Some bollocks about internet slang or something. Ƿidsiþ 06:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well apparently people use it on Facebook and other sites (I haven't yet, but I've seen many people use it) and it's not a typo. Here's an example: "crey how do I even study for this test omg." Here's some other links as well: UrbanDict, Quora, and this one on Tumblr where it's used as a tag name, but I think this tag includes both the "crey" as "cry" and the shortened form of "crazy" ("cray" or "crey" as used in "That shit cray"). Btw, this entry (crey) was originally created in 2008, when it was probably relatively new. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems to be used to intentionally make fun of the actual "cry" and the seriousness of its usage/context. From UrbanDict. From what I think, "crey" is a purposeful misspelling to imitate the immaturity of younger kids when the person is faced with unfortunate events, except maybe using the actual word as a substitute for the sound or just to further de-emphasize the seriousness when "cry" is used. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable, but we need some valid citations for the entry. Ƿidsiþ 06:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if any books or reliable sites have mentioned it, since it's only used online and among younger people (teenagers and kids) at times of distress or unfortunate events (before deadlines, tests, unlucky events, etc.) - M0rphzone (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have thizz, which is a slang term for ecstacy. I don't think it's much of a stretch to use it as a verb. A quick look at Google Books for thiz with one z turns up mostly eye dialect for this. I suspect that the one-z spelling is a very rare variant, and I doubt it will prove attestable. The two-z variant already has 2 cites and there are plenty more out there- though perhaps only enough for the noun sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that inflected forms like thizzes, thizzing, and thizzed are ambiguous as to whether the bare stem should be spelled thiz or thizz, so the current citations for the verb thizz could just as easily be for the verb thiz. —Angr 22:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While "thizz," as a slang term for "Ecstasy," turned up a couple of times on Google Books, I could only find one use of the spelling "thiz":

• 2008, "Students Suspended Over 'Ecstacy Pose'", KRCA.com, 1 May 2008:

  But Shad Canestrino from the Lodi Police Department said the gesture represents the words "thiz" or "thizzin'," which are slang terms for Ecstasy, or MDMA.

Astral (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rfv-sense - having a single heart.

Could we have some citations please (I could only find the title of a book on a quick look). SemperBlotto (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC) (p.s. Is Dr Who bicardian or dicardian?)[reply]

I think it should be tagged rare, (~4 independent uses in nearly 200 years) but I've dug up a few uses:

• 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.

That said, I think these are referring to the second definition, having a single ventricle. As far as I'm aware, no creature exists with two separate hearts (though it's not necessarily impossible) and outside science fiction, this sense is unlikely to exist - I did find a few Doctor Who fanfics that talked about monocardial people. Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP hagfishes have 2. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 20:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Learn something new every day! Incidentally, the most common term for two hearted seems to be bicardial, with use in both textbooks and Doctor Who novels. Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-fails, right? - -sche (discuss) 22:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rfv-sense:

3. (cultural anthropology) A now-defunct theory that all primitive cultures worshipped the Sun and its movements and patterns.

4. An obsession with the Sun and its movements and patterns.

I don't find these in other dictionaries, nor was I able to locate supporting quotes. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The correct names to go with these definitions would almost certainly be heliotheism and heliophilia. The first is attested, while the second is used almost exclusive with respect to sun-loving plants. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Heliotheism is belief in sun-worship. The belief that everyone used to believe that is not likely to be the same word (if there is one)> SpinningSpark 23:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese. Couldn’t find anything durable. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 00:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I too spotted this in Category:Tbot entries (Portuguese) some weeks ago, tried to cite it and couldn't. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 08:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Equinox ◑ 18:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find zero hits on GB and Usenet. --BB12 (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found one single Usenet hit. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 19:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 22:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged but not listed. Five citations, but need to be checked for typos/scannos. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added links to the citations. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 13:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Striking as cited. bd2412 T 23:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has 2007 really lived on as a year of infamy in Icelandic culture? I somehow doubt this is anything but a protologism, and I don't know how to cite it, anyway - maybe by searching with hrun (“collapse”)? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adjective? BTW IFYPFY. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adjectival use wouldn't fit the current definition. Thanks for proofreading me, though. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sense: a plant disease. Added by anon. All citations I found were about urban geography. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 04:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 08:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of money. As is common with phobias, only appears in word lists. Equinox ◑ 13:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"He suffered from chrometophobia, the fear of money, a clinically documented disorder." (Moneymakers: the secret world of banknote printing - Page 17, Klaus W. Bender, 2006). I'll give it a full go before the month is up. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Passes by the skin of its teeth, IMO. Restore the tag and reopen this discussion if you disagree. - -sche (discuss) 07:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It says it is a symbol for litre (unit). AIUI, this is just a script version of the letter l. All Wikipedia says is that it is "sometimes used in mathematics and elsewhere" (e.g. ℓ-adic representations). Equinox ◑ 00:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have definitely seen this in use... —CodeCat 00:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a script version of l, but it's used, just like l is. It's tedious to search for, but one book suggests it's most common in the US, Japan and Greece. - -sche (discuss) 20:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed for now, sense (re)moved: the entry now says "script version of l", and "l" is an abbreviation for liter, so the information is still there, people just have to click through to [[l]]. - -sche (discuss) 05:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verb. Is this used in any verb form other than the -ing form? Is the -ing form used as a verb (progressive) or just as noun or adjective? It could be that we should only have attention whoring as a noun. DCDuring TALK 19:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried "to attention whore", "is attention whoring", "was attention whoring", "attention whored", and "been attention whoring" in bgc and ggc. No durable cites on any of them. If anything, the verb is a rare back-formation. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cited by Astral, apparently (see the citations page). So, it passes? - -sche (discuss) 07:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rfv-sense: Antic tricks or motions. I know this was in Webster's 1913 and they cite a "B. Johnson", but it seems weird and I want to verify it anyway. —Internoob 22:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wiktionary, antic means "grotesque, bizarre; absurd."

