This was in the requests list; if I removed it, whoever added it might get upset. So I've created it and brought it here. The Unicode spec calls it "uncertainty sign" or "query" and says nothing further. Equinox ◑ 19:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Looks like it might be used in – what do you call them – flow diagrams? — SGconlaw (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

	Input needed
	This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

FWIW drafts on the Unicode site note that "this is unequivocally the question mark in the diamond, whereas FFFD could have any representation".​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Seeking non-italicised uses in running English, to make it clear that it is not merely the transcription of the Japanese word but actually being used in English. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

All the texts currently used for citations clearly gloss the term (in one case, incorrectly), demonstrating the non-English-ness of the usage. It may appear in English text, but the manner in which the term is employed is decidedly non English.

I am not sure that glossing the term is an indication that it is not English, simply that it is rare. There are plenty of similarly glossed words that are clearly English. Kiwima (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Authors adding a gloss is a clear indication that the reading audience is not expected to know the term. While not an indicator of foreign-ness in and of itself, it is a piece of supporting evidence. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

In an earlier discussion in the Tea Room, Donnanz stated that "there is no other suitable word in English to describe something that seems to be uniquely Japanese" in trying to build a case for including this term under an ==English== heading, even despite agreeing that "It's pretty obvious that it's not an English word".

As I mentioned at the Tea Room, I'm quite happy for us to have an entry at [[ashiyu]]: I just don't think that any such entry should (currently) include any ==English== heading. This term is not lexically English, and English speakers and readers are not expected to know what this is. This term is not part of the currency of the English language. We don't say ashiyu, we say heated footbath or heated wading pool. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think it is fair to describe a shop-bought ashiyu as a heated footbath, but not the communal ones, where the terms wading pool and paddling pool would appear to be inaccurate, not what they are intended for. In some cases geothermal water is used, which is of course naturally heated (memories of Hot Water Beach in NZ). DonnanZ (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps then pool is not the correct term. However, the expressions heated footbath or heated communal footbath certainly convey what this is more clearly than ashiyu, for an English-reading audience. The lack of a single-word term for this in English does not necessitate that we treat the Japanese term as "English" -- until and unless it actually catches on among English speakers / writers and gains currency, much like English sayonara, skosh, honcho, or even desu.

I don't think "geothermal" is germane here. It's interesting, but that detail seems more encyclopedic than lexicographic. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also the definition doesn't match the example sentence (the dog is doing the frightening, not being frightened) SemperBlotto (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's an idiomatic use of frighten. And that's what makes it funny and apparently meme-worthy. -- Beland (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Kiwima. I have reworded the definition to reflect that they're not frightening the dog, the dog is doing the frightening. Khemehekis (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Only one of those is in print. At the very least we need some way of noting entries that only meet attestation with relaxation of the "durably archived" condition. See WT:BP. DCDuring (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

We now have two that are in print. Kiwima (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Any takers? I can only see "definitions" not usages. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The definition "beta male" sounds like PUA/incel jargon/propaganda. We would do better to make this a synonym of New Man, I suspect. Equinox ◑ 19:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've gone ahead and done it. The creator has a gender agenda; see e.g. history at hybristophile. Equinox ◑ 19:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have found plenty of uses, but sadly, not on durably archived sources. Kiwima (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

NB: recent edit to make it specifically ethnic white. - Amgine/ ^t·e 19:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Two web sources and one news source that doesn't use this spelling. DTLHS (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have added one cite from Google books, but that is the only one I found. Kiwima (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Spelled without a space. DTLHS (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have added some examples from websites. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

"websites" -- is it durably archived (WT:CFI: "in permanently recorded media")? -84.161.23.222 17:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK I have given up trying to find durably archived versions, only one good newsgroup, and about 0 books and 0 newspapers, so I have renamed this to eighth final. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

A specific "almost magic square" that doesn't quite work. Equinox ◑ 19:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

The issue is that the word is from 2016, which is when the Numberphile video that led to the coining of the term was published, so any cites earlier than that simply cannot refer to this meaning. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 21:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Just to add: I do think this term is real, but it probably cannot be cited under Wiktionary rules. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 21:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Apparently John Broderick was a well-publicized NY City police detective known for giving beatings to perps. This work on slang has some citations, but some look like mentions. I can't find use in books of fiction, where I would expect it. DCDuring (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

See w:Johnny Broderick, which mentions broderick as a verb. DCDuring (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

The form “brodericked” gets a few use hits.  --Lambiam 17:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Neither verb nor noun appears in DARE. DCDuring (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

The verb has passed (two cites on page and one on citations page). The noun still needs one more citation. Kiwima (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Animal lick sound. Maybe an interjection but I doubt this verb has caught on CFI-attestably. Equinox ◑ 13:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I added one cite, but most of what I find is on twitter, which, as far as I know, is not CFI-compliant. There are a number of borderline uses for mlem as a noun on google news. Kiwima (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

DTLHS (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

QQ brings up enough French usages, probably in this sense, but no English usages. Anyone want to convert this to/add this in French?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

What is QQ? I have added a French entry, the meaning is the same. Also I found one English use from a newspaper. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

The French quotes are mentions, not uses. Please delete if nothing else is forthcoming. Per utramque cavernam 13:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

vespivorous ought to exist as well, but is very rare. It is in Gilbert White#s The Natural History and Antiquities of Selborne however. (and I don't know what QQ is) SemperBlotto (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Quiet Quentin – see the "Gadgets" tab under "Preferences". — SGconlaw (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

"(Internet slang) The sound a dog makes." Also, please improve the definition: dogs make lots of sounds, such as barking, growling, yipping, panting, sighing, and skittering their little feet on the kitchen linoleum. Equinox ◑ 20:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Internet users hear blep sounds from all kinds of sources, a metal detector, a phone line, pvp matches. And here is another Internet definition: “Blep is an adorable phenomenon that involves the protrusion of a cat‘s tongue while its mouth stays closed, often due to forgetfulness or while asleep.” No dog sounds were spotted in this cursory investigation. As to how an audible blep sounds, a conjectural rendering is /bɫp̚/.  --Lambiam 14:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I also thought the word referred to any animal, but often a pet, sticking its tongue out. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Fear of clouds- a good number of mentions in phobia lists, one mention-y Usenet use. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Personally I suffer from phobocatalogophobia – a phobia of phobia lists, in particular such as have been formed by the accretion of “the sort of thing idle pseudo-intellectuals invent on the internet and which every smarty-pants takes up thereafter”. We should only include -ophobias if they are attested by clear uses.  --Lambiam 05:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

This isn't that sort of thing; it's mentioned in non-Internet sources back to at least 1981. In fact, I suspect most of the phobia lists are derived from pre-Internet words.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't clear: I meant phobia lists in books, not the internet ones (I never bother to look at those). That said, the same things can be said about most of the ones in books: some reference makes up a word, and all the other references copy it. The rest of the hits are for a certain type of self-help book that talks about fears as something to be overcome, and includes a list of "official" names of fears as a sort of filler. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I could only find one quote that looks like a use. In addition, there is [this article], but the text is unavailable. Kiwima (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

It is not an article but one poem in a series of four: “Cymophobia: Fear of Waves”, “Aulophobia: Fear of Flutes”, “Erythrophobia: Fear of Blushing”, and “Nephophobia: Fear of Clouds”, published together in the Summer 1988 issue of The Paris Review. They are behind a paywall, but I’ll be vaguely surprised if any of these terms appear anywhere else in the poems other than their titles.  --Lambiam 14:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Added two more cites.-Sonofcawdrey (talk)

