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

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

This page is for entries in English. For entries in other languages, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any takers? (difficult to search for because of the verb + adjective sense) SemperBlotto (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

You can search for the plurals and for article+noun/possessive pronoun+noun. There seems to be some rare usage in stories on newspaper websites- but I have no idea if those appeared in the durably-archived print editions. There are also a few legitimate uses on websites that definitely don't qualify for CFI. I would call this real, but possibly unverifiable. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe this is English. The plural looks wrong. The proper noun definition is plural - should be singular if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

You nominated an entire page for deletion because you think the plural tense is wrong?

…why don't you just fix the plural tense? 129.64.174.194 20:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Moved to RFV. DTLHS (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Quote from entry that doesn't attest this capitalization or spelling:

1. Lua error in Module:quote at line 2951: Parameter 1 is required. DTLHS (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

If it's attestable, this shouldn't be a plural. It is a singular. The quote above is misusing it, or using it awkwardly. --WikiTiki89 20:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Wikitiki89 Should we keep the two distinct senses? DTLHS (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm not familiar enough with the kabbalistic sense to be able to judge at the moment. I need to look at more examples. --WikiTiki89 17:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Isn't there also a problem with using an English definite article, since the Hebrew phrase already has one? On the other hand, occultists tend to be abysmally ignorant of linguistics, and often think that being able to find a dictionary entry by reverse-transliterating foreign expressions means they've mastered the language in question. I've seen some appallingly ignorant errors in published books, which editors have tried to cite as proof that those forms exist in the other language. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think this normally is used with the English definite article. --WikiTiki89 17:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have added three cites to the Proper Name. For the noun, I usually find a different casing (Initial caps only or all lower case). With this casing,I have always found it italicized, which could be taken to mean that it is not English. Kiwima (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Used on a few websites. Nothing on Google Books or the Usenet part of Google Groups. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

The entry also needs a tiny bit of cleanup, but I should say that the sites provided are probably good for the entry to be kept. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

There doesn't seem to be anything durably archived there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Does archive.org count as durably archived? Here are 5 links from 5 different sources archived on archive.org:

• Doe, Jane. "FAQ – Consanguinamory". Consanguinamory. Retrieved July 28, 2017.

  What does consanguinamory mean? It simply means ‘love of family members’, and by that I mean romantic love.

• PinValentine (June 24, 2014). "Should incest be accepted and legalized". Debate.org. Retrieved July 28, 2017.

  Consanguinamory is not always between brother and sister. It can be cousins, aunt and nephew, father and daughter, etc...

• Swift, James (August 27, 2016). "An Interview with An Incest Advocate". Uncommon Journalism. Retrieved July 28, 2017.

  I would also include relationships between first cousins as consanguinamory too, although some may disagree with me on that point.

• Pullman, Keith (May 22, 2011). "Still No Good Reason for Laws Against Consensual Incest". Full Marriage Equality. Retrieved July 28, 2017.

  Consanguineous sex should not be a crime, and consanguinamory should be celebrated. Only abuse and assault, including child abuse, should be a crime when it comes to incest.

• Manifesto, Final (December 18, 2015). "Help for Family and Friends of Incestuous Siblings". The Final Manifesto. Retrieved July 28, 2017.

  “Incest” is too loaded a word for intelligent discussion, and I only ever use it for sexual abuse. If I say “consanguinamory”, assume I am talking about consensual sex.

The word also appears in print in at least one book, possibly more:

• Rinella, Diane (August 6, 2013). Time's Forbidden Flower. Midnight to Six Publishing.

  Whenever you read about sibling consanguinamory there are crazy theories, like our family must have been dysfunctional, or we are perverted, or some other ridiculousness.

It's derivative "consanguinamorous" has also appeared on news sites, for example:

• Parry, Ryan (August 8, 2016). "New Mexico mother and son fell in love and will go to JAIL to defend their relationship". Daily Mail Online. Retrieved July 28, 2017.

  Well why not consanguinamorous people like us? We are all adults. We are not pedophiles, there's no domestic issue we are in love, we want to be together but we are related

• Blankley, Bethany (September 12, 2016). "Next Up: Legalization of Incest, Necrophilia, Pedophilia, Zoophilia and More". Charisma News. Retrieved July 30, 2017.

  Now, incest activists in the consanguinamorous community argue it's their turn to have their sexual preference and lifestyle choice validated socially and legally.

-- Loveislove89 (talk) 1:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Might as well face it, you're addicted to love! I mean: might as well keep it. But I don't think it's durably archived. Wow, you know things are bad when even stick-up-the-arse Equinox is starting to trust Internet sources. Equinox ◑ 04:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Archive.org is not considered durably archived. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Unstriking. Is there even one durably archived quotation? Archive.org is not durably archived. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

From [Criteria for inclusion] : Where possible, it is better to cite sources that are likely to remain easily accessible over time, so that someone referring to Wiktionary years from now is likely to be able to find the original source. As Wiktionary is an online dictionary, this naturally favors media such as Usenet groups, which are durably archived by Google. Print media such as books and magazines will also do, particularly if their contents are indexed online. I take this to mean that just because the sources are not permanently archived, they still count if they are the only sources possible. Archive.org is not permanently archived, but it does make it possible to check sources over time, which is the intent of the rule. Kiwima (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's not correct. The key word in the passage you've quoted is "easily accessible" (i.e., online in a semi-permanent form, like Google Groups or Project Gutenberg). Being easily accessible is just something desirable, but being durably archived is a requirement, as you can see from the sentence immediately before the passage you quoted. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