• The monkey busied himself with the boots, and the light-minded drunkard laughed; and at every fresh gesticulation of the new boot-wearer the laugh grew louder and more tremendous, till at length it was found impossible to restrain it. [1]
• They are all an essential part of the Shaker worship, and in authentication of it, they quote the fact of "Miriam and all the women going out with timbrels and with dances;" of "David's dancing before the ark," &c. &c. The manual gesticulation, too, which is incessant with them, is an act of worship, and justified by such passages as "glorify God in your body, and in your spirit," &c. [2]
• [3]

I think these three fit, though I'm not too happy with the use of "antic" in the definition. --BB12 (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the sense (or removed it and added a new sense, if you prefer). I think that resolves the matter...? Refine the definition and change "dated" to something stronger as needed. - -sche (discuss) 22:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is badly formatted but that's not really important right now. I thought this was an obvious protologism but a simple Google search turned up a wider variety of results than I expected. So I wonder if this may be attested after all, even if not with the sense given. —CodeCat 00:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to professional photographer, Gabriel Biderman, the term ruinism, which he uses, is "the beauty of decay" (see ruinism.com/about). It is arguable that the definition I have provided uses the same definition, but talking of decay in an artificial sense. If it would help for the purpose of achieving a better definition, I could alter my definition to include natural decay as well as artificial decay. I believe this would, therefore, prove that my article can be verified by Wiktionary's terms.— This unsigned comment was added by 94.168.87.47 (talk) at 19:04, 15 June 2012.

One use (or multiple dependent uses) isn't enough. That would make it a protologism. For WT:CFI it has to be in use by others, making it a neologism- which is proved by citations in at least 3 independent, durably-archived sources over more than a year Chuck Entz (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most usage seems to be referring to something completely different, and in lowercase. I have created Citations:ruinism (I find the first citation to be extremely funny), but I haven't actually made ruinism yet because I don't know how to define it exactly. As for Ruinism, I can't find a single durable citation and I think it ought to be deleted rather soon. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Substance that kills a spider. Seems like a "book word", vanishingly rare. Equinox ◑ 21:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• However, the word is found in a scientific article, Masked Chafers, Cyclopcephala pasadenae, Casey (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae), are Poisonous to Spiders, in the journal The Coleopterists Bulletin, published by the Coleopterists Society. It is also found in a PhD thesis entitled The life history and behaviour of the subsocial amaurobioid spider Badumna candida. Additionally, one can find the French version of the word here, denoting its similarity to insecticide, and here, an older French arthropod study entitled Histoire Naturelle, Générale et Particuliere, des Crustacés et des Insectes. Rare? Of course. The word has been found in English and French, as old as a public-domain French study and as recent as a 1992 study of Coleoptera toxin.—Giant Squid_Talk 22:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French would be aranéicide unless I'm mistaken. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're correct, which is why I said French version. It can be found here and here, exactly as you spell it. I was using the French version as a way of substantiating the word's existence.—Giant Squid_Talk 22:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good research, and I think we have some rule that accepts anything that's been in a sci paper. We should flag it as rare, at least, though. Equinox ◑ 22:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's very reasonable. —Giant Squid_Talk 22:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I remove the tag then?—Giant Squid_Talk 23:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it for now, because we usually have to find three suitable citations. (The "one mention in a scientific paper" might overrule this, but just be patient.) Equinox ◑ 23:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright.—Giant Squid_Talk 23:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One use in a journal is no longer sufficient for inclusion (see Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-11/Attestation in academic journals), but because it is used (rather than mentioned) in that journal, we only have to find two more uses. - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. Each sense had only one citation. - -sche (discuss) 20:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rfv-sense: IPA symbol equivalent to eth. —Ruakh_TALK 15:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{look}}

RFV-failed for now. Should be re-added if citations ever become available. - -sche (discuss) 18:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"An ideological focus on hermaphrodites, and issues affecting them, possibly to the detriment of non-hermaphrodites. Contrast with androcentrism and gynocentrism." Practically nothing in the usual places, and what there is doesn't seem to have this meaning. Equinox ◑ 16:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The handful of times I've come across this word, it seemed to mean a focus on people who identified as male or female, as opposed to third gender or genderqueer. Smurrayinchester (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have is with the term hermaphrodites, since this properly refers to a pretty rare physical condition of the sex organs, rather than anything having to do with gender identification. — This unsigned comment was added by Chuck Entz (talk • contribs) at 07:06, 28 July 2012‎.