I once had an idea to combat this continual fight against arrant "phobia-adders", namely, add them all! Yes, add _all_ the stupid phobias from those phobia lists, and then the rest of the editors interested in adding real words could concentrate on more important things and the "phobia-adders" would recede away and stop bothering us. My idea was that we could add them as entries, and for the un-attested ones, simply have a permanent notice saying: This entry is not properly attested, it only appears in phobia-lists; please add CFI-worthy citations (or something to that effect). Once they got properly cited (if ever), the notice could be taken down. I suppose the problem with this solution is that it might be the thin edge of the wedge. I mean, if we do it for phobia-words, why not other types of words? There are lots of lists of -mancy-words, and -philia-words, etc. But, might not this idea be worth thinking about? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

We already do this in some places, e.g. Pokémon. I don't really approve. Having an entry saying "this is not an entry" is foolish. Equinox ◑ 10:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

A male given name. Equinox ◑ 13:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have added three cites to the citations page, but I can't really say whether they are male given names or nicknames. I also found Darkeye as a surname, and as a woman's name. Also as a variety of sunflower, of daisy, and of dahlia. Kiwima (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see it used in reference to various people named Kevin, Kevin Rudd for example, but not with the given sense. DTLHS (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Here are a few instances of the given sense:

Discover Magazine

CTV News

Nancy's Baby Names Driving55 (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't sound natural to me, especially the supposed adjective. DTLHS (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think the noun sense is close to cited, even though some of the cites may be debatable, especially the ones about the Simpsons which could be about a C.H.U.D. parody. I'm also sceptical about the adjective, though I found it in a dictionary of slang (didn't use the same phrasing of course).

Some people on Usenet also mentioned that homeless people on the NYC subway are also called "chuds". ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Other findings for "chud" in different senses: alternative form of cud (etym 1), "sewage" (prob. etym 2). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Humorous unit of energy, oft quoted but rarely if ever used. Equinox ◑ 21:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Supposedly English but is a member of a Latin category. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

What exactly are we supposed to verify? Occurrences of the term in Latin texts? Obviously, this is a Modern Latin neologism (like spora by itself is), somewhat like the term generatio spontanea, only much more recent. Since it was coined only after Latin had fallen into disuse as a language for scientific discourse, any uses in Latin text wil almost be like borrowings. Perhaps we should classify the term as translingual, something we should probably also do with in vitro and other “Scientific Latin” neologisms that are used across language borders.  --Lambiam 11:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's botanical latin in origin. See IRMNG and Paleopalynology: Second Edition by Alfred Traverse --NessieVL (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV of everything (except the first sense, "voice", which is cited). Compare the RFV of #stevvon. Note that several of the citations are Middle English or are mentions and/or are not of this spelling.
The "that which is uttered; cry, petition, prayer" and "command" senses could possibly be combined if it would make them easier to cite (note that one of the three citations they have between them is Middle English and the other two use steauen, which has an a even if one overlooks the variation in u~v).
George Ellis's Specimens of the Early English Poets has a citation of "Stephen kept his steaven" which supports the "appointment" sense, although again not in this spelling.
I took all the citations from the EDD and Century that were not made-up usexes or Middle English. - -sche (discuss) 07:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

This might be of interest. It's a mention of the verb stevven, and explains how it was used mid-last century (c.1947). The text reads: If the stowering <i.e. the drifting of snow> was driven along by a very strong wind or gale, it was known as stevvening; when the wind howled, it was said to stevven. Stevven indicated something loud, like a howl, but it could also mean someone shouting. A fierce blizzard was described as “Snaw that was stevvening and stowering.” If a person lost his or her temper and began to shout and wave their arms about, they were also described as stevvening, while a snowstorm being driven by a strong wind was often known as a snaw-stower or snaw-stoor. [[1]].

Definition may be off even if the word is citable. - -sche (discuss) 07:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I checked both "tradthot" and "tradthots" on Usenet, but all I could find was one thread talking about the word itself. Khemehekis (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have added quotes from the typical “new right“ news publications, making it seven quotes, all with authors. The definition is okay. We only need to wait a bit to have quotes to span more than a year. Fay Freak (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Only the NYT cite looks durable to me. There is nothing usable on Usenet right now. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the definition is definitely too loose right now. "A single woman who advocates traditional family values to cater to a conservative or alt-right audience, while not conforming to those values", while less than ideal, seems a better place to start. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

DTLHS (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

skots at Google Books (with luminance). DCDuring (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not convinced it's an actual English word, rather than a Latin word being used in running text in English. User:Equinox? Per utramque cavernam 00:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Compare this to candelabrum, which is not italicised, is used in contexts where one wouldn't expect to find Latin words: [2], [3], [4], [5], etc., and is even pluralised as a regular English noun. It has "taken off". Per utramque cavernam 00:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

In the first four hits I examined the term is in italics and explained: [6], [7], [8], [9].  --Lambiam 16:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Same. Per utramque cavernam 00:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Overwhelmingly italicized. Not finding anything. DTLHS (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

AFAICT only the first noun sense survived into modern English (and it is rare and probably archaic/obsolete). All the hits I see for wemmed and other verb forms look to be Middle English. - -sche (discuss) 05:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "(slang) Something that enables or compels a person to overcome illusion and perceive harsher reality. (referencing the term red pill/take the red pill)". Familiar with the latter, not so much the former. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's one of those Reddit incel-type terms, denoting a bleak pessimistic attitude. Does exist, almost certainly not per CFI. Equinox ◑ 04:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

PassAMethod??? Khemehekis (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed. Well surprising, it has been the only sense I know. 8 quotes for @Robbie SWE, including an extra in Swedish, and also 6 for the verb. One can search endlessly to find more media reports using the word. Fay Freak (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak, you've outdone yourself ;-) Thank you for the quotes (not sure if the Swedish one should be used to validate the English word though). --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't we wait a week before we strike it out? Khemehekis (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. Some people may object that those sources are not durably archived.... Kiwima (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Reopened. The Swedish cite doesn't belong under an English header, Medium and 21st Century Wire are not durable and I'm also not convinced the others are either except maybe The Independent. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Swedish cites belong under an English header if they evidence English words. On Medium authors can delete articles but it is rare (?), anyway this one I have only added for informal proof. I cannot think of a reason why the durability of 21Wire would be diminished. Else what is with Mic, The Daily Wire‎, TheJournal.ie, Vice News? No reason to cast doubts upon them. WT:ATTEST says: “Where possible, it is better to cite sources that are likely to remain easily accessible over time.” This bids a prognosis, not that the texts need to be on paper, CD, cassette, microfilm etc. – which might become more or less or even absolutely inaccessible too, so web sources are even better to show use (also a different understanding is an evaluative contradiction for a community that rummages digital corpora to find printed sources – the CFI of other language versions like e.g. the Russian one even command more explicitly to provide web-accessible sources for accessibility). Also note that all the quoted sources are on the Wayback Machine and on archive.today. Plus the supreme rule is to include words that exist in communities (as distinguished from ad-hoc formations or protologisms) (”all words in all languages”) and I have verified this existence in a pending procedure so that the case is to be closed, which would means that the term has to be included even if WT:ATTEST is not met (what I deny), since nowhere in the WT:CFI it stands that WT:ATTEST is the only way to evidence terms processually. § 1 pr. of the CFI rather suggests the contrary: “A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means. This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of” – so WT:ATTEST states a regular case (which I also fulfilled, as I claim) and other cases are admitted. How can one even get an idea that a term should perhaps be removed if a linked Quartz article includes an investigation into the origin and a graph counting usage in thousands? (It is mention, but one that points to perception of use, unlike mentions which derive from other mentions, or dictionary entries that could be copied, which is what the “use-mention distinction” in the CFI aims to exclude.) That words can be proven informally in a pending procedure can also be seen by the hypothetical case of a reverse RFD where people would vote to undelete a term given its quotations (assuming they are on the Citations page or else given in that procedure) after which the term cannot be deleted again by the procedure because it has been undeleted by consensus. So the Argumentum a maiore ad minus is that even against a formal RFV procedure a term has to be kept if there is no consensus against it (which there shouldn’t be as I said as I have given copious example to become acquainted and everyone find more in the non-durable web proper). Also competition with other dictionaries through coverage of internet slang suggests to keep terms that are shown to exist at any given point, since “professional dictionaries” track terms of informal appearance: Dictionary editors witness terms, they decide to include them. You aren’t applying the CFI correctly, @Lingo Bingo Dingo. RFV-passed, and   Keep.