OK, I have removed the cites that are not durably archived and added some cites that are. I have merged the two definitions, so this is now cited Kiwima (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

RFV-resolved Kiwima (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dubious contributor, not in OneLook. - TheDaveRoss 19:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Actually - the first of the three supplied cites (from Forbes, The Chorus Lady) is an error. The text actually runs: "Moind yir own business, Patrick," she ordered, with her old-time domineering manner. "It's the ex-[page break] coitable man ye are careerin' all over town an' us waitin' supper for ye. Run out an' rush the growler, if it ain't too late." So it is excoitable, an Irish eye-dialect pronunciation of excitable. So if that reduces the cites to 2, it fails verification. But, maybe there are other cites. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

British slang for "shut up". Gob is slang for mouth but I only know it as a noun. Equinox ◑ 16:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I found two cites, but we still need a third. While looking, I found a number of other meanings for gob up, and added them. Kiwima (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense of the horse disease. The definition is taken from old dictionaries (17th c. etc.), but it's not very easy to attest because of the surname. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Seems like it might be a dictionary-only term. OED only has one quotation (which is a mention anyway, not a usage, so no good for us) from Phillips' The New World of English Words (1678), and then mentions Bailey's An Universal Etymological English Dictionary (1721) and the 1753 supplement to Chambers' Cyclopædia but they will again just be definitions rather than uses. BigDom 06:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I found one citation in books. One needs to add a lot of additional terms to exclude at least some of the hits for the name "Carney". I tried "tongue", "furred|coated", "horse|equine" "disease|pathology" in various combinations at Books, Scholar, Groups, and News. I also tried volume 1 of Frederic G[omes] Cassidy and Joan Houston Hall, editors (1985–2013), “Requests for verification/English”, in Dictionary of American Regional English, volume (please specify |volume=I to VI), Cambridge, Mass., London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.. Perhaps DARE's 6th volume or the online version would have it. DCDuring (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Good find! I had another look but couldn't find anything more than the one you have. BigDom 08:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I wonder whether there is some Latin, Spanish, or French from which this is derived in a Hobson-Jobson way. DCDuring (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

There's also one appearance in this strange, self-published book that probably doesn't qualify. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if this is an alternate form of Carney syndrome? From what I am reading, it can occur in horses as well as humans, and one dictionary describing the horse disease says it is due to a type of tumor. Kiwima (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

J. Aidan Carney would have to be a time traveler. He was born in 1934, whereas the horse definition is quoted from 1678. Khemehekis (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Fictional currency in Sims games (also its alt form Simoleon; hey, can't Maxis spell their own game currency?). These are all the same game franchise, therefore I don't consider it analogous to e.g. zorkmid, which broke out of the Zork universe and can be found in NetHack. I think it needs to pass WT:FICTION or something... Equinox ◑ 23:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't know enough about the area to judge, but I certainly see it uncapitalized a lot:

• Lua error in Module:quote at line 2951: Parameter 1 is required.
• Lua error in Module:quote at line 2951: Parameter 1 is required.
• Lua error in Module:quote at line 2951: Parameter 1 is required.

Seeing as the uncapitalized version is slang for a dollar, what would a version of this outside the Sims universe look like anyway? Kiwima (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Does being uncapitalized grant weight to the genericity of a word under WT:FICTION? I know it helps establish that a trademark has become generic, but I don't see anything in WT:FICTION on this. Khemehekis (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

There's also use of an uncapitalised version that refers to neither the in-game currency nor to a real one.

• 2011, Mel Wayne, Octilogy: Eight Great Treasures, Balboa Press, pages 60 & 61.

  “Out~friggin~rageous!” Bolthorr shouted. “I demand two moolahs an’ four simoleans fer each o’ them fine gliders! Not a frugle less!”

• 2011, Mel Wayne, Octilogy: Eight Great Treasures, Balboa Press, page 61.

  He mumbled, “Them tharrr green moolah coins be a hundred points apiece, an’ them tharrr black simolean coins be fifty points. That tharrr be 400 points. Arr, waaay too much.”

But it could just be a play on the slang for dollar. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think you are finding spelling mistakes for simoleon. Equinox ◑ 20:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Good point! Or possibly -ean is a rare alternative spelling. Anyway, it seems like the capitalized and Sims-specific term fails, but possibly the uncapitalized form can be kept as some kind of variant form of simoleon. - -sche (discuss) 05:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I did some digging and found that the form tharf had fallen out of use sometime in the late Middle English period. Only the form thair - which I personally heard used in speech and used in speech myself - still survives. Me thinks that it should be consigned to the Middle English section of the Wiktionary. Mountebank1 (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Mountebank1 I find no RFV tag in the entry. Which sense(s) were challenged? Kiwima (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Kiwima Etymology one contains a Middle English form of the verb thair. The form tharf did not make it into Modern English, only the form thair still survives in the Northern dialects. Mountebank1 (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I found a couple of uses in a Modern Translation of the Mystery Plays Leasnam (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Two cites, needs a third. DTLHS (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Is this a word that is actually used? Google books has results, but they don't seem to refer to the device mentioned here. A google search shows the word being used little outside of Wikipedia with the intended meaning. I also don't think the devices are in current production and something only a countable number of people use. The Wikipedia article on them is misleading. RightGot (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Is "Disabled World" durably archived? It looks like a website to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