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 22:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a misspelling of women's room to me. Also I'm not sure if either of them are attestable with this meaning (citing a room belonging to a woman is trivial). It's probably worth including if attested, compare boys' room, girls' room. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cited --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 03:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In English. Maro 12:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few examples of usage can be found here. Not exactly academic, but internet culture rarely is. — This unsigned comment was added by 31.205.26.42 (talk) at 23:44, 4 August 2012‎.

See WT:CFI#Attestation. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from attestability according to CFI, the internet term uses a regular l instead of the dark l Chuck Entz (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd attribute that to the fact that the dark l is a letter that is inaccessible to most people online, so while in practice the word has changed, in theory it remains the same.--31.205.26.42 18:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but that may mean that bydlo#English is attestable, but that bydło#English is not. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Makes sense. I guess I'll go ahead and edit that.--31.205.26.42 03:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Striking, since 31.205.26.42, who first added the English section, has now removed it. —Ruakh_TALK 03:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal for navigation (best shore)?! Can't see it in Google Books at all. Thought it was something to do with bestshoring. Equinox ◑ 01:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Used by some businesses as a trade name, also as a model name by some businesses - but as a word? Nada. Collect (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh! Good thing we unblocked Luciferwildcat multiple times! Otherwise he might not have been able to add various pieces of unattestable bullshit! Help me out here, friends. Equinox ◑ 00:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I’d expect that after having 8 out of 17 regulars voting to have him banned he’d learn the lesson: just because a certain string of characters resembles English, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s an English word. Seriously, just find citations BEFORE you add an entry, Lucifer. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly "a person who eats the night". Um -- I just looked at the recent entries - many of which are "(arbitrary adjective)(arbitrary noun)" combinations and then the plurals as well! And I kinda like "squaroid" which has essentially no recorded usages other than as a trademark <g>. I suggest that all of his recent words be examined closely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, squaroid was on the "Wanted" list, should I not create them? Or does someone just make those up, what's going on?Lucifer (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Creation" is precisely the issue. Find words on the list which exist as findable words first - the "write the definition when no one has used the word" system is a failure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like the rest of Wiktionary, anyone can add to the wanted list. You have to use common sense and make sure they meet CFI before you add entries from the list (or from any source). In this case, it's apparently a protologism coined very recently for a McDonald's ad campaign. There are no hits whatsoever on Google Books or usenet, though it may very well survive long enough to meet CFI a year from now. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that even in the context of the McDonalds ad, the definition is wrong. -vore means a creature that eats in a certain way, so a nocturnavore is one who eats at night, not the habit of eating at night. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any sort of evidence for this? Something that's clearly unattestable can be speedy deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah it's attestable on Twitter, that's it! Mglovesfun (talk) 10:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following the logic of -vore word formation, you have herbivores that eat plants (Latin herba) and carnivores that eat meat (Latin carnis), but nocturna is an adjective, not a noun. Based on other Latin compounds such as noctivaga, I would guess that the correct form would be noctivore Chuck Entz (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of Google hits for noctivore but all in French. Nothing obvious for noctivorous. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect there to be any. I was just speculating about what a correctly-formed protologism would look like. The French term seems to show I guessed right. Of course, usage doesn't follow etymological correctness. Nocturnavore stands a much better chance of being here a year from now than noctivore. As for the rfved term, MG has already speedied it as an open-and-shut protologism- no cites anywhere. Chuck Entz (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um ok... need quotes to support that. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 00:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was speedily deleted by Ruakh and then again by MK. - -sche (discuss) 04:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note the RFD discussion (currently still on WT:RFD, though closed). - -sche (discuss) 04:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Vietnamese use tone marks? (And yes the entry needs cleaning up, I've contacted the user who created the entry about that) —CodeCat 13:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a great many marks to differentiate between vowels, but not all the vowels have them. And yes, there are tone marks, but there's one tone that isn't marked.Chuck Entz (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The are 21 Google Books hits for suy hao [4], of which 5 are accidental juxtapositions of other forms of suy or hao. That leaves 16 examples in running Vietnamese speech without the accents. I would say the spelling is citeable. I don't speak Vietnamese, so I can't tell if they support the definition, though. I haven't checked usenet. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm retracting my nomination then. Citations would still be nice, of course, but I was mainly worried about the spelling. —CodeCat 16:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-sense faulty, not functioning, etc. See Talk:Microsoftian, which suggests this sense was removed before but then re-added (who did this? why?). The single citation could just as well fit under the primary sense (relating to Microsoft). Equinox ◑ 01:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed in this edit [5], re-added in this one [6] by an editor who has since been blocked. - -sche (discuss) 02:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the sense. It previously failed RFV and should not have been re-added without three clear citations. - -sche (discuss) 22:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(anatomy): An angular portion of the stomach between the lesser curvature and the pylorus.