I am aware that people might opine that for such an inclusion practice the CFI should be formally reworded, but nonetheless I hold that what I have stated is already the lex lata. And I am not the first one either to believe the same – the rule has always been in many editors’ hearts and what newbs are told: “Just add words that exist.” And those incel guys understood this (not PassAMethod who also defined strangely etc., that is a different problem) and hence did nothing wrong in including those here so-called “not-attestable” terms. Wiktionary editors have perverted the meaning of the words attestable and to attest. I have attested the word, in convenient form. Fay Freak (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Durably archived is well understood; the case law is clear. As is attestation, which we have a sense specifically for this case. Personally, if I were told to produce an attestation (sense 1, the general sense), I would expect to have to follow some weird rules, be it signing in particular ways or notarized by a public notary or involve an expert in some way; I would not expect any random format I used to be acceptable.

If you object to the rules as applied, I do not think this is the place and way to challenge them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how this can be called "RfV-passed". The cite problems included failure to be durably archived, ambiguity as to meaning, mention rather than use, foreign language. DCDuring (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Responding to some parts of that post:

Swedish cites belong under an English header if they evidence English words.

In this case the first two attestations in Swedish are mentions, the others take Swedish plural articles so can hardly count as English.

On Medium authors can delete articles but it is rare (?), anyway this one I have only added for informal proof. I cannot think of a reason why the durability of 21Wire would be diminished. Else what is with Mic, The Daily Wire‎, TheJournal.ie, Vice News? No reason to cast doubts upon them.

If authors can delete articles it isn't durable. 21st C Wire is an alternative "independent news" site that is little more than a group blog and is almost certainly not included in electronic databases. If the others are included in such databases they might be durably archived, but that is not a settled matter at all.

WT:ATTEST says: “Where possible, it is better to cite sources that are likely to remain easily accessible over time.” This bids a prognosis, (...).

This is only a recommendation, and doesn't qualify what is considered durably archived.

Also note that all the quoted sources are on the Wayback Machine and on archive.today.

The Web Archive isn't considered durable, because of its robots.txt exclusion policy (though this isn't followed strictly anymore). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

It would be interesting to find out whether each citation for this RfV was in well-funded, well-indexed internet archives, and whether one could somehow find the relevant passage within a reasonable time.

"Durably" implies more than resistance to deletion by authors. It also implies that institutions of some degree of permanence will keep the material accessible. For print publications that means libraries. For usenet that means the various entities that host copies of it. The pace of change in electronic media has meant that there has been a high degree of mortality among the companies that publish electronically. Institutions like the Internet Archive are dependent on grants and don't have histories comparable to those of libraries. It is not unusual to find dead links in such archives or to be unable to locate the exact text one requires due to incomplete indexing.

In any event, this is not an RfV matter. It may be worth bringing it up again now at BP because it is important to us. DCDuring (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring Apart from Mic and the Swedish site (which block archiving services), all cites are in the Wayback Machine and archive.today:

• Independent: [10] [11]
• Daily Wire: [12] [13]
• Journal.ie: [14] [15]
• Vice News: [16] [17]
• 21st Century Wire: [18] [19]
• Medium: [20] [21]

The Wayback Machine isn't durably archived however, because they sometimes obey robots.txt. The FAQ of archive.today on the other hand states that they do not respect robots.txt, but that some content may be deleted if it violates their hoster's rules. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Let's take this to BP. We need to have some way of dealing with non-print publications that respects the basic objective of reliable attestation. Also, tt would be handy to have step-by-step instructions or an automated or semi-automated tool for efficiently getting a link to a durable archive after having gotten the cite from a fast search engine. DCDuring (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wikihow has the basics here. Is there a tool (template, script, etc) available that can take a link from a fast search engine, eg, Google News, and find the link in a "durable" archive, eg, Wayback Machine/Internet archive? DCDuring (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Of all media, the reliability in what can concerns Wiktionary is highest in Wiktionary itself. You’ll witness that those quotes are real, that you didn’t let yourself be fooled by ad-hoc inventions. If in hundred years all the quotes are gone, we can say: Well Fay Freak, DCDuring & Co. looked into them, the quotes are real, the existence of the term is already demonstrated, case closed, ne bis in idem. We somehow need to get the terms that don’t have an intersection with Google Books or Usenet. I bet anyway that for any of the web quotes given some printed newspaper had the same term and we just don’t know which, we don’t reach out to them without disproportionate expenses, but what’s even the meaning of “languages well documented on the Internet” if it does not mean the internet taken as a whole, used to demonstrate words in a verification proceeding, since we all are working for free on the internet and the willingness of unpaid editors to go into far libraries to browse the pages for words is already mostly theoretical and the more so if the word does exist demonstrably online and its existence in the language is thus is shown in easier fashion. Google-Books and Usenet are for languages that use complex scripts (those that need complex text rendering) crap anyway, it probably does mean the web hence and since the language of the internet is directly the investigation object of Wiktionary, not via media in other form. The question is not even if a word exists in certain formats, if it exists on cassette or CD or only online, this is not so interesting, people care to have words in a dictionary that exist (sufficiently widely) anyhow, that the dictionary is reliable in any way. This is assuming that the section “Number of citations” does not contradict what is written before it in the CFI. Anyway surely one should fix the CFI formulation, going to the BP, since the way the CFI are written the application of the CFI has become detached from the goals of Wiktionary. You see: When people pursue verification requests though they are convinced that the term exists, rethinking many things is due. Fay Freak (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Again, these types of argument should go to the Beer Parlor, not to RfV. There's lots of discussion to be had about open Internet citation, but this is not the place.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

DTLHS (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I added two uses to the citations page. I found a third quote, but it was too mention-y. Kiwima (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

This can be found on issuu:

• 2016 May 15, "Old English words that should make a comeback: 17. Rawgabbit", The Express Tribune "hi five!", page 6.

  We all know a few rawgabbits. A rawgabbit is a person who likes to gossip confidentially about matters that they know nothing about.