That depends on whether you count pamphlets as durably archived. Kiwima (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have to imagine they normally wouldn't be. Are copies of this pamphlet held at a significant number of libraries, or is there any other reason to believe it will still be findable decades from now? —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

"Possibly also the creation of a view using scientific results by separating and combining of new research." Yep that's how it's defined! Can't trust that. Equinox ◑ 03:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have added two cites (very weird stuff). Still need a third. If this passes, the definition needs cleanup. For instance, I would be more inclined to say technological rather than scientific. Kiwima (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am not certain that this is an adjective, I suspect it is a noun modifier, unlike the prefix audio- which is quite legitimate. DonnanZ (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• It functions as a noun adjunct (therefore still classified as an adjective in cases such as "audio recording"). See here. Ozelot911 (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but you could rephrase that as a "recording of audio". DonnanZ (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Right. We don't include ===Adjective=== headers for nouns used attributively. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• True, as per Appendix:English_nouns#Attributive I think we could agree to remove or systematically merge with the nounal senses. Ozelot911 (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have added a number of cites that look adjectival in their use. I am calling this cited Kiwima (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

You can try your hardest with the quotes, but it still doesn't make it an adjective. I think you misread some of them. DonnanZ (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I do not agree with classifying the attributive use of nouns (adjunct nouns) as nouns-proper; I do find that they should be classified as adjectives due to their usage/sense as such. The actual sense in which a word is used alters its word-class entirely, in this case Noun → Adjective. However, the Wiktionary appendix entry on Attributive Nouns in English (see my above comment), defines that 1.) most nouns can, in fact, take an attributive position. This would mean that if we include an Adjective section for this word we would need to include such an Adjective sense on a vast number of Noun entries, which I would argue against due to the subjective nature of the matter. And 2.) that, bureaucratically speaking, such Nouns being used attributively are still classified as Nouns (at least as a matter of proxy-policy on-Wiki), therefore as mentioned prior, the most suitable option would be to systematically incorporate the Adjective definitions into the Noun sense definitions in some way. I don't agree that they remain nouns when used attributively, but quasi-policy states otherwise, so unless that is altered to reflect that opinion, the policial definition that they are still classified as noun must be adhered to. Ozelot911 (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the quotes do not all support their senses. "I'm very audio, so I hear words." is clearly not supporting the sense given — it is for a different adjectival sense, something like "preferring or thinking in terms of sound". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

On the general point raised by Ozelot911, I am very strongly opposed to creating separate adjective definitions for all of the vast numbers of nouns that can be used attributively. Mihia (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Have you looked at the quotes? The question here is not about attributive use of the noun, but whether there is a true adjectival use here. Nobody here is suggesting we keep attributive uses of nouns. "I'm very audio" is NOT an attributive use of a noun. Kiwima (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Have you even read what I wrote? Mihia (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes. You said you are strongly opposed to creating separate adjective definitions for attributive nouns. So am I. I am trying to determine if there is something more than that going on in this case, so your saying that here seems like a non sequitor at best. Kiwima (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I believe I was clear in saying that I was responding to Ozelot911's general point, i.e. "I do not agree with classifying the attributive use of nouns (adjunct nouns) as nouns-proper; I do find that they should be classified as adjectives due to their usage/sense as such.", etc. I understood this as suggesting that because, for example, the word "school" can be used attributively in a phrase like "school uniform" or whatever, we should have a separate adjectival entry for "school" reading something like "of or pertaining to a school", and similarly for thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of other nouns. This is what I disagree with. Mihia (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

And another. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Again, claims Samuel Beckett but is apparently James Joyce; again a nonce, not includable. Equinox ◑ 07:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Also, misspelled. Joyce wrote "smilesmirked" (with an i), and I can find other quotes spelled with the i, but only one other one is durably archived. (It is also easy to find quotes for smile-smirk as a noun) Kiwima (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've added 2 verb uses, and 4 noun uses. They are nearly all under smile-smirk, so I've moved the entry to that title. Leasnam (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

RFV-Resolved Kiwima (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

DTLHS (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Can confirm it is real (search for "uwu culture") but I doubt it will meet CFI. Equinox ◑ 04:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. All I can find is in non-durably archived sources. Also, the definition seems wrong. It is the equivalent of the smiley face emoticon.... Kiwima (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I can find at least one durably archived hit for it, used as an emoticon, but a warning: it is on an adult group. Khemehekis (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

DTLHS (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

So far, all I can find are uses in non-durably archived sources. Kiwima (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

"(Asia) A tattletale teenager who tells on his friends after they have all tried smoking for the first time"

Reference not linked, not found via google or ddg, but may be reasonable. - Amgine/ ^t·e 01:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I can't tell: Is the Usenet use here a use of this meaning of the term? Khemehekis (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

The usage doesn't give much of a clue as to meaning. I'd bet on smoking cats meaning cats shown on video to be smoking. DCDuring (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

The sexual act, which has been there since 2009. I did a little searching on Google Books but saw nothing relevant. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 04:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nothing on Google groups either. Kiwima (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Tagged but not listed. Kiwima (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Tagged but not listed. Existing cites do not meet WI:Brand. Kiwima (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Previous tagged, not listed here. - Amgine/ ^t·e 18:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Previously tagged, not listed here. NB: sense condom use not supported by reference. - Amgine/ ^t·e 18:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