I have found this principally in a small number of works with Japanese authors. I think it is a misspelling or "angular region", in a sense connected to angulus. DCDuring TALK 02:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see only two cites, from different authors but both suspiciously at Kyōto University. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, neither of the Kyoto cites verify the given meaning. They both seem to be in a particle physics context rather than anatomy. SpinningSpark 17:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I'm happy with a speedy deletion if that's possible in this case. --BB12 (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I have also deleted two references I made to this page. --BB12 (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 19:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs to meet WT:BRAND. —Ruakh_TALK 04:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL at the etymology... that a product would actually be named after its ability to evacuate specifically six wee babies. - -sche (discuss) 05:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cites do support the etymology... --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name looks like it should be for a device that cleans up urine spills. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, clearly a brand name. Note: Usage example has Weevac-6 with a hyphen, not consistent with page title. Equinox ◑ 02:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed / deleted. - -sche (discuss) 19:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV of this sense of the noun: "Deleted from the movie trailer. Not included in theatrical run." It's defined as an adjective, but I can't reformulate the definition until I can see some citations to get an idea of what it does mean and how it's used. - -sche (discuss) 02:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The trailer is supposed to be the best of what is in the movie. What would be deleted from the trailer would not be especially bad, but would probably be in the movie. The most intelligible film-related usage in this sense that I found was the intro to a film review column [7]. DCDuring TALK 03:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps anyone searching for usage of the term: consider the possibility that it means "scenes that appear in the trailer but were, after the release of the trailer but before the release of the film, deleted from the film". - -sche (discuss) 03:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting possibility, defying normal economic logic. DCDuring TALK 03:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found some hits, but I don't think any support that meaning: [8], [9], [10]. In any case, I think this meaning would just be the sum of parts, not so? --BB12 (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The trailer for America's Sweethearts had scenes that weren't in the movie; sometimes what works in clips doesn't work in context.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 22:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a protologism; there are a lot of Google Book hits, but they refer to the name of a website, not to a noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-deleted. I think the purpose of the protologism is precisely to besmirch said website — see e.g. http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1121283/47187247#c48 — and we shouldn't let Wiktionary be hijacked this way. (Not that I disagree with the besmirching. PolitiFact is not very good at its job. But that's not what Wiktionary is for.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty borderline. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was previously deleted after being tagged {{rfv}}, but it's apparently never been listed on WT:RFV (until now)... bd seems to have deleted it after Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/2012#sapiophile? Well, let's give it its month and see if more citations have come online since March. - -sche (discuss) 18:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there might be three Usenet citations, but possibly not used in any published works at all. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to attest this as a noun, but not as an adjective. See Citations:sapiosexual. Astral (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems highly plausible but since it is a loanword I think we should verify it is not Spanglish slang or a transliteration of the pronunciation of ferry used as a loanword in lieuLucifer (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three or more of the first ten of books.google.es's results seem to support this sense, for example [11] tries to explain what it claims is the difference between a transportador and a ferri. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Passes, I suppose, per Mg. - -sche (discuss) 03:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be extremely happy.

Almost all uses are either of bliss out (transitive and intransitive) or closely related to that use, which normally refers to becoming stoned on some neuropharmacological substance. DCDuring TALK 21:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 23:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rfv-sense: countable, usually in combination "An individual good."

I am having trouble finding credible citations for this. My intuition would have wares as plural only (not counted: *"five wares") and ware as almost always uncountable, exception for genre/style sense used in archaeology etc. It would not surprise me if there were a time when there was singular countable sense, but I'm not seeing evidence. I would be satisfied three credible cites of "an [X] ware"/"an [X]-ware"/"an [X]ware" for any X. Evidence of contemporary usage would be particularly useful. DCDuring TALK 20:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is a suffix -ware, derived from software, patterned after hardware, that is not what this RfV relates to. DCDuring TALK 20:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also doubtful of "Goods or a type of goods offered for sale or use." All the example actually back up -ware not ware. If it can't be used outside of combinations, it must be a suffix. A 'noun' can stand on its own without an accompanying morpheme. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rfv-sense: "(uncountable, usually in combination) Goods or a type of goods offered for sale or use." Am looking forward to seeing unambiguous cites. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? There are so many instances of [X] ware (and even [X]-ware) for each of the words of the form [X]ware that we have, I'm surprised that you are RfVing it. Try this for bgc hits for "silver ware" limited to works published or reprinted in the 21st century. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sense #1 is in the sense of, for example, "sold his ware" for which phrase there are numerous gbooks hits - example Astbury was the more successful and made frequent journeys to London, where he sold his ware and obtained further orders. Sense #2 (An individual good) does not appear to be citable. SpinningSpark 01:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rfv passed on the sense that I tagged. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that it is also applied to metal goods and not just pottery per NYT use of "tole ware" and "damascene ware" etc. More sources on request, of course. Collect (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first sense has been cited; I've replaced the second with a pointer to "wares". - -sche (discuss) 00:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sense 2: "To scheme in the removal of the black population." Probably a Lucifer invention. Equinox ◑ 20:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means "To scheme to remove the black population", the definition above means nothing to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be citeable for the definition "To remove a black population" if we count orthographical variants like "DeNiggerize" and "deNIGGERize" (and I'm not sure if we do). --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't invent it look it up on Google books. I added one citation. Please vulture it at will or delete the whole entry I don't even care.Lucifer (talk)

Failed. - -sche (discuss) 00:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"(UK|puerile) a person whom the speaker dislikes." I can't find it in Google Books, having tried a few possible queries like stupid plop, you plop, etc. Was added by Top Cat 14, whose entries sometimes included his local unattestable school slang. Equinox ◑ 22:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 00:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A model of learning that is needs-driven, life-centered, or auto-appropriated; The use of learning as self-actualization and transformation." I dunno what the hell this is supposed to mean. Citations please. Equinox ◑ 22:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked pretty deeply into Google hits for "meism" and can only find the generally negative reference to philosophies of selfishness, not to any learning models. bd2412 T 02:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Failed. - -sche (discuss) 00:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rfv-sense WMF jargon "stub". Just because they use it on fr.wiki doesn't mean that it magically gets to be included. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This may be more widespread than just WMF. Wikis outside WMF also use the English term "stub" because WMF itself uses it, so the French equivalent may have spread in the same way. —CodeCat 19:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're both right, so let's check out the theory and see if we can actually cite it. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rfv-sense: "(slang) A large hairy man, particularly one who is gay." Seems quite likely to me — English bear is used that way as well — but was removed by an anon who presumably thought it was vandalism, so I figured I should list it here. —Ruakh_TALK 22:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably legit, see the Wikipedia user page of the editor who added this sense, w:User:Peter Isotalo, claims to be a native speaker having lived in Sweden since the age of 10. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's legitimate, as it was recently used in a video for Stockholm Pride by a man who said, "vi är björnar" (we are bears). Björnar being the plural form of björn, I think this is legitimate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pAPf7pSyj20 The Obento Musubi (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've detagged it. It seems we're all in agreement that it's real. - -sche (discuss) 01:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be too new to meet the CFI. —Ruakh_TALK 03:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously intended to be along the lines of greenwashing. However, even the given definition ("A baseless attempt") is biased and makes it clear that someone is trying to force through a neologism to make a personal point. Equinox ◑ 00:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't attest this. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 00:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to RFV dialectal terms because I know how hard it can be to cite them, but as I said when I RFVed huckle, "Wiktionarians have deleted many dialectal terms by Top Cat 14 (talk • contribs) because they were found not to meet CFI" as they were used in only a very small geographic area. Quoth CFI, "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means" : if someone will only run across it in one city, and not in a book or on Usenet anywhere, our CFI deem it too unimportant to be included, now don't they?
All I can find on Usenet are instances where it means "jitter(s)". - -sche (discuss) 07:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also "jidderbug" which I presume means jitterbug. SpinningSpark 09:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I could find (not citable) is "Down our way we call pounds 'snots' and pence 'jid'. This leads to calling anyone who's poor a 'jidder'. I love the English language." I do think the jitter sense is citable though and will add it. SpinningSpark 09:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rfv-sense: agar.

AFAICT, this is based on a misreading of an encyclopedia article. See sea vegetable#References. DCDuring TALK 13:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to RFD as {{rfd-redundant}}. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can a specific definition be redundant to a general one? DCDuring TALK 17:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged Irish term. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#the_presence_of_Irish_and_Welsh_online, I have removed Irish and Welsh from the list of languages which are well attested online. This word probably now meets the reduced CFI to which it is now subject. - -sche (discuss) 22:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has been cited. RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 18:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A hard to find would-be Irish word. Recall that attestation does not need to be online, but has to be from durably archived sources. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#the_presence_of_Irish_and_Welsh_online, I have removed Irish and Welsh from the list of languages which are well attested online. This word may now meet the reduced CFI to which it is now subject. - -sche (discuss) 22:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the others, this one only seems to appear in sites that copy us. RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 18:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would be Irish: almost not hits at all: google:"úránagrafaíocht". --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#the_presence_of_Irish_and_Welsh_online, I have removed Irish and Welsh from the list of languages which are well attested online. This word may now meet the reduced CFI to which it is now subject. - -sche (discuss) 22:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 18:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No chance of passing WT:COMPANY (or WT:BRAND for that matter). -- Liliana • 17:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be changed to something like - A car manufactured by the SAAB company. (We had a similar situation with firearms manufacturers, with Glock as a good example). A person who says they are buying a SAAB is not looking to buy a Swedish car company. Also the language should be changed from Translingual to English.--Dmol (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: I doubt it would usually be spelled in all caps by somebody referring to a single instance of the branded car, even if that is how they spell the brand. Equinox ◑ 18:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to "Saab". - -sche (discuss) 02:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rfv-sense: "To behave in an evasive way such as to delay action; to procrastinate."

The use of "prevaricate" to mean "procrastinate" might be widespread but is usually regarded as an error. The citation given for this use does not support it. Tesspub (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The quotation does not support the sense (it actually belongs with the previous sense) and I doubt that this sense is supportable. · (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given its similarity, I have added sense #3 of prevarication to this rfv: "Evasiveness as a means of playing for time; procrastination, hesitancy." If I did wrong, don't hesitate to revert. — Xavier, 11:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 00:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot attest this English term. It seems to be sourced from Webster's Third. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its alternative spelling Abbethdin seems to be attested, so I suggest we merge it with that entry if it is not attested in this spelling, to save the good etymology and pronunciation info Speednat has put in. :) (Even if it is attested in this spelling, Abbethdin is more common, and should be the main entry.)

This spelling, without the h, might just barely meet CFI as a German term. - -sche (discuss) 20:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find "Abbethdin" obviously attested. Many of the occurrences are in the phrase "In Israel's courts ne'er sat an Abbethdin", so they are not independent. It may be attested, but it is not obvious from google books:"Abbethdin", whose first 20 finds don't look promising.

Of the etymology added by Speednat (talk • contribs), I wonder whether he got it from Webster's Third and whether it is a copyvio. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 17:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rfv-sense: In an uncertain position or situation

I am really at loose ends about this choice, I am between the proverbial rock and hard place.

I don't think so. See “at loose ends”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring TALK 03:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The American Heritage Dictionary has that meaning. Also, OED has "not regularly occupied", and "unsettled" as separate meanings for the noun. SpinningSpark 06:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Withdrawn. Please insert the cite. DCDuring TALK 11:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think we cited dictionaries. SpinningSpark 17:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. It could go under a References header near the end of the L2 section. DCDuring TALK 18:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some cites that are definitely, and some that might be that sense [12][13][14][15][16][17] SpinningSpark 22:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. They all look good. All but one seem dated, which might account for why it seemed a bit strange to me in this sense. I usually check some of the older dictionaries, but hadn't this time. I have added the Webster 1913 wording to capture what I think is the older usage. I will search for citations for what I think is missing: "idle, bored", which Collins has. They also have at a loose end, which they think is more widely distributed. A lesser source has a at a loose end as UK with the "idle, bored" sense and at loose ends with the "uncertain" sense. Thus cites seem helpful, even necessary. DCDuring TALK 23:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also see loose ends and loose end. DCDuring TALK 01:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a single durably archived cite in English. I'm sure Webster has their sources, but I just can't imagine what those sources are. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 13:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cited by Equinox. Struck. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 13:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-sense "A sleeping area within a large bush (i.e. boxwood) in front of a Lodge or Fraternity House." Really? - -sche (discuss) 10:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it -- the only sources appear to be on the level of a Wiki as well (possibly using Wiktionary as their source <g>). I found some interesting OCR misreads of "lodge" as "bodge" while searching, though. [18] The NYT even does this - it stores the text as "lodge to bodge." No book usage, no newspaper usage in this sense, etc. makes me a tad dubious of this meaning ever being remotely common. Collect (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. Probably a joking coinage by drunken students not quite making it to their beds one night. Hasn't caught on. SpinningSpark 08:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted by Collect. - -sche (discuss) 22:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Half of these don't even match Shona orthography, I cannot find any of them even as words in a (small) online Shona dictionary, www.ancestry.com only gives hits for those that are also English (Maree, LuEtta, a few for Yaleena), the b.g.c hits don't point to Shona or even Africa. Either the language statement is wrong or the names are made up, from a fantasy novel for example. (How do you rfv translations? I would have deleted one name without discussion, but I think I need permission to delete 13.) --Makaokalani (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several were already reverted by Semper and Equinox, I've undone the others (except this one, this one, this one), per your points. - -sche (discuss) 15:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-sense "A poorly played golf shot where the ball is struck by the top part of the club head." Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 06:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it, though I'm not a big golf fan. I have found it in some on-line glossaries, so I'd imagine it exists, but citing it won't be easy at all. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that, google books:golf fat shot seems to produce enough usable hits for this to pass. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it does. Struck and detagged; kept. - -sche (discuss) 23:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rfv-sense: A person having an inflated opinion of himself; a conceited or arrogant person.

Dictionaries don't have it, so let's see if this can get attested by in-use quotations. I tried google:"he is a bighead", and found some non-durably archived hits.

Even if unattested, it would be nice to have an input from native speakers on whether the term is ever used in that way in the wild. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think I've used it, maybe a back formation from big-headed. Or maybe the way around. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added three citations. Equinox ◑ 20:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The citations unequivocally demonstrate use in the genus "person", even though the "conceited" differentia is not so perfectly discernible. Seems good enough to me, anyway, so thanks! What is the synonym of "bighead" in the sense of conceited person that you would most commonly use? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

show-off is common. I'd probably say braggart, with a touch of self-consciousness: it is not quite an everyday word but it feels just right. Equinox ◑ 20:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the common meaning in the UK. But I can't say that I have heard it used in very many years. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's largely playground slang. Children still seem to say it regularly (and Private Eye has its "Mary Ann Bighead" column). Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The one I'm curious about is "The condition of being conceited, arrogant, or having an inflated opinion of oneself." Sounds like an uncountable now. I'm not challenging it per se, but I don't think I can understand it without a citation or a usage example. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{look}}

I've passed the "person" sense, and tagged the "condition of being conceited" sense. Perhaps it is used like "he suffered from bighead"? (Compare: "he had a big head".) - -sche (discuss) 08:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed for now. The sense was: "{{colloquial|mainly|_|US}} The condition of being conceited, arrogant, or having an inflated opinion of oneself." - -sche (discuss) 10:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rfv-sense X 3

1. A ghost, apparition
2. The spirit of an individual.
3. The spirit of a group.

These were entered as if they were a single sense. They seem quite distinct to me, but perhaps two of them can be combined, possibly after rewording in light of the availability of supporting citations. I got even more confused because “geist”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. has various definitions with only some overlap with ours and questionable citations, some of which looked a lot like mentions to me. I wonder if all German senses are applied to this in English by someone or other, but with very low frequency. You would think that a dictionary like ours would need to make a hard-and-fast determination about the Englishness of a word like this. DCDuring TALK 02:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more baffled by the history tab starting with the rfv ... What happen'd to everything before? I seem to recall putting a quote or two. Anyway, it looks like it has been flesh'd out more by Leasnam. The word is also noted in other ways ... There's a whole chapter in a book devoted to "pollster-geists" other another author notes the word as a thing that holds the spirits of the dead.

Don't get me on the soapbox about the "Englishness" of a word ... I put forth a way to do that in another rfv. If we're going to determine the Englishness of words, then I hav a long list of French and Latin loanwords need only be put under French or Latin, as befitting, that are now under English as well. Truth is that I don't think that is what we're doing tho. We're logging the words as they are noted in English ... not the Englishness of them.

Are you still baffled or can the rfv tags be taken off? --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone forget to sign their contribution to this discussion?

Sense 1 appears cited. Senses 2 and 3 are do not have the required 3 cites. The capitalized Geist is suggestive that it is a use of the German word or possibly a proper noun. Can we get a less ambiguous citation? DCDuring TALK 13:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicky point, but the there is no required three cites for each meaning given. The wording for three cites is for the "term" meaning word or phrases, not each individual meaning. See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion. Many believe or assume that it does apply to each meaning, but the truth is that is not indicated by the wording.

Anent the capitalization, that's a poor indicator for the simple reason that so many folks needlessly capitalize a German loanword ... or worse ... capitalize a word like zeitgeisty which is an English adjectiv. (And adjectivs aren't capitalized in German either.) --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My ramblings about Englishness were simply about the question of whether it is worth having an English entry rather than letting readers use the German entry to select an context-appropriate meaning. DCDuring TALK 14:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your concern, bureaucratie seems like a waste of space, but there is no requirement that a word be English nor a criteria for determining the Englishness of a word. There are likely at least three cites in English of bureaucratie from the early days of it being borrow'd so that means that it fits the criteria for inclusion. Truth is, it's about 900 years too late to start worrying about it but I hav before put forth a list of criteria that would take a lot of the subjectivity out of it (and would cut a wide swath). I may go to the beer parlor and put it out there but I don't expect folks to want a true criteria. They kind of like the fuzzy-wuzzy way the go about it now which doesn't follow the written rules. --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, though I wish that there were a third example of sense 2 without capitalization. DCDuring TALK 15:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I share DCDuring's feeling that the second sense is not yet sufficiently cited. One citation puts the term in italics and is of unclear sense anyway, another is of "Geist", another puts the term in quotation marks... - -sche (discuss) 06:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two senses RFV-passed, middle sense RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 05:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rfv-sense - a notebook. Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[19][20][21] SpinningSpark 23:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the concept but the cites don't show that agenda means "notebook". In each case agenda is used in combination with another term (agenda book, agenda planner, homework agenda) before it is used alone. It is a good bet that students, teachers, and parents use the word agenda in referring to the notebook and/or its contents. For us to show that it means the "notebook" rather than the contents of the notebook, I would think we would need something like agenda being used with verbs that clearly indicate the notebook's physicality rather than its information content. ("throw", "carry", "drop", "bring", "take", "lose"/"find", "burn", "tear up", "page/leaf through", "write/draw/doodle in") DCDuring TALK 00:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why that's a problem. Even if one first says "agenda book", going on to say "the children will neatly write [...] in their agendas" is clear enough, as is "A homework agenda, sometimes called a student planner, is a notebook" or "It may be better to simply buy an agenda at the drug store for five dollars".--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

google books:"wrote in his agenda" gets four hits. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In two of the four Agenda is part of a title. In another it is used attributively in another sense as part of agenda memo. In the remaining one, a translation, it appears in italics.

I can't imagine that a user would suffer from us not having this as a sense. The sense of "things to be acted on" is metonymously transferred to various embodiments: a mental list, a list written down on sheet of paper, a whiteboard, a computer system, or a notebook. If vendors sell notebooks with "agenda" on the cover or self-help authors recommend having a notebook with such a title for their systems, I suppose we should seen some evidence of a sense. — This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs).

I stand by the cites I added.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My review of the citations:

• I don't the Ruph one conveys the sense "notebook" rather than "list", "plan".
• The Aronfeld citation is great.
• The Brue citation is of "homework agenda", which could be an idiomatic term for "notebook in which to record assigned homework": I would prefer it if one could show that "agenda" means "notebook" in isolation before breaking down phrases containing it. (Because a phrase might be idiomatic, if its parts aren't used in a particular way outside of it. Somewhat comparable: don't break down brown dwarf and add "about the volume of the planet Jupiter: having mass approaching that of a star, but insufficient to ignite its elements and cause it to burn" to [[brown]] until it is demonstrated that "brown" is used that way outside of the phrase "brown dwarf" or reflexes of it.)
• The Huerta citation uses "agenda book" earlier in the same sentence, but the subsequent use of "agendas" most likely means "notebook".

I think the sense is real, and favour keeping it. I may look for more citations myself. - -sche (discuss) 23:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. - -sche (discuss) 18:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rfv-sense: ramp. As far as I know, farthinder is the normal word for a speed ramp, so I'm not sure how this would be shortened to just "fart". Unless someone thought that the fart- part of the word meant "ramp"?? —CodeCat 13:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It means something like the place where you can or should drive/navigate (cf. färd), like for example infart, påfart (which is probably why someone added the definition "ramp"). The word is nowadays only found in compounds. See SAOB "fart" #4. Diupwijk (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the sense. If you think it is attested but obsolete outside of compounds, reopen the RFV. - -sche (discuss) 18:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avfart/påfart, infart/utfart, överfart/underfart, tillfart are Swedish words where the -fart suffix has the meaning of a road, ramp or journey, but as far as I can tell this only happens in compounds, and these are probably loan words from German compounds with -Fahrt (Überfahrt, etc.). The stand-alone fart means speed (farthinder = speed bump). The stand-alone word for journey (German Fahrt) is färd, and there are also similar compounds using this word (avfärd, hemfärd, utfärd) with slightly different meanings. While avfärd = German Abfahrt = departure = away-journey; avfart = off-ramp (a road that provides a departure from a motorway). --LA2 (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added this under Usage notes, rather than a sense. --LA2 (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doremitzwr certainly did a good job, but of all the cites given, only two are actually uses. Can we find a third, so we can keep this entry? -- Liliana • 09:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 18:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to meet WT:FICTION. Compare Talk:Dothraki. - -sche (discuss) 02:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a professional computer gaming team, probably quite notable, calling themselves Na'vi if that is any good. Probably not. RTG (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 00:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The language sense has been readded, but all of the citations specifically refer to it as the language of Cameron's film Avatar. WT:FICTION requires that terms "have three citations that are independent of reference to that universe", so this still seems to fail RFV. - -sche (discuss) 00:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here, however, Na'vi refers to something that actually exists outside that fictional universe: an artificial language named “Na'vi” which, like Klingon, people examine in college linguistics courses, learn to speak, and write books about. To clarify, Ferengi and Klingon are languages in Star Trek; however, the Ferengi language is imaginary, existing only in a handful of isolated words, but there exists a non-fictional artificial language named “Klingon” with a lexicon and developed grammar. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the alien spoken in Cameron's film has been fairly well-developed, and also apparently not copyrighted because we have an appendix full of it(?), but the term "Na'vi" is still a "term[] originating in [a] fictional universe[]". Likewise, sonic screwdrivers exist (there's the prop Matt Smith uses, and the many mock-ups and knock-offs of it that fans buy or make), but the term "sonic screwdriver" is still excluded by WT:FICTION until/unless DW-free uses of it exist. OTOH, if people mention the language without referring to the film, the way Larry the Cable Guy apparently didn't explain that [[nanu-nanu]] was from Morky & Mindy, then WT:FICTION allows it, like [[lightsaber]]. - -sche (discuss) 05:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replica sonic screwdrivers exist, but they aren't actually screwdrivers. A better example for your point might be frindle: though frindles indubitably exist in the real world, we do not use the term outside of references to that book. So, my rationale for reopening this page fails. Shazbot. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-closed. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]