Which is, considering the article, quite borderline. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ledish (and, frankly, leden/ledden and the "people" senses of lede) seem to be in the same boat as ledely (above). A Google Books search turns up various scannos, and the EDD has no entry, let alone pointers to citations, as they sometimes have. - -sche (discuss) 20:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

ledish in its current sense can be moved to Middle English. There is a ledish₂ which is an obsolete spelling of leadish Leasnam (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've moved the "Pertaining to people" sense to Middle English, and left ledish as an obsolete form of leadish. The tag remains, but is may no longer be needed. Leasnam (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Searching for "thamnium" / "the thamnium" / "a thamnium" doesn't return anything promising. DTLHS (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I found 2 candidate citations at Google Scholar. They strike me as low-quality because the authors are probably not native speakers (based on name and publication in Russia). They also are not clearly consistent with the definition. I don't have searchable access to descriptions of lichen or the scholarly lichenology literature generally. My review of BHL was not fruitful. DCDuring (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

An obsolete transcription borrowed from French, which I only seem to see in one encyclopaedia and derivatives or plagiarised forms of it. Created by @Geographyinitiative. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Here is the source I used to create that entry: [22]. It is written as 'Hoang-tcheou-fou' and is in the extreme northeast of Hou Koang (which is bordered in Green). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

'Hoang-tcheou-fou' also appears on this map: [23] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Another Frenchism. DTLHS (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't look like an adjective, probably should be capitalized. DTLHS (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

With GBS I get to see only a few snippets, but they strongly suggest that in collocations like “Muscuty plains” we have the attributive use of a noun. Almost all uses in these snippet views capitalize the word, but that may be due to dated conventions; I also see the common word buffalo being capitalized.  --Lambiam 12:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Not certain this is legit, at least in sense given. Equinox ◑ 16:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I improved the definition (the dateliner does not write just the dateline, but also the article that follows), but could only find one supporting citation. I did add and cite another meaning (the article itself). I also added two cites to the citations page for a third meaning (an investor who buys and sells based on the daily stock market reports), but did not add it because I could not find a third. Kiwima (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I suspect this is obsolete if it still exists at all. The English Dialect Dictionary has pointers to some citations we could use, except that many are actually Scots, or use a different spelling. - -sche (discuss) 23:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I added a few cites. The 1896 work is written in English, but two of the characters in the story (Corp and Tommy) speak in Scottish dialect. Leasnam (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I previously challenged LOL for "lots of love": I am personally deeply convinced that LOL never meant "lots of love" and this is similar to a backronym, where people thought it must have meant that. Let's look at the four citations: they are awful and inadequate:

• 2007: "what do you think LOL means?" (says the modern kid), "lots of love" (says the ignorant father, getting it wrong).
• 2010: "lol, dad, miscommunication", it says that the lol (laughter) was misunderstood as love instead of laughter.
• 2011: possibly acceptable but it is almost a mention rather than a usage.
• 2014: specifically (and a humorous example of) the misunderstanding of love as laughter, but the presentation suggests it's unusual and we have no proof that this cute anecdote ever happened in the real world.

If anyone can find a LOL that is unambiguously love and not laughter and isn't in some kind of humorous misunderstanding context, I will buy them a beer (or whatever cheap thing they like) on PayPal. I think this is an urban myth. Prove me wrong, bitches. Equinox ◑ 05:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I personally am SURE that LOL meant "lots of love" because I personally remember it doing so, and know plenty of other old fogies like myself who also remember it doing so. It feels like a violation to be told my past and my memories are bogus. I doubt we will ever find evidence on Google to support this meaning, and even if I can find a bunch of old letters to support it, how do I bring them in as evidence on Wictionary? Kiwima (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm, no offence meant, and even if you aren't "CFI-compliant" your memories matter because this stuff will go to the talk page, and may be proven by future, better people than ourselves. I still really want to see proof of this. If you actually have letters with LOL used that way that would be really important and interesting even if we can only stick 'em on the Talk or Citations page, and I'm sure you can cut out any part that would be too personal. Thanks for your help. Equinox ◑ 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

There is no question that some people have THOUGHT that LOL meant "lots of love", and even used it thus. Famously former British Prime Minister David Cameron did so (see e.g [24]). By the way, I see no need for you to call us "bitches". It is unpleasant. 02:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I, too, recollect LoL/LOL as being part of the handwritten closing I put on greeting cards. I guess it's obsolete now because the other use is so dominant. DCDuring (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Acronym Finder and AbbreviationZ both include "lots of love" and "little old lady" among their definitions. DCDuring (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

In most of the stuff you get on Google Books for "LOL" + "lots of love" this usage is framed as a misunderstanding. [25] [26] Usenet seems more promising, though. [27] ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you ask anyone over 60 what LOL meant at the end of a letter, they will tell you it was a common abbreviation for "lots of love". It has been totally eclipsed now by laugh out loud, and doesn't really make it into permanently archived sources, but I still think this one was common enough to get in by common usage. Kiwima (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Definitely generational. Certainly was "lots of love" when I was sending greeting cards to relatives. If three of us find some old greeting cards with LOL and upload the images to Commons, would that be good attestation? DCDuring (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't have any old letters to prove this (got rid of them when I emigrated), but it was such COMMON USAGE!!!!! DCDuring clearly remembers it as well. Part of the reason I feel so strongly that this one should be included is because of all the current reactions to older people who interpret this as lots of love. They are not finding a completely unfamiliar acronym and making a wild (incorrect) guess rather than trying to find out what it means, they are being misled by their own past experience because it used to mean lots of love, which is a much more reasonable mistake. Kiwima (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

If we could establish a likely period for usage there are publications which include many personal correspondences (e.g. soldiers writing home). I agree that this will be a hard one to track down, but perhaps not impossible. - TheDaveRoss 13:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have no doubt that LOL was commonly used for "lots of love" at the end of a letter, similar to how XOXOXO is used today (that is not at all to say that "XOXOXO" is some recent invention), because, although that was a bit before my time, I have a large family, and they (a large number of them under sixty [although I would note that there is a saying {albeit one that has begun to no longer been true ever since the advent of the blasted social media age that we now unfortunately live in} in my state that means in a nutshell "that which begins in California/out West, and is not readily apparent {in other words, not a common trend or fad}, takes roughly ten years before it comes to {MY STATE}", which I suppose makes perfect sense considering that California is on the polar side of the country from where I live--even the northernmost parts of California are notably below where my area is on a map. In any case, I bring this up because the saying in question also indicates a broader point, I feel, that much of that which begins and much of that which fizzles out in another part of the country {outside of the Northeast} has historically taken much longer to begin or to fizzle out where I live]) recall and have told me in the past (many years ago) precisely what User:DCDuring and User:Kiwima recollect. Was this, perhaps, less common in the United Kingdom than it was in North America (I'm not suggesting that it was specific to a particular area or anything like that, I'm just wondering if it was more common in one than in the other)? Because I have a pretty strong feeling that if I were to go at this very moment and ask the kind elderly woman who lives right next door to me if there was another way of indicating what "XOXOXO" indicates at the end of a letter, she would tell me that "LOL" or "lots of love" has served that purpose. Even if I do end up taking the time to find clear evidence of that fact, though, I would decline Equinox's (probably unserious) offer, as I am a staunch teetotaller-- always have been and always will be. Tharthan (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've tried search Google Books, restricting the title to include "letters" or "correspondence", with time period 1800-2000. No joy. DCDuring (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

That's the problem really. On the one hand I can imagine the frustration of Kiwi et al (as though I had to defend a word like autofire after the accidental burning of all 1980s video game magazines); on the other hand I don't think we should ever make exceptions to attestation rules just because we like our editors and they're probably right. What if it's a massive hoax that only comes to light 50 years later? boo. Equinox ◑ 02:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the cites in the entry, I'd dismiss the first (2002), but the others seem to meet our standards. The fact that there is difference between what older users and younger users mean and understand by LoL warrants a dated label. I fail to understand how evidence of misunderstanding isn't relevant attestation. I agree that it is mentiony, but it is substantive, in-the-wild mentioning that we are seeing. I think we should be happy to find some attestation for such a common misunderstanding, especially involving intra-familial communications, often involving children. It would be interesting to determine whether the "lots of love" meaning predated widespread use of greeting cards. I think not, but I'm not sure how we could find out. DCDuring (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