It shows on Google Books, but it seems they are just Poul Anderson's writing copied over again by Allen Sture and something called Snippet View. It does look like there is one from 2015 in Delphi Complete Works of Lucretius (Illustrated). Looking at the copied Poul Anderson articles, there would also be all the other -stuffs and coined terms in those ones too. How are we going to go about these? Anglish4699 (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

sourstuff just squeaked by with sufficient cites by other authors. I assume similar criteria get applied here: Have other SF authors adopted the term? Kiwima (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Don't know... Google Books Page 2 and so on doesn't show much else. Anglish4699 (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

waterstuff belongs to the same set. Equinox ◑ 03:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Previously tagged, not listed here. Exact quote from reference source. - Amgine/ ^t·e 18:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Looks like a dictionary-only word, although I did find one use (on citations page). Kiwima (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Heh, someone else using the dictionary for "mood". I wonder if it appears in Times of London? - Amgine/ ^t·e 19:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Previously tagged, not listed here. Exact quote from reference source. - Amgine/ ^t·e 19:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Previously tagged, not listed here. - Amgine/ ^t·e 19:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I can find many references to the satire "Aminadab, or the Quaker's vision", but not much else. Kiwima (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

This seems valid:

Template:quote-magazine

I'm not sure what these mean:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2951: Parameter 1 is required.

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2951: Parameter 1 is required.

DTLHS (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

The 1836 quote looks good, but the two others do not look to me like they are referring to Quakers. Aminadab is a biblical name, which is probably what the 1859 quote refers to, and the 2004 is referring to a character named Aminadab. Kiwima (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense blackbanded darter

Tagged but not listed Kiwima (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Added by me from Webster 1913: their taxonomic designation was Hadropterus nigrofasciatus but somebody has modernised it. Equinox ◑ 06:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't find crabeater or crab-eater collocated with either Hadropterus or Percina at Google Books, Google Scholar, or Google News. On the web, I find us and those who copy from us. DCDuring (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hadropterus is now a subgenus of Percina, so the "modernization" is correct. DCDuring (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that "modernised" wasn't a sneer; I was just pointing out the edit in case it would help in verifying this. I know nothing about the actual fish. Equinox ◑ 20:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Given that a common name in at least one source is the alphabetically-close crawl-a-bottom, I wonder if there was some kind of crossover in the original book or in the Project Gutenberg version that was the source of the online texts. There's no logical reason to call Percina nigrofasciata a "crabeater", since it's too small to eat a crab even if it were to find one in its freshwater habitat. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Fishbase, which has a lot of common names, only ascribes crabeater to Rachycentron canadum (cobia) and has no fish with the name crawl-a-bottom. DARE has crawl-a-bottom ascribed to Lua error in Module:parameters at line 858: Parameter "ver" is not used by this template. (northern hogsucker) and the synonymous Lua error in Module:parameters at line 858: Parameter "ver" is not used by this template. and crabeater only to cobia.

I find vernacular names are maddening, because so many are not attestable in all the senses reported in sources like Fishbase. DCDuring (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I also find it annoying that there are apparently no scans of Webster 1913 available online. A work as huge as the Gutenberg version is bound to have at least a few typos and other human errors in it, but there's no way to check against the original unless you have access to a dead-tree copy. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think there is a salutary lesson to be learned from Chuck considering whether the "crab-eater" is big enough to eat a crab. For me the words are quite often divorced from reality (that's why I spend my entire life on Wiktionary). Let us appreciate our biologists. Equinox ◑ 23:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I take it you've never encountered crabs, ie, the crab louse or pubic louse (Pthirus pubis), which is certainly small enough for P. nigricans. There are a lot of small decapods. One that was an inch long would be small enough to be subdued and eaten by the fish and large enough to be noticed by humans. DCDuring (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Those aren't known to frequent the habitats of Percina nigrofasciata (AFAIK), though the lice can be found in the text of unabridged dictionaries- even in those more straight-laced times. I did find a sense for Percina nigrofasciata under crabeater in the 1907 edition, with crawl-a-bottom nowhere on the same page, so we'll have to discard that theory. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

LOL, I'm glad to admit I haven't encountered the pubic louse. Equinox ◑ 00:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I spend some time trying to get images that help associate organisms with the vernacular or taxonomic names. Today it was dodecandrian/Lua error in Module:parameters at line 858: Parameter "ver" is not used by this template.. DCDuring (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't think Chuck's consideration of size is conclusive, given that the crabeater seal is called crabeater because it eats krill. Kiwima (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

None of the supposed derived terms (peninsula, penultimate, penumbra, peneplain) actually are. Any words that are actually formed with this prefix? DTLHS (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Nope. Delete that shit. (But: "By Tre Pol and Pen / Shall ye know all Cornishmen.") Equinox ◑ 02:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you delete this, remember to take out pene- as well. Kiwima (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

What about penannular? Can anyone find a Latin predecessor? DCDuring (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'd be surprised. I don't find any evidence of a New Latin *paenannulāris on GB. Still, if penannular is the only word really using pen-, I don't think that entry is needed. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Lots of love". Kiwima closed this before it was adequately cited. We now have 5 purported citations: 2007 is a mention ("what do you think LOL means?"); 2010 looks good; 2011 is a mention; 2014 is very possibly the other LOL ("laugh out loud"), which as I mentioned before is often used as informal punctuation in Internet contexts; 2014 Texas Colt Gibson ditto, probably laughing not love; 2014 Stuart Heritage is a mention. This has not passed RFV and I understand Kiwima's frustration but IMO she was wrong to close it. We need adequate unambiguous citing. Equinox ◑ 10:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Unambiguous citations can be hard to find, especially for finely distinguished definitions. Rewording or combining definitions is sometimes the best way to close out an RfV rather than deletion or reliance on ambiguous citations. Mentions are often useful to show how others perceive meanings in use. DCDuring (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure how you could reword or combine in this case. And, as I said the requisite week before I closed this one, I believe this one falls under the "common usage"" criterion. Admittedly, it is informal, but everybody I have asked "what would LOL at the end of a written letter mean?" who is over the age of sixty (about half a dozen people) has immediately responded "lots of love". Nobody had any doubts or hesitation. Kiwima (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

That makes me feel so young. DCDuring (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Former British Prime Minister David Cameron famously believed that "LOL" meant "Lots of Love". See this. He's now 51; at the time, he would have been in his 40s, I believe. I originally thought that "LOL" meant "Lots of Love" too. (Me and Dave ... what are we like?! LOL) Mihia (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

The first use of "LOL" 2007 citation seems like a use, as does the use in the 2014 "Stuart Heritage" citation, which seems to be a quotation of (someone else's) use, such that we could (if anyone wanted to be picky) present just the part inside the quotation marks, sourced like "anonymous British mother, quoted by Stuart Heritage, in...". If we agree the 2010 citation is acceptable, I think we have enough just barely support for this, and the circumstantial evidence that this is what some (older) people intend provides important additional support, for keeping it with a "rare, dated" label. Perhaps there is a repository of old letters or telegrams, e.g. from WWI or WWII, which could be searched for additional citations. - -sche (discuss) 02:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I can see it being used for several things, but not for Utah. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

That's not the only entry in need of verification – several of the entries added by Special:Contributions/70.52.11.217 are a bit dubious, IMO. How should we treat these abbreviations? I mean, there must me hundreds of local and national teams who use abbreviations on their scoreboards, but that doesn't mean that we have to include them here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

This one is certainly worth the RfV and perhaps some others.

For some others we could decide, whether by precedent, vote, or consensus, that some classes of abbreviations are OK and focus on making them conform to some standard. For example, 3-letter codes for airports could be deemed OK and presented only as Translingual (See YUL, JFK and their histories.). This contributor is not even consistent for such entries and probably for other types.

We could also apply a short block to the IP to get its attention. If that doesn't work, longer blocks might be required. DCDuring (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is the height of arrogance. None of you have ever left a message on my talk page, so how the hell am I supposed to know you have issues? Have you ever thought of ever interacting with anyone outside of blocks? MediaWiki has user talk pages for a reason, and messages posted there are actually delivered to the user in question. This Wiktionary BLOCK = HELLO THERE standardized behaviour is very disappointing. -- 70.52.11.217 07:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

You don't have a talk page. There is a talk page for your IP address, but that's sort of a hack, to get around the fact that there's no way to communicate with an anonymous individual. If you create a user account, then you will have a user talk page. You could also have a watchlist and look to see if people are having issues.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I can find lots of evidence for "University of Texas at Arlington" and "Utah Transport Authority", and some for a few other acronyms such as "Union de Transports Aeriens", "United Typothetae of America", etc, but none for Utah. Kiwima (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Judging by the geolocation and by the mediocrity of the edits, this is quite possibly Fête, who has never been known for taking a hint- whether administered with compassion and tact or with a 16-lb sledgehammer. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh well. You would know best. DCDuring (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is a sports ticker and score card abbreviation for teams represented by the geographic name "Utah" when playing other teams. In North America, sports pages, sports feeds, and sports tickers frequently use three-letter abbreviations to represent teams. Teams are frequently referred to by their geographic name instead of team name. (ie. the w:Utah Jazz is frequently abbreviated via UTAH instead of JAZZ.) When multiple teams have the same geographic name in the same sport in the same league, then they don't just go by the geographic name, but instead either use the team name or a combination of team name and geographic name. University teams typically are abbreviated with the university name instead of the team name as well. If you watch sports television, the sports tickers will use these three letter abbreviations all the time. The particular team meant depends on the particular sport and league the ticker is currently displaying, as most locations have multiple teams in multiple sports that can be referred to by any particular 3-letter geographic abbreviation, so depends on context. This is a sports abbreviation though, so the context is sports. -- 70.52.11.217 07:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Here's an example of "UTA" referring to "UTAH" as a sports issue. In this instance, the Utah being referred to is the NBA team Jazz. [1] ; If you're from North America, you should know that the NBA is one of the biggest sports leagues in North America. -- 70.52.11.217 07:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
• 2018, "FRIDAY MARCH 2, 2018 - 10:30 PM EST - VIVINT SMART HOME ARENA"

11/13/17 Utah UTA 98 - MIN 109

• 2015, "GT: TOR @ UTA (Today) 9PM on TSN"

GT: TOR @ UTA (Today) 9PM on TSN

-- 70.52.11.217 07:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

None of which matters much to RfV. See WT:ATTEST; URLs like forums..../boards/viewtopic.php (the second link) are clear warning signs that they aren't permanently archived.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "Items that are produced daily". --Other dictionaries do not support this sense. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

While I can find evidence for this definition, I cannot find any evidence that is clearly distinct from "plural of daily". Kiwima (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, this seems almost by-definition redundant to "plural of daily". I would remove it and move the translations thither, singularizing them if possible or else {{qualifier}}-ing them as "plural". - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

remove — yes = plural of daily (Something that is produced, consumed, or used every day.) — Saltmarsh. 07:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "A system of belief containing the concept that the person's existence continues after their death."

Can we find evidence for this that is distinct from "A particular system of faith and worship. " Kiwima (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Would evidence be of the form "X isn't a (real) religion", where either X actually does not hold for life beyond the mortal coil or where the speaker says/believes that X does not? DCDuring (talk)

I suppose, although I was expecting more an example where "religion" was used to refer to a belief in life after death that did not include any concept of faith and worship. Kiwima (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am sceptical that such a sense is attested and also sceptical that usage such as the two of you describe would actually attest it as a distinct sense, as opposed to either suggesting that we should consider expanding the definition, or being already covered as belief in something supernatural. - -sche (discuss) 01:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Proper citations please? This word is almost always italicised. There's this, but it's not terribly convincing either. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "Abbreviation of Kitchener. "

Tagged but not listed. Kiwima (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is a sports ticker and score card abbreviation for teams represented by the geographic name "Kitchener" when playing other teams. In North America, sports pages, sports feeds, and sports tickers frequently use three-letter abbreviations to represent teams. Teams are frequently referred to by their geographic name instead of team name. If you watch sports television, the sports tickers will use these three letter abbreviations all the time. The particular team meant depends on the particular sport and league the ticker is currently displaying, as most locations have multiple teams in multiple sports that can be referred to by any particular 3-letter geographic abbreviation, so depends on context. This is a sports abbreviation though, so the context is sports. -- 70.52.11.217 07:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

• 2017, "OHL Prospect Power Rankings for the 2018 NHL Draft: October"

8. Riley Damiani (KIT), Ryan Merkley (GUE), Noel Serron (OSH), Curtis Douglas (BAR) – TI Score: 16

• 2017, "Dec. 29/17 – ER (3) – KIT (4)"

Dec. 29/17 – ER (3) – KIT (4)

• 2015, "2015-16 Regular Season"

OHL - KIT (2015) RD: 3 (#44)

• 2018, "OHL Scores/Schedules"

HAM–KIT–7:30 PM

-- 70.52.11.217 07:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone Luafy things except for us? DTLHS (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

A google group (openresty-en) uses it three times, but is not a Usenet group, contra our citation. I didn't find it in books. DCDuring (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@PseudoSkull, the creator, should know better. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge Before I created the entry, I looked on Google Groups not just for the main lemma, but for its non-lemma forms too (i.e. "Luafies", "Luafied", and "Luafying"). At that time I do recall being able to find at least 3 examples of its usage, and several mentions. Please criticize the entry and not the user, as this is more constructive. Editors tend to make mistakes for at least valid reasons (that is, if this ends up failing RFV, then it was a mistake). Perhaps I should start creating entries by citing them first to avoid this issue, though it is not required, so people can see the thought process behind it. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's good to look for all the forms. But Google groups includes both Usenet groups and groups that are Google specific. You can often tell from the structure of the group name in which type the group in which the citation appears. If you can't tell from the name, click on the name and then on "About". If it's a usenet group, "Usenet" will appear the page next to "Access". DCDuring (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Looks like Middle English. DTLHS (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Indeed - I can find quotes in Chaucer, and there is Piers Plowman, but of modern English works, all I have found is one strange piece from 1908. Kiwima (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: To still; to assuage; to calm; to soothe, as one in pain.

cited. A difficult one to search for, because of all the false positives. I eventually found a bunch by a search on "dill down", or "dills down" or "dilled down" or "dilling down" - so all my cites are followed by "down". I cannot say whether the verb should be "dill down", rather than "dill", it could just be an artifact of my search technique. Kiwima (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

"dill the pain" produces a couple of relevant hits in Google Search and a mention in a dialect dictionary in GBS. Some of the mentions seem to suggest it is Yorkshire (England) dialect. Mihia (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

... it occurred to me, also, that that one would need to be confident that examples are not typos for "dull", especially since "i" and "u" are adjacent on the keyboard. Mihia (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh yes. In searching, I found scannos for "still" and for "lull", as well as words with very different meanings. The "dill the pain" references are, unfortunately, mentions rather than uses, but do indicate that the definition belongs at "dill" and not at "dill down". Kiwima (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

"To" sooth has passed. "To lull to sleep" still needs citations. Kiwima (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Any takers? --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

cited. It is used regularly on [2]. Kiwima (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

That is just one single community though. Are there more quotes from other places? —suzukaze (t・c) 00:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

As I understand it, there is no problem with words coming from a single community, just from a single author and people quoting that author. There are clearly independent uses within this community. Kiwima (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, we even have some words that are, unlike this one, entirely confined to squabbles between Usenet groups. COLAtard is a good example. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've seen this word before. Khemehekis (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "Any substance or device used to ignite a fire, (especially) any priming wire, blasting cap, or other device used to ignite gunpowder or other explosive."

I believe this is inaccurate. Looking at other dictionaries and usage in the web, it seems to me that "primer" is seldom if ever used of a substance or device that is used to light a fire, such as campfire or fire in an oven. Am I right? Should it rather read like this, for example:

1. Any substance or device, such as a priming wire or blasting cap, used to ignite a main explosive.

--Hekaheka (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

A messy entry in general, but an anon tried to remove the last sense (a slur against immigrants), claiming it is nonexistent, and indeed the two "cites" are not cites at all. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Of course they are cites, they are simply cites that are not on durably archived sources. I did find one on Usenet, which I added, but frankly, I suspect none of these things really mean immigrant - I think they are just more of the use of "jabroni" as a general term of abuse. It's just that the second definition is overly-specific. Kiwima (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Google Books has one match for "to tender kiss": "When tender friends, to tender kiss, / Run up with open arms"; however, it would be wrong to analyse that as a compound verb. Equinox ◑ 22:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I found one use of the past tense, "tender-kissed", albeit without the hyphen, in A Crimson Frost by Marcia Lynn McClure: "He tender kissed her lips once more and then took her hand and started toward the village." Khemehekis (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

As above I'd say "tender" feels like a (poetic) adverb there. Equinox ◑ 23:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think both quotations are of [tender] [kiss] rather than [tender-kiss]. - -sche (discuss) 04:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is this really an English-language name? None of its component parts are. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

The spelling is somewhat anglicized; the native Dakota spelling is Bdé Makhá Ská according to this article on the pronunciation from Minnesota Public Radio. I suppose if the middle element were spelled Makha, some people might try to pronounce it with the German ach-laut – [məˈxɑ] – which is wrong because kh apparently represents an aspirated k (see Dakota language on Wikipedia), like the initial sound in cat. The anglicization is a point in favor. But what clinches it is that yesterday it became the official name, as reported by the Star Tribune. — Eru·tuon 07:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

And if the fact that it is now the official name of the lake is not enough, I have added three citations. Kiwima (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: The major provinces of imperial China from the Later Jin to the Song, corresponding to the Tang and early Yuan circuits.

Also called lu, circuit, or province.

• Firstly, the defn should be in the singular. Secondly, googling for this isn't easy... --Gente como tú (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

After finding this, I am pretty convinced that the word still refers to the first definition (a course or way which is traveled), as the Chinese versions (using lu) are also included. Kiwima (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Then again, I did find one citation that uses the word route to refer to the administrative division, and another mention that states lu is often translated as route. Kiwima (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is now cited Kiwima (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

"1. Of a person: difficult to deal with, prickly. 2. Of a subject: providing many difficulties, thorny." Maybe spiny but surely not the more technical spinous. Equinox ◑ 17:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

These needed some kind of context labels, given the quotes. The first is clearly quite dated, and perhaps obsolete (as I have boldly marked it); the second seems to be mostly produced by non-native speakers, and I added the nonstandard label, although it could be improved upon. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the first is obsolete. I am not so sure on the second. The cites I could find in permanently archieved sources mostly looked to be by non-native speakers, but I found plenty in non-permanently archived sources that looked to be by native speakers. Kiwima (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "(slang) to ejaculate", "(slang) to laugh unexpectedly while drinking, causing drink to exit the nose", "To eject seed, as wet land swollen with frost." - an anon deleted these senses without explaining why. Any takers? --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

"to ejaculate" is cited. I added one quote for "to laugh unexpectedly...causing drink to exit the nose", but I am not really convinced that this is not just a case of the first sense (to eject in a stream). I have not yet found anything about "to eject seed" Kiwima (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "A witty line presented by a less important or developed character." Currently has one citation, but that citation looks like a use of sense 2 or 3 to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Slang for "money". Apparently coined by comedian Alex Horne to try to get a word into the OED. See [3]. Equinox ◑ 21:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I added one cite by Alex Horne, but we still need two more independent uses. In chapter 4 of his book Wordwatching, Alex Horne talks about independent uses by BBC five and BBC4, but I haven't managed to find the actual citations. Kiwima (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Process of losing sex appeal. Creator might be PaM. Equinox ◑ 21:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is it used outside the phrase "sexpiration date"? If not, maybe we should have an entry for sexpiration date and {{only in}} at sexpiration. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have only managed to find it in the phrase "sexpiration date", but perhaps someone else can find something else. Kiwima (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

The edits are too old for the checkuser tool, but nobody else edits like that. As for the entry, it should be moved to sexpiration date, since it's obviously a pun on expiration date. I suppose we could leave the redirect- it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that would be used in other languages. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have moved it to sexpiration date. Kiwima (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

(1) Who's this PaM person all of you keep talking about? I looked up User:PaM but it says no account of that name is registered, and (2) Wait a minute . . . CheckUser doesn't work on edits that are more than 4 or 5 months old? Khemehekis (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

(1) User:Pass a Method. (2) For legal reasons, the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't keep that sort of information for more than 90 days. Not that it's a problem here, because PaM keeps coming back with IPs and sockpuppet accounts, and is very easy to spot. I've been keeping track for years of the IPs they use, and now that I'm a checkuser I've saved the technical information from their recent IP edits for comparison in the future. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I checked out the user and his (?) contributions. I see that not only does PaM make strange edits on sex terms, he has a fixation with Islam. Well, thanks for answering my qiestions. Maybe I'll be able to recognize a PaM entry one day. Khemehekis (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

RFV-resolved Kiwima (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

• RFV-sense "An oath, as in the presence of a court. See wager of law."

And if anyone wants to try to find citations of them, there are three senses we don't currently have, but which Century has:

• "To study law." (I put the one citation of this which Century had at Citations:law.)
• "To expeditate (a dog)." (Possibly a separate etymology? Century has a citation of lawed, and google books:"lawed" hounds and google books:"lawed" dogs turn up more, but all of them could just as well be lawe.)
• A dialectal spelling of low ("not high").

- -sche (discuss) 23:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have cited the challenged meaning, and added some more to the citations page for additional possible meanings. Kiwima (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, the citations (and more I see at google books:"perform his law"; thanks for finding that collocation) certainly attest something in this vein, so I reckon this passes RFV, although the absence of "swear his law" or other phrases where one could directly substitute in "oath" makes me suspect the definition needs refining. @BD2412, do any of your legal dictionaries say anything about this sense? Unrelated but as long as I'm pinging you, you might also want to look at Talk:alternative fact and whether or not its legal sense is attested. - -sche (discuss) 21:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Black's Law Dictionary, 2d ed. (1910), p. 701: "5. In old English jurisprudence. "law" is used to signify an oath, or the privilege of being sworn; as in the phrases "to wager one's law," "to lose ones law." bd2412 T 01:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Adverb? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Phrase? DCDuring (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring: Ahah, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure one of them has to go. I don't see two different syntactic behaviours. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Use as an adverb is a bit different (and may be obsolete or dialect): cited Kiwima (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense cook's helper. (tagged but not listed) SemperBlotto (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: 'A luthier of bowed instruments'. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

A harvester ant. DTLHS (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I found and added one cite, but so far that is all I have found in English, other than the Surname. Kiwima (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I found a use here, albeit in reduplication. Do reduplicated words still count? Khemehekis (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: A form of attire that represents a particular profession or status

Tagged but not listed. There are some cites already there. Kiwima (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: The possibility of complete annihilation of human civilization by nuclear war.

Tagged but not listed. It does not look very different from the first definition to me. Perhaps they should just be merged. Kiwima (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, "the possibility" is not correct (that would be "the possibility of a nuclear holocaust"). Equinox ◑ 22:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why is this not nuclear + holocaust. Perhaps holocaust alone refers to both a result and its potential or the process/events leading up to it. For some commonly used nouns we tease out multiple definitions for different phases or aspects of something, but this seems easily carried too far. What enables this second sense to seem distinctly meaningful is that we wouldn't want to be denied the use of the dramatic collocation "nuclear holocaust" merely by the fact that it has not yet happened. An author or speaker would much rather write or say nuclear holocaust than "risk (or "possibility) of a nuclear holocaust." DCDuring (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Send to RFD as SoP, I think. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Sgconlaw: It already is at RFD. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Then I think the discussion here can safely be concluded. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Tagged but not listed. It also has three cites, and there are plenty more hits on google books. I have added a "nonstandard" tag, but it seems cited to me. Kiwima (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: To chuck up the sponge; to give up; to admit defeat; to jig up, throw up, jack up; to break a contract; to abandon or quit (something).

Probably OK - one kind but lazy editor put a Google Books search hidden on the page in case anyone wanted to search for it. --Gente como tú (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

A girl (in A Clockwork Orange). Previously passed RFV (see talk page), I believe because of a "well-known work" exemption that no longer exists (?). Equinox ◑ 22:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

takers ? Leasnam (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Speedied. Created by a known vandal with a repertoire of personal names that they add to entries along with negative or embarrassing details. Any time you see what looks like the name of an actual non-public individual in an entry, you should delete either the entry itself or the revision if it's adding to an existing legitimate entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

The term of art in evolutionary biology is artificial selection. I have never seen this used, although it is not unimaginable. @Sonofcawdrey —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 10:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I just added it - it seems to be not uncommon as a (near or total) synonym of artificial selection. Cites abound. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Then add some. I see a lot of uses, but they all seem to puns, loosely speaking, or plays on natural selection. I don't see any serious use in running text as an alternative way of saying "artificial selection". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

There's at least one adjective sense we lack, which is swamping this (possibly real) noun sense. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

It is far more common to see -philiac, but I did manage to find three cites. Kiwima (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Vague definition that isn't immediately supported by Google. The Russian etymon also doesn't seem to have anything like it on its entry. —suzukaze (t・c) 02:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

This page may or may not explain the definition: https://www.reddit.com/r/russian/comments/5crorq/russian_old_alphabet_bukvitsa_is_a_spokenwritten/ Khemehekis (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have cited this. It looks to me like it is an ancient Slavic alphabet (an adaptation of Glagolitic and Cyrillic), and, by extension, texts written in that alphabet. Kiwima (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

See bukvica for a much more comprehensibly phrased definition. Basically it refers to the Old Cyrillic and Glagolitic alphabets, with their associated letter names and order and numerical values (which were all originally one-to-one equivalent in the two alphabets). Some uses of the word, however, refer more specifically to Bosnian Cyrillic; the second quote given at the entry is apparently using it in this way. As a further complication, the use of the word in English works by Russian authors seems to have recently gained some strange Neo-pagan meaning, so it may also need another definition to reflect that usage if anyone can figure out what is meant by it. (The last quote at the entry is using it in this way; I think it might refer to the alleged proto-Cyrillic script used in the Book of Veles.) — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 01:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

200 year old slang term - good luck citing it --Gente como tú (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

From what I could find, "barrow man" is short for "wheel-barrow man", a convict who is sentenced to hard labour, and that convicts awaiting transportation were one (but only one) group of such convicts. I have added a bunch of cites to the citations page, but some of them are kind of mention-y. (wheel-barrow man was much easier to cite). My impulse would be to alter the definition to an alt form of wheel-barrow man (a convict sentenced to hard labour), rather than one awaiting transportation. -- of course, the overwhelming majority of uses of "barrow man" that I found were SOP: a man with a barrow. Kiwima (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

A man with a castrated pig? Khemehekis (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Lol, Possibly, but more likely with a vehicle pushed by hand for carrying a load. Kiwima (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh. I just looked the word up on Wiktionary and saw that barrow has three unrelated meanings. Khemehekis (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply