of its commonness. So, taking a more objective approach, and searching Google Web Search and Google Book Search for each term matching /^psc(vege)?tarian$/ (if you'll pardon the geekspeak), I found that while each gets at least one Web hit, only pescatarian (31,300 Web, 7 Books) and pescetarian (22,300 Web, 5 Books) are truly common (as these things go), though each of pescovegetarian (851 Web, 6 Books), piscatarian (865 Web, 2 Books), piscetarian (505 Web, 1 Books), pescotarian (753 Web, 0 Books), pescitarian (680 Web, 0 Books), and piscitarian (462 Web, 0 relevant Books) is common enough not to be discarded out of hand. (The other eight terms matching /^psc(vege)?tarian$/ all get 1–12 Web and 0 Books, so I assume they're typos or misspellings or whatnot). Incidentally, note that the top two terms are pronounced differently; at least, I'd assume the pesca- has a hard c and pesce- has a soft c. —Ruakh_TALK 20:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So, pescatarian, pescetarian, and pescovegetarian all pass CFI? Which one do we want to have as the main form, of which the other two words are alternative spellings? Pescatarian? -- Beobach972 23:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have vague recollections of a nurse coming into Y6 at primary school to tell us about puberty and somehow ending up talking about vegetarianism. She used this term, although I think she pronounced it "piscetarian". RobbieG 22:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. —Ruakh_TALK 17:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Second sense - I've never seen a smiley called a smiley face. Evar. --Connel MacKenzie 15:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• 2002, Lisa Malia McDonough, Lisa, the Brief Life of a Writer, p136

  Enter the smiley face, the computer hacker's version of comic relief.

• 2007, C. N. Barton, The Cambridge Diaries: A Tale of Friendship, Love And Economics, p94

  Against Mary Jane's wishes, I texted Gavin just to reassure him that I was not going out with his girlfriend. I put a smiley face at the end of the message.

• 2005, Craig Cornwell, Whoops! There Goes the Neighbourhood, p20

  Two minutes later a reply came back.

  Cool, see you tomorrow...x

  Campbell sent back a smiley face, did a little dance around the bedroom and flopped back onto his bed wearing a smiley face of his own.

These are just examples where the word is used for emoticons. For generic, handwritten smiles, eg those that junior high school students write in their binders, there are many other cites. Language Lover 16:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

How should the usage note describe that as a misuse, that somehow manages to squeak past our faulty CFI? --Connel MacKenzie 04:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

When I first saw this I, too, had never heard smiley face used for emoticon. But I think the first person to succeed in internalizing the entire English lexicon in all its vast size, will have their brain explode :-) We learn new things every day, and must not assume that just because a word is not in our personal lexicon, it does not exist... Language Lover 03:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OTOH, it is a serious failing, to not warn readers of probable misuse. --Connel MacKenzie 06:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed. —Ruakh_TALK 04:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)