DTLHS (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Found and added one book citation and one from Usenet; the latter is a repost of an article originally published on the Web but I don't know that that would invalidate it...? If no third is found, please move to Citations space. Equinox ◑ 15:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Appears in 1 paper. DTLHS (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Looks more like Latin. DTLHS (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

• But auriphrygiate is English according to the OED. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

From what I can see, it looks like English, but all I can find are mentions. Kiwima (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

DTLHS (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Most of what I find are mentions (It appears in a lot of dictionaries). I did manage to find two quotes, which I added to the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Appears in 1 paper. "Axonotrophic" is much more common. DTLHS (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I found a second. The two quotes are on the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

DTLHS (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have added three cites to the citations page, although only the 2014 cite seems to completely match the supplied definition. I also found many references to one of these places in Vancouver which is named "The Cuddlery". Kiwima (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

The wording is needlessly confusing. These is a "business establishment that sells cuddles". DCDuring (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

DTLHS (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

In addition to the cite in the entry: "49-year-old creepshotter", "rulings in favor of creepshotters", "would-be creepshotters" (page 105). No idea whether they are all durable — Bustle probably isn't. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Apart from the cite from Elle (assuming that the magazine in the video was actually printed) they don't look durably archived. I'd think usenet would be a good source. DCDuring (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, the Elle cite looks good (Issuu digitizes magazines so we can find them, while libraries archive copies of them so they're "durable"). For the IBT we would need to see if it appeared in print. As an aside, I wonder if creepshooter is ever used in this sense. - -sche (discuss) 00:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Used in 1 paper. DTLHS (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

DTLHS (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have added two cites but we still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

DTLHS (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have added two cites, but could not find a third. Kiwima (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "Wine revived by new fermentation, resulting from the admixture of must." The sense has one quotation under it, but that quotation has a footnote saying it doesn't support the sense and that the sense is an error in the old dictionary we appear to have copied it from! The sense could be a plausible extension of the "must" sense; OTOH, it is contranymic to the "new wine used to revive old wine" sense. The presence of both other senses may make it difficult to find clear citations. M-W doesn't have it, neither does the EDD although it has some other interesting senses. "Revive the stum", "revived stum", "revived stum" turn up nothing. I also looked for mentions of people putting new wine into stum, but only found some other old dictionaries. - -sche (discuss) 07:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

It appears in the OED Online, though the entry has not been updated since 1919. The current quotation is given, together with one from Henry Fielding (which to me is not clear at all) – True Patriot (1775): “We drank nine bottles a piece of stum.” — SGconlaw (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Only scannos where the two words have run together. Equinox ◑ 07:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Google scholar has a number of hits that are hidden behind the paywall, so they are impossible for me to verify. However, this hyphenates the term at a line break, meaning it is either polarpolymer or polar-polymer. Kiwima (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Found 1 use. DTLHS (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nothing in books or onelook, I do see some on Twitter and maybe blogs? Can we cite this per CFI? - TheDaveRoss 13:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Everything I can find is not CFI-compliant. Kiwima (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "(Internet slang, derogatory) A self-important or obnoxious pseudointellectual."

I've tried to find attestation on Google groups (UseNet portion), but it is hard to exclude all the hits for the Fedora software. I don't know what positive collocations would generate hits for the sense above. (OTOH, neckbeard looks attestable in more-or-less the sense in the entry.) DCDuring (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I tried searching for it on Groups and Books together with other words like "neckbeard(s)", "MRA(s)", "angry", "misogynistic", "gross", and "m'lady". I only found a few books which, although clearly using it to refer to hats worn by such people, were still using it to mean the hats, not the people. - -sche (discuss) 18:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Sigehelmus as the adder, perhaps they know of some usage. Wouldn't shock me if this was used as a meronym, but I have never seen such. - TheDaveRoss 18:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, I have seen this, just not anywhere durable: search twitter for "of fedoras who" for some examples. (That phrase nets nothing on Google Groups or Books, sadly, and "fedoras who" nets only chaff.) - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't doubt that it is used, given that at least three veteran contributors have fairly specific views on its meaning, but terms not in other dictionaries really need some attestation. We can't just favor terms from whatever subcultures we may be part of. DCDuring (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

All I've been able to find: page 6. page 10 (mention). I don't think the definition is quite right though, in my experience a "fedora" is an obnoxious, typically misogynist, male new atheist, brony or MRA (maybe a PUA or incel). Being a pseudointellectual would be relatively accidental to that, some don't seem to wear it to look intellectual but simply to look like a manly movie star. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Who used it and when did they use it? DTLHS (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The OED defines it as "(obsolete) anyone else". (although the example they give uses "elsewhom") SemperBlotto (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Etymonline and what I can see of the OED entry date "elsewho" to the 1540s / 1542, but the only citations I can find are modern nonce-y ones on Usenet: Citations:elsewho. There's a remarkable paucity of mention even in other dictionaries (old or modern), let alone other books. Century. which sometimes has usexes that can help with finding citations, has elsewhat, elsewhen, elsewhere, elsewhither and elsewise, but not this; Etymonline adds elsehow ("1660s"), elsewhence ("c. 1600") and elsewards ("1882"). I also spotted uses of "elsewhom". - -sche (discuss) 07:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

What citations does the OED have from the 1540s? DTLHS (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

"c1542 Udall in H. Ellis Orig. Lett. Eng. Hist. (1843) 4 I cannot persuad myself that your maistershipp hateth in me or elswhom any thyng excepte vices." SemperBlotto (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Anyway, this is probably cited now (two of the citations are good, two seem to be missing or slightly misusing a word), as is elsewhom. - -sche (discuss) 04:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I see two good citations, I don't like the other two. DTLHS (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-sense "(neologism, slang) A neologism formed by grammatical rules." It would help to have examples of the kind of word this is intended to describe.
Searching for the plural, and excluding scannos and typos of "grammarians" and instances of "bad grammarisms" which are properly parsed as "[bad grammar]-isms", I think there are enough hits to suggest there is some countable meaning like "a form consistent with the grammar (or even spelling?) of a language or dialect" (one book refers to "such terms as Baryte, colour, mollusc and other typical British 'grammarisms'"), but not this. - -sche (discuss) 06:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The American author of the quoted passage, taken from a book review of the book Rocks, Minerals & Fossils of the World, confuses spelling with grammar. Notwithstanding the scare quotes, I think this too should be parsed like “[British grammar]-isms”.  --Lambiam 17:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

DTLHS (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

DTLHS (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

DTLHS (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Found only 2 cites. Not even sure they are independent (may be by same author). DCDuring (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

What? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ling Ling was a panda (not to be confused with the sociopathic Pokémon Ling-Ling). I didn’t know that (next to eating bamboo and practicing celibacy) he also played the violin.  --Lambiam 12:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-senses:

1 (transitive, obsolete) To lose entirely or completely.

2 (transitive, obsolete) To destroy, kill.

4 (transitive, obsolete) To bereave, deprive.

Are these attestable in modern English, even EME? If not, they might do better as Middle English. It wouldn't hurt to have three citations for the unchallenged 3rd definition "abandon". DCDuring (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

checked weight. Good luck finding decent citations. --Pious Eterino (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "A strain of marijuana containing very high THC levels - in excess of 22%." Are strains of marijuana WT:BRANDs? I guess some are developed commercially and trademarked, but presumably some are not? - TheDaveRoss 12:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

DTLHS (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've found a few possible cites, though some of these could be considered English uses of the Norwegian word, given their context: 12345678 --Hazarasp (talk · contributions) 13:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

1. Other things; 2. other persons. How and when is this used outside of the fixed borrowing "et al."? If it is, I imagine it would be humorous (perhaps pretending that this Al is a scholarly fellow etc.)...? Equinox ◑ 19:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Aside from et al., inter al. is citable, fwiw here, which isn't much.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Variant of the high five where you snatch your hand away. I don't believe this is a noun phrase, I don't think it's called "a too slow" or that a plural "too slows" exists. It's just the phrase "too slow", sometimes used with a high five. Equinox ◑ 19:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Geometry suffix. The claimed derived terms, triangle and quadrangle, were not in fact formed this way in English. So what was? Equinox ◑ 19:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've added more of them, but even the ones that were formed anew in English can IMHO be analysed sufficiently as (Latinate numeric prefix) + angle. --Hazarasp (talk · contributions) 22:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

This entry says it is a nonce coinage by Thomas Pynchon. Has it been used independently of Pynchon, ie, not in lit crit of his work. DCDuring (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

All I can find is Pynchon and people referring to Pynchon. Kiwima (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't want to quibble but the attestation criteria seem to be ok with non-verbatim quotations. Fenestrator (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed Citations are not independent. Kiwima (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Any takers? The surname (Fück) seems to exist, but we don't have it yet. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Most of what I find is on non-durably archived sources, which is not surprising, since this type of spelling is used primarily to defeat automated tools for detecting obscenities. I did manage to find one use in a durably archived source. Kiwima (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

"(anthroponymy) The name of one's grandfather.", initial search results were sparse if the term is actually used. Nobody else seems to have it. - TheDaveRoss 12:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Only one hit that’s actually English. 72.10.127.162 17:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

And that one puts the word in italics. Kiwima (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Any takers? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

In Google Books: zero hits for "road-hauled him"; a few for "was road-hauled", but all referring to road transportation of goods. There are a very few uses with the desired sense in a Google Web search, but all seem to refer to an episode of the TV series Supernatural: is it unique to that? Equinox ◑ 02:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: "a labor contracting system where workers are hired by employment agencies to work within a specific period of time before being replaced and barred from being re-hired". Philippine English neologism that need cites from any news sources from around 2016 (when the term surfaced). Google Books does give one result providing its usage, but is too sparse.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

DTLHS (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's not properly cited, all uses are italicized. Chignon – Пучок 12:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

DTLHS (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

DTLHS (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Two slang senses: "1. A young person; a teenager. 2. A person, regardless of age." When searching, beware scannos for "young head" (which may be used along the lines of "older heads were needed to solve the problem", to refer to a person thinking). Equinox ◑ 20:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The sense of a young person is cited. The sense that does not specify age is not. Kiwima (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-resolved The sense of a young person passes, the sense that does not specify age fails. Kiwima (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

DTLHS (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: A disease caused or accompanied by a proliferation of tissue. There are probably more senses that may be more includable. DTLHS (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: The scientific study of zygotes. I see mentions of this word meaning "the study of joining things together". DTLHS (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

To recommend (informal). Cites given are reccing and recced, so might easily be for rec (a more intuitive spelling to me). Equinox ◑ 17:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I see some italicised use which I would consider to be romanised Ancient Greek. Is there actual use in English? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

"A person who tries to spoil others’ fun; a killjoy", nothing on Onelook, I have never heard this, if it exists is it regional or dialectical? - TheDaveRoss 12:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Good luck finding valid citations for this. IIRC, tickets are not durably archived. --Pious Eterino (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Widespread long-term use in the aviation industry. Now cited. --Dmol (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The context in which it is used doesn't seem to be English, though. "NONREF/CHGFEEPLUSFAREDIF/CXL BY FLT TIME OR NOVALUE", should we have CHGFEEPLUSFAREDIF? How about 0VALUAFTDPT from the next cite? - TheDaveRoss 18:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

It has one quotation. Needs two more, I believe. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

"Alternative spelling of Allat” —37.42.161.10 17:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I can find Allāt, but not this. - -sche (discuss) 20:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Neither of the alleged senses exist.2600:1000:B124:E4FF:1CD3:5F75:E5C:757B 22:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Actually, they do. But not on durably archived media as far as I can tell. Kiwima (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Invented by Phineas and Ferb. 104.226.7.82 23:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

And blatantly plagiarized by some time travelling poet. To be fair, seems super rare. - TheDaveRoss 18:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

All the Google Books results are for literal cops that are ninjas 104.226.7.82 23:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Can be found on the Web though, e.g. [28]. Equinox ◑ 17:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV adverb sense:

1. Prone to halting or hesitation.

   He’s stop still.

I wondered whether "stop still" might be a mishearing of "stock still", but it hardly means "prone to halting or hesitation". Also, the definition seems to be that of an adjective. Mihia (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Verb sense 1:

1. (transitive) To measure or indicate something with a dial.

Somehow I cannot come up with an example of this. Mihia (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

As synonym for United Kingdom. The given example is "Treaty of Union", but that is literally a treaty forming a union: it doesn't imply that "Union" means "United Kingdom". If this does pass RFV then it might need marking as obsolete. Equinox ◑ 23:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's not obsolete, but it needs some context to show which union is meant. Typical use is as found in e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Unionist_Party :

Paisley declared: "This is a small token of the men who are placed to devastate any attempt by Margaret Thatcher and Charles Haughey to destroy the Union".

On the basis that "the Union" needs context for us to understand which union (and presumably could be used for any union??), I'm not clear whether it deserves a dictionary entry for this sense. Mihia (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

What about this as a def: “The union between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland (later confined to Northern Ireland), which came into force on 1 January 1801 and formed the United Kingdom”?  --Lambiam 17:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The only concern I have is that "the Union" can refer to umpteen different unions, depending on context. A few are listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Union, but I've no doubt more could be found. Is there something about the UK Union that makes it worth an entry, while others are omitted? On the other hand, if the UK Union is seen as a particularly prominent or important use then I guess it doesn't hurt to include it. Mihia (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I'm not sure how to feel. Compare "Kingdom" referring to various kingdoms and people "trying to destroy the Kingdom", or "Kingdom forces/troops/etc" (which does rarely exist alongside the expected "Royal", see e.g. google books:"and Kingdom forces"), "Queen" (as in "the Queen visited Canada"), "Talk:Civil War" in reference to any of them, etc. OTOH, "Union" in reference to the non-Confederate American states feels idiomatic to me. I dunno. (Anyway, as to the question at hand, I'm sure it can be cited.) - -sche (discuss) 20:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Short form of caravan (i.e. procession). The given citation says "In the Army of the Union, we are marching in the van", but I would understand this to mean marching in the vanguard (etymology 2), i.e. in the lead, at the front. Can anyone confirm/deny? Equinox ◑ 23:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

(1) “To march in the vanguard” is definitely established idiom, used by scores of companies presenting themselves as doing such. (2) The “Song of the Anderson Zouaves”, found in a book entitled Songs of the Soldiers that also contains the lyrics of “The Army of the Free” (quoted at the contested sense), uses the collocation “to lead in the van”. “The van” occurs many more times in these songs, next to a few occurrences of “the vanguard”, while no mention is to be found of any “caravan”. The conclusion that in these songs “van” is a shortening of “vanguard” appears inescapable to me.  --Lambiam 11:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I too would imagine that "van" in the song means "vanguard". I found a few potential instances of "van = caravan" in the caravanning/camping context, e.g. "Situated on a large 21 acres of lush, green grounds, Andergrove Van Park is the perfect spot to park yourself (and your caravan) as you explore the beautiful region of Mackay and all that it has to offer" [29]. However, it is hard to be certain that these are shortenings of "caravan" especially because of the existence of the camper van. Mihia (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Me too. DCDuring (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "shit on (someone) so hard". - -sche (discuss) 17:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The IP who added this is apparently the same one who made up lots of bad verlan entries. If you see anything else like this with the -th tag, it should be checked, as well. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

To pan. (Which sense of pan is not stated; I would imagine it isn't the modern audio/video senses though.) I had a quick look in Google Books and found scannos for "panning", "Dammed", etc. Equinox ◑ 17:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

cited, plus another sense. I also added a number of miscellaneous citations to the citations page which may indicate other meanings, but there are not enough of any sense to add another definition. Kiwima (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Both senses look obsolete. As for the new sense, it looks like it's only used to make fun of how rural Americans talk (or talked- the newest cite is 3/4 of a century ago). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I note all of the citations for "(obsolete, eye dialect) (with off) To foist; to give under false pretenses." are of "pam off", which looks like eye dialect of palm off, so it seems like it should be moved to pam off and defined as {{eye dialect of|palm off}}...? Obviously, palm should contain a link alerting people to the existence of palm off, and both pam and palm off should likewise contain a link to pam off. - -sche (discuss) 16:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed. I took @-sche's suggestion and moved pam off to its own entry. Kiwima (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

"(preceded by "to feel") Ashamed; acutely aware of one's own offensive qualities." I don't think this is a correctly thought-out sense. If you feel obnoxious (despicable) in sense 1, then you are ashamed. It doesn't mean that "obnoxious" itself means "ashamed" in any sense. Equinox ◑ 18:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree that this definition seems misconceived, but I wonder if some people do use it this way:

But once I felt so obnoxious in college, when a teacher whom most of the girls hated (you know what I mean) with a wicked laugh asked me about who named me so, my mom or my dad? [30]

I’m still iffy on the size as it was too large for my jeans pocket, where I usually keep my phone. I had to keep it in my purse which isn’t always convenient when chasing my three year old. I felt a little obnoxious pulling the phone out at the park or the bus stop. [31]

Would you actually feel "obnoxious" in the true sense in these situations? On the other hand, perhaps we could consider these merely as misuses -- people not understanding what the word means. Mihia (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

If we agree that these uses attest another sense, then surely that sense is “embarrased”, much weaker than “acutely aware of one's own offensive qualities”. But – unless this is more common than I think it is – I go with these uses being embarassing misuses.  --Lambiam 00:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Well, these are (apparently) at the ashamed/embarrassed end of that definition, which is the part mainly being questioned. Mihia (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Interesting cites, but I'm not sure we're seeing another sense of obnoxious. Couldn't a reading of the second cite above, for example, be "I felt I was (being) a little obnoxious pulling the phone out […] ."? It could be self-awareness without shame, certainly. I don't know how to read the first one with any of the current or proposed definitions. DCDuring (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the second cite, it seems too extreme to me that she would feel "obnoxious", in the true sense, about displaying her mobile phone. My feeling is that she means to say that she feels ashamed of it or embarrassed about it. Mihia (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

A perhaps more entertaining example of the 'self-awareness' reading is:

• 1895, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit: Sermons‎^[32]:

  You are in a good way, my dear friend, when you begin to feel obnoxious to yourself, even as your sin has made you to be obnoxious to God. Self-loathing is one of the early stages of helpful spiritual life.

DCDuring (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Self-loathing may also be the final stage of spiritual life. That aside, is this not simply a transparent use of obnoxious? Otherwise we also may need a new sense for ugly: (preceded by "to feel") Ashamed; acutely aware of one's own lack of beauty. ([33], [34], [35].)  --Lambiam 07:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the "I felt a little obnoxious" and "feel obnoxious to yourself" citations still seem like the usual sense to me. (The "felt so obnoxious in college" could also be the usual sense.) I tend to agree this seems to have been misconcieved. - -sche (discuss) 16:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

"(transitive, with away) To steal. The royal jewels were secreted away in the middle of the night, sub rosa." My understanding is that to secrete away is to hide — a different existing sense. A thief might secrete stolen goods in a bag etc. but secrete does not mean "steal". Equinox ◑ 20:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The meaning is definitely not “to steal” in this passage: “Jeanne's body, secreted away, was only later reburied next to his, in Père Lachaise.“[36]  --Lambiam 06:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I wonder whether "The royal jewels were secreted away in the middle of the night" could be a confusion with "spirited away". Mihia (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The addition “sub rosa” suggests indeed that the intended meaning of the verb is not “to steal”: people stealing the royal jewels would obviously attempt to maintain secrecy, so then the addition becomes pleonastic to an asinine degree. In the context, spirit away makes perfect sense. The use of “secrete away” here is used by YourDictionary.com to support the definition “To conceal in a hiding place; cache”. Given sense 1 of Etymology 3, this is soppy.  --Lambiam 20:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Lambiam To 'steal away' can be used to mean to 'hide away' or 'run away' usually quickly. Deonyi (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

If the definition given now as “to steal” is supposed to mean “to steal away”, then it is presented in an utterly misleading way. Also, secrete away is transitive, but our current definition of steal away is strictly intransitive, and dictionaries that list this combination agree.  --Lambiam 21:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Any takers? Might be dictionary-only word. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is obviously an error for "cryptoscopophilia", since there is absolutely no Greek or Latin morpheme that could end up as "cryto-", while "crypto-" is a good fit for the definition given. I find it amusing that a simple typo has been has been faithfully and uncritically copied by so many purveyors of "interesting facts". There are, indeed, a few hits for "cryptoscopophilia", but they're not that much better than the misspelled ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

All I find, both for crytoscopophilia and cryptoscopophilia, are musings on the word itself or occurrences in lists of perverse propensities. It does not appear to meet our CFI.  --Lambiam 09:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Not convinced this meets CFI. No hits on Groups, 3 hits on BGC for unrelated uses (2 of which are talking about "pinkadoodle pie"). — surjection ⟨?⟩ 19:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

DTLHS (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: Conversion to, or representation as a Jordan curve. DTLHS (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense: A system of rule by judges. DTLHS (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Cyrillic letter Х, х. DTLHS (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

First one has nothing to do with Cyrillic; it's about Devanagari.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, how about this table? Kiwima (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The last citation is also not used with the meaning of Х; it's not listing individual Cyrillic letters but rather giving a reconstructed transcription of a Buddhist text based on a Cyrillic attestation. (Om, rag, rang, khi, etc. are not names of Cyrillic letters either.) — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 16:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The one remaining cite in the entry (1956) is very marginal; in context it seems to be referring to the Russian word, because it contrasts different words in Slavic languages that refer to that letter. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Good luck --I learned some phrases (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Note we also have shit distributor (better spelling!). Equinox ◑ 09:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

No BGC or GGC hits, neither quote reliably archived. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 17:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I believe this to be a misconstruction. DTLHS (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

There's either a noun-that-gets-used-attributively or an adjective with this spelling and capitalization: Citations:tenericute. (Capitalized Tenericute also seems to occur but may indeed be a mistake for the form with s.) - -sche (discuss) 17:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Those seem nominal enough for me. DTLHS (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thinking about it some more, it seems easier to consider them nouns. Comparably, firmicute exists for any member of Firmicutes. - -sche (discuss) 17:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

So, cited. - -sche (discuss) 07:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be part of a meme, but is this a word? - TheDaveRoss 01:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

No, it is two words ; ). cited Kiwima (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Kiwima: 2017 looks like it attests a different sense (maybe "incomprehensible speech"?). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-adjective sense. The first quotation useþ it as a verb. I’m not sure the second can be counted as referring to packed food. Also, I’ve created tapao, and I’m sure one of the verbs being described as an altform of the other is in order as they seem to be used in the same way. —⁠Desaccointier 13:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

DTLHS (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

All cites I can see are capitalised. --I learned some phrases (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

All cites I see are crap --I learned some phrases (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The request concerns the sense “(roleplaying games) (deprecated use of |lang= parameter) Initialism of criticality point/rate.” In examining a Tea room question concerning this sense and trying to understand the intended meaning, it seemed that all occurrences of “criticality point/rate” circled back to our Wiktionary entry. I found one explanation stating that “CRT” simply stands for “critical” (as in “critical damage”, not “critical acclaim”). However, I think that abbreviation also fails our CFI.  --Lambiam 09:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Slang for "pediatrician". No GBooks hits for "a pediatron": hits without the article suggest it might be the brand name of a machine or something (?) but probably not the given sense. Equinox ◑ 00:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

To make ambiguous. DTLHS (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Cited, IMHO. DCDuring (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

DTLHS (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV for both purported verb senses: "to move quickly", "to throw an object a long distance or with a sudden or forceful motion". Seems like if it is actually used a verb, it's a nonce word with an ambiguous meaning. Also needs appropriate labels if it can be verified. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 18:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

For second sense:

2018 September 13, Stacey Ritzen, “What does ‘yeet’ mean—and how did it become a meme?”, in The Daily Dot‎^[37]:

Yeet can take on any number of uses as a noun or a verb, typically as a way to express a sudden or forceful motion, such as throwing an object long distance.

2019 August 26, Allie Lembo, “13 slang words everyone is using and what they really mean”, in Insider Inc.‎^[38]:

Finally, it's also used as a verb for "[discarding] an item at a high velocity," such as throwing an empty can into the trash. "Yeeting" something may be accompanied by the exclamation of the word.

2019 May, John McWhorter, “Why Grown-Ups Keep Talking Like Little Kids”, in The Atlantic‎^[39]:

One now speaks of “yeeting” an empty can into the trash, and the word has even developed an irregular past-tense form, yote.

93 (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Those are all mentions or at the very least mention-y. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 16:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "The part of a snowboard that the boot of the rider is attached to." Is this referring to the binding? The stomp pad? There are boot boards in ski boots (and alpine snowboard boots), I added that sense, but I have never heard of this as a part of a snowboard. Regional maybe? - TheDaveRoss 19:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have seen "birb", but I would be somewhat surprised if that had enough currency to be attested. Never heard of "borb". - TheDaveRoss 19:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

1. (idiomatic) To become clear in one's mind; to come to accept something.

RFV sense "to come to accept something". It could be just a misconstructed definition, but I'm listing it here in case I am missing something. Mihia (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think "to come to realise something/become a realisation to" might be what they were aiming for (?) Leasnam (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Two distinct definitions are presented as if one definition. The first is the only way I know this phrasal verb. In that definition, a person is not the subject of the verb. It is the object of understanding/realization that is the subject:

That he was not ever going to get promoted finally sank in.

The second definition should fit something like:

*John sank in that he was not going to get promoted.

The latter makes no sense to me. DCDuring (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

You can make it make sense by adjusting the definition likewise to: “To become accepted in one's mind”. However, I too don’t believe the idiom means that. If the subject happens to be some tragic event (“The loss of his wife had not really sunk in at that point”), the realization of its harsh reality needs settling in order to become accepted, so it may sometimes appear to have that sense, leading to this misunderstanding.  --Lambiam 09:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

"A casual boyfriend." Can we cite this, and perhaps add context as appropriate? I am guessing it is slang, does it belong to some subculture? - TheDaveRoss 14:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

cited. Also, I added a more common meaning, and added some cites to the citations page for two other meanings for which I could not find three cites. Kiwima (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-pass Kiwima (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

The current "cites" provide little evidence for the definition given, can we get reasonable ones? - TheDaveRoss 14:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "a wild or out-of-control person" I have never seen this used as a noun. - TheDaveRoss 14:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Rfv-sense "Abbreviation of bratwurst." I have only seen brat, and quick searches were un-fruitful. - TheDaveRoss 14:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

"A button (of a joypad, joystick or similar device) that causes a video game character to kick." Another of the silly "button named after a verb" entries. Will we ever find a plural cite? Equinox ◑ 17:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Alt form of "way back" adverb. "We go wayback"? Surely it wouldn't even be pronounced the same way: "wayback" would naturally take stress on the first syllable, intuitively. At least consider marking as nonstandard or misspelling. Equinox ◑ 22:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

BTW, note that there is a US term "way way back" for a certain type of car seat, and I think "way back/wayback" might be another type of seat (less far back in the vehicle). That could explain where somebody saw this one-word form — but there's no such sense there at present. Equinox ◑ 22:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

What about the Wayback Machine (WABAC machine) from Rocky and Bullwinkle? Could that have been stuck in someone's mind? Tharthan (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Oh yes, there's also the Internet Archive Wayback Machine that preserves old sites. Still, those are like brand names. Equinox ◑ 23:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

cited, although one of the cites is of dubious quality, being filled with idiosyncratic spelling. I added the label poetic, since all the cites I could find were from poetry. I also added the noun sense. The Wayback machine capitalizes the word, and, as Equinox points out, is is rather like a brand name. However, an argument could be made for an adjective version of "wayback" meaning pertaining to the Wayback machine. I added one such use (on citations page), and found several others that used it in the phrase "wayback date" to indicate the date of material accessed via the Wayback machine. I also found two cites (on citations page) for an adjective sense meaning very remote in time or place, and one weird noun cite having to do with stripping cables. Mostly, though, there are just a lot of scannos for "way back". Kiwima (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think that I may to take our new definition 3 of the noun to the Tea Room, because it looks inadequate to me (and even more inadequate after seeing the citations). Tharthan (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

1892 citation "belasted with rockes" does not seem to make sense with the given meaning; might be an unrelated "blasted" or similar. 2009 citation says "belasted, as the German language has it": awful. Also please mark as obsolete if needed. Equinox ◑ 22:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

This one needs work. belast is an obsolete adjective that survived in to very early Modern English with the meaning of "charged, burdened, bound". Fixing... Leasnam (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Done. Leasnam (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The 1892 (?, appears older) does make sense to me in that one should not use only rocks to build a pier, but that it needs wood also loaded (i.e. be-last (etym_4)-ed) with rocks to make it secure. Not sure where this fits in to the whole picture...if it's a separate creation or what. Leasnam (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

What we see in the quoted posy “Dulce bellum inexpertis” by George Gascoyne is clearly a case of code switching to Dutch, the term used being a Dutch past participle meaning something like “ordered”. Present-day Dutch would be gelast. I see nothing wrong with the 1892 (actually 1596) citation; the meaning there is that just rocks won’t do to build a good pier; for that one needs a timber frame loaded with rocks.  --Lambiam 09:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Other usable cites: [40], [41].  --Lambiam 10:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Very good. Thanks. Leasnam (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

DTLHS (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I expected this to be like vegetarian ham – which is not ham from a pig fed purely on a vegetarian diet. And that is indeed the sense in which it is used here and here. But here are three uses in the sense of the entry: [42], [43], [44].  --Lambiam 09:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

A Lychrel number. DTLHS (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I see a few uses (also as if an adjective), but all are in blogs or such, not durably archived sources.  --Lambiam 08:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

As @SemperBlotto would say: Any takers? